Top Five Cricketers from each country

[trundler]

Miller played across 10 years and he played more than half his matches against England. The England of the 1950s had some pretty decent players, and he did well against England in general.

Slight understatement. Hutton, Washbrook, Laker, Truman, Compton, Statham..

 

[mr_mister]

Miller didn't do a whole lot with the bat against England, which let's face it is the bigger point of contention here. I assume you'll concede that early Botham was at least a beast with the ball

 

[smash84]

Miller didn't do a whole lot with the bat against England, which let's face it is the bigger point of contention here. I assume you'll concede that early Botham was at least a beast with the ball

Maybe, but he wasn't a standout. I mean even when he was playing he was seen as a lesser bowler than Imran and hadlee.

 

[mr_mister]

Fair enough. Like I said earlier it's like having Mark Waugh and Jason Gillespie in your side at once, 2 ATVG calibre players. For a 50 test period. Not many other players offered that, and for those who did I'd rate them as 10/10 too.

He didn't reach the heights of Kallis with the bat or Imran with the ball, but his second discipline reached a level theirs never truly did.

 

[Dendarii]

Aubrey Faulkner took 4 fivefers and scored 4 tons in only 25 tests. Extrapolated out to a 100 test career thats similar to Botham level output. Couple more centuries but 9 less fivefers.

Faulkner is so difficult to judge, being from a different era and not having played that many tests. But his record suggests that he was a true allrounder who absolutely could be picked for either discipline. He makes my all time South African XI without a doubt.

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

Fair enough. Like I said earlier it's like having Mark Waugh and Jason Gillespie in your side at once, 2 ATVG calibre players. For a 50 test period. Not many other players offered that, and for those who did I'd rate them as 10/10 too.

He didn't reach the heights of Kallis with the bat or Imran with the ball, but his second discipline reached a level theirs never truly did.

I certainly agree Botham's best period is amazing, but the point is he could not maintain it throughout his whole career. If he had done he would be consider close to if not equal to the very best all rounders ever.

 

[mr_mister]

I certainly agree Botham's best period is amazing, but the point is he could not maintain it throughout his whole career. If he had done he would be consider close to if not equal to the very best all rounders ever.

That was 100% my original point that smali disagreed with

 

[trundler]

That was 100% my original point that small disagreed with

A hint would be his avatar.

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

When Imran batted in the top 6, which he did in 25 tests, he averaged 62.38. When he batted 7-10 he averaged 32.33
So when he was called upon to bat in a specialist batting position he certainly delivered in a big way. I think that indicates he could have been a specialist batsman if he had concentrated on becoming one.

 

[trundler]

Well to be fair he did become one in the last few years and did fairly well.

 

[Logan]

Maybe, but he wasn't a standout. I mean even when he was playing he was seen as a lesser bowler than Imran and hadlee.

That’s because Hadlee and Imran were among the greatest bowlers of all time. While Botham was not as good as them, he was a bigger match winner with the bat. Imran may have had a better average but that didn’t make him a better batsman. Imran Khan played very few match winning or even match saving centuries.

I certainly agree Botham's best period is amazing, but the point is he could not maintain it throughout his whole career. If he had done he would be consider close to if not equal to the very best all rounders ever.

Shouldn’t the same logic apply to Imran Khan?? Imran scored 2 centuries in his first 60 Tests. That’s very medicore for someone considered by a few as the greatest all rounder.

 

[smash84]

That’s because Hadlee and Imran were among the greatest bowlers of all time. While Botham was not as good as them, he was a bigger match winner with the bat. Imran may have had a better average but that didn’t make him a better batsman. Imran Khan played very few match winning or even match saving centuries.




Shouldn’t the same logic apply to Imran Khan?? Imran scored 2 centuries in his first 60 Tests. That’s very medicore for someone considered by a few as the greatest all rounder.

I already said Botham was the best batsman among the 4 all rounders.

Just that his 5 year peak is not a huge time frame, and his failure against the WI really puts a big dent in his resume.

 

[Logan]

Fair enough.


What’s the opinion about Keith Miller on this board? 170 wickets in 55 Test matches at an average of 22.98 with 8 five wicket hauls. Along with 2958 runs at an average of 36 with 7 centuries.

He was much before my before time but stats suggest he was as good if not better than the four all rounders of the 80s.

 

[Malcolm]

I'm referring to the %, not the years. If kallis had gone 100 (175), he would rank way, way lower than sobers despite playing more games the divide both by 200 seems to work though

Longevity in terms of number of test played is really a misconception. This is a huge disadvantage for those who played lesser test due to the lack of availability of tests.

If kallis played only 100 tests out of his available 175 over the span of his career, that's his fault.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Miller was infinitely better than all these mere mortals. It isn't even close. Absolute superstar of his era

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

I have mentioned Billy Bates a number of times and although it is hard to compare across such different eras his batting was only just short of the best batsman of the early era and his bowling was right up there with the best as well. He played all of his tests in Australia and had his career cut short by being hit in the eye during practice and losing a lot of sight. On top that his performance in the 1st test match of the 1883 Ashes series has to be one of the best all round performances in the history of test cricket. He scored 55 in England's one innings before taking 7/28 and 7/74 to bowl England to an innings victory.

 

[h_hurricane]

All this talk about Botham vs WI, he seemed to do okay in this Test (30, 81 and 8-103). This is against Greenidge, Haynes, Richard's, Lloyd, Marshall and Garner

Full Scorecard of England vs West Indies 2nd Test 1984 - Score Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

You are talking about one test here. Botham averaged 35 with the ball and 21 with the bat against WI. Those are horrendous figures spread across 20 matches, a huge size. A moderate upgrade over Ashley Giles.

If one has to pick one of the 80s allrounders to play against an ATG XI, Botham would be the last one to be picked. Of course he would be the first to be picked while pitted against minnows or semi decent opponents.

 

[h_hurricane]

Fair enough.


What’s the opinion about Keith Miller on this board? 170 wickets in 55 Test matches at an average of 22.98 with 8 five wicket hauls. Along with 2958 runs at an average of 36 with 7 centuries.

He was much before my before time but stats suggest he was as good if not better than the four all rounders of the 80s.

Among the 4 all rounders, Imran was better than Miller. Hadlee was also better than Keith as an overall cricketer, though Miller was the better allrounder. Botham and Kapil would be behind him though.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Among the 4 all rounders, Imran was better than Miller. Hadlee was also better than Keith as an overall cricketer, though Miller was the better allrounder. Botham and Kapil would be behind him though.

Hadlee > Imran > Kapil >= Botham >= Miller
As Bowlers ( remove"=s") and overall Cricketers

Reverse the order for batting ( remove "= s') and allrounder rankings .

 

[mr_mister]

Hadlee > Imran > Kapil >= Botham >= Miller
As Bowlers ( remove"=s") and overall Cricketers

Reverse the order for batting ( remove "= s') and allrounder rankings .

why are your posts always so complicated to read lol