kyear2
International Coach
Yeah, how important can your first change bowler possibly be?One can make the argument that with Lillee, McGrath and Warne, Miller's load will manage itself. I agree he doesnt belong at no.6.
Seriously?
Yeah, how important can your first change bowler possibly be?One can make the argument that with Lillee, McGrath and Warne, Miller's load will manage itself. I agree he doesnt belong at no.6.
Are you kidding? Miller was a player of aggression and charisma, Kallis was dour and conservative.Sorry to continue this tangent, but how is that a winner mindset?
How is a 35 averaging batsman at 6 perfectly ok in an ATG XI?Lindwall over Lillee for me considering their overall skill sets. And likewise, McGrath/Warne/Lindwall/Davidson/Miller is much stronger than McGrath/Warne/Lillee/Davidson
Miller is perfectly fine at no 6, having him as a frontline bowler with only 3 others doesn't makes any sense though.
I think Australia can afford it with Bradman and Gilly. But I am not sure having Miller as a fifth bowler is enough to justify it.How is a 35 averaging batsman at 6 perfectly ok in an ATG XI?
If Bradman is worth 2 batsmen (a notion I don't buy btw), Miller is about half and Bradman can always fail. You're giving away the advantage that you have.
Nah. I am not saying that a 4th bowler is not important. I am wondering if Miller's weaknesses in terms of bowling load and output are mitigated by taking a 4th bowler role in an ATG XI.It really make no sense. One person is arguing that the 4th bowler isn't that important while the other is arguing that you need 5 front liners.
Bro, Miller batted more slowly than Kallis. Give it a rest. Kallis also took wickets and catches out of nowhere - in fact thats generally a 5th bowlers main role.Are you kidding? Miller was a player of aggression and charisma, Kallis was dour and conservative.
Miller is the sort of player who can augment a winning side in ways that won't be reflected in a spreadsheet. Counter attacking cameos, wickets or catches out of nowhere, generally a net boost to team morale compared to deadweights like Kallis.
Counting Miller as half a batsman is almost as stupid as counting Bradman as 2..... Not to mention, they also have Gilchrist at 7 and a solid tail of Davidson and Lindwall. 5 bowling options and a batsman of Miller's class, I don't think it's an issue honestly.How is a 35 averaging batsman at 6 perfectly ok in an ATG XI?
If Bradman is worth 2 batsmen (a notion I don't buy btw), Miller is about half and Bradman can always fail. You're giving away the advantage that you have.
It really make no sense. One person is arguing that the 4th bowler isn't that important while the other is arguing that you need 5 front liners.
Bro, that was an entirely different era. Miller reportedly was an aggressive bat for his time.Bro, Miller batted more slowly than Kallis. Give it a rest. Kallis also took wickets and catches out of nowhere - in fact thats generally a 5th bowlers main role.
As far as know, Miller wasn't an aggressive bat for his time. His batting was really slow.Bro, that was an entirely different era. Miller reportedly was an aggressive bat for his time.
Kallis was a very predictable, steady bat and bowler. Slip catcher yes he was awesome.
Check virtually every profile on Miller and how they describe his batting.As far as know, Miller wasn't an aggressive bat for his time. His batting was really slow.
Even if you don't include bowling.Kallis over Ponting very comfortably Imo if you include his bowling.
Yeah, who cares about skill, lets go with their mindsets.Sorry to continue this tangent, but how is that a winner mindset?
Yeah mate and Barrington was described as slow and he has a SR of 41 compared to Miller’s 43.Bro, that was an entirely different era. Miller reportedly was an aggressive bat for his time.
Kallis was a very predictable, steady bat and bowler. Slip catcher yes he was awesome.
yeah because the old timey writers are known to not wax lyrically about players then and exaggerate to the moonCheck virtually every profile on Miller and how they describe his batting.
Why?If Bradman is worth 2 batsmen (a notion I don't buy btw),
Hyperbole and just meant flashy shots in between the defending. His personality could have also been conflated with his batting.Bro, that was an entirely different era. Miller reportedly was an aggressive bat for his time.
Kallis was a very predictable, steady bat and bowler. Slip catcher yes he was awesome.
Hence why peer review alone is flawed.Check virtually every profile on Miller and how they describe his batting.
Bradman's average is twice that of Tendulkar, but his failure rate isn't half of tendulkar.Why?
We lost the 2021 series in RSA coz we did not have a good enough #3 seamer and they had Ngidi. Soz....Yeah, how important can your first change bowler possibly be?
Seriously?
Sounds a lot like Kallis actually.Hyperbole and just meant flashy shots in between the defending. His personality could have also been conflated with his batting.
Journalists fawn over who they like.
Kallis also broke partnerships and was a game changer at slip.