Would you play Keith Miller in your Australia ATG XI?

[Qlder]

I doubt there would be many ATG attacks better:

Lillee
McGrath
Lindwall
Miller
Warne

Or on spin friendly decks

Lillee
McGrath
Miller
Warne
O'Reilly

Or on doctored super spin friendly decks

McGrath
Miller
Warne
O'Reilly
Grimmett

That's why Miller is always a lock

 

[ma1978]

He walks into the XI

Simpson
Hayden
Bradman
Ponting
Border
Gilchrist
Miller
Lindwall
Warne
Lilllee
Mcgrath

hard call between Ponting and Smith
hard call between Lillee and Davidson

Border walks in as captain

 

[subshakerz]

I think the issue I have with all these lineups is the need to have 5 regular bowling options.

I get it. I used to think like that but I realise that in real life cricket it is excessive.

 

[Coronis]

Where did this myth about Miller didn't bowl enough so can't be a 3rd pacer come from?

Lindwall, Miller and Davidson played 8 Tests together (Davidson 1st change)

Miller - 2094 balls - 23 wkts
Lindwall - 1918 balls - 27 wkts
Davidson - 990 balls - 10 wkts

Note: the trio actually played 9 tests together but Miller didn't bowl at all in Davidson's test debut (assume injury?)

I know kyear claims he bowled only short spells. Unsure how accurate that is.

I do think he preferred to bowl less, iirc even in 48 he had some back issues by then. Certainly he bowled less at a first class level and was captaining his side there iirc (likely thanks to Bradman he never captained Australia).

There is a good story about him being able to shoulder those burdens when necessary.. in 1956 in England (Laker’s famous series) Lindwall pulled out of the second test, and his replacement (Pat Crawford) broke down after 5 overs. Miller bowled 34 and 36 overs in the 2 innings, taking 5/72 and 5/80 (thus doing something Lindwall and Bumrah couldn’t) to help ensure the team’s only victory that series.

He was 36 at the time, and averaged 29.2 overs per innings for the series. 21 @ 22.23, the only bowler besides Laker to take 20 wickets for the series.

 

[ma1978]

Why would anyone bat Miller ahead of Gilchrist

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Why would anyone bat Miller ahead of Gilchrist

Because Miller batted top 6 and Gilchrist batted 7.

 

[ma1978]

Because Miller batted top 6 and Gilchrist batted 7.

fair but Gilchrist was objectively the better bat

 

[subshakerz]

fair but Gilchrist was objectively the better bat

Miller can bat after Gilly and I don't think it matters.

 

[Qlder]

fair but Gilchrist was objectively the better bat

Gilchrist was also a much better bat than Symonds and yet he still batted #7 behind him. I remember reading that Gilchrist only ever wanted to bat 7 as it gave him the freedom to play as he liked (and that is what strengthened the team).

That's why I hate it when people move Gilly to 6 where he never batted and it takes away a significant unique strength at 7

 

[subshakerz]

Gilchrist was also a much better bat than Symonds and yet he still batted #7 behind him. I remember reading that Gilchrist only ever wanted to bat 7 as it gave him the freedom to play as he liked (and that is what strengthened the team).

That's why I hate it when people move Gilly to 6 where he never batted and it takes away a significant unique strength at 7

Gilly at 6 doesn't make any sense.

 

[Red]

Putting Miller in an XI is like putting in a hybrid of Mark Waugh (batting output and slip catching) and Jason Gillespie (pace bowling).

The stats don't quite match but I think the analogy works in terms of imagining how significant his skills were.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah not sure why we’re even trying to compare Australian all time team to the others. They have Bradman, Gilchrist and are the only top tier pace attack with a top tier spinner (sorry Gibbs, Tayfield, Saqlain).

Its personal preference tbh regardless of if you pick Miller or not Australia is still going to have the best team.

Obviously if you take out Bradman to “make it fair” then you wouldn’t be bothering with Miller anyway.

Yes Miller is a personal preference, but to think it's cut and dry Australia is unchallengeable is a crazy level of hubris.

So let's look at my Aussie AT XI

Hayden | Simpson | Bradman | Smith | Chappell | Border | Gilchrist | Warne | Cummins | Lillee | McGrath

The WI

Worrell | Greenidge | Headley | Richards | Lara | Sobers | Walcott | Marshall | Holding | Ambrose | Gibbs

Wouldn't even go into the SA one as yet.

You mention the advantages Bradman, Gilchrist and Warne.

Warne, he did poorly against every great batsman he faced. Many of Lara's iconic innings came against him and he was slaughtered by India. Just having a spinner for having one sake, who struggled vs higher levels of competition isn't a positive.

It's strange how Hayden, Ponting and the plethora of 2000's batsmen are downgraded or criticized for the era that they played. But Gilchrist, who played in the same era of Punter but 4 slots lower in the same line up, the strongest ever btw, escapes such criticism.

The WI batting features Richards, who in the toughest of bowling eras and against a succession of ATG bowlers, including Lillee, had what is possibly the greatest peak of all time. Many may disagree, but during said peak, there isn't a bat in the history of the game I'm taking above him. Lara, also forged in a bowling era played some of the greatest innings in test history, multiple against half of this attack. Sobers also scored one of his most iconic centuries vs Lillee and Australia near the back end of his career.

And that's before we get to Marshall, Ambrose and Holding.

The notion that such a contest wouldn't be competitive is crazy to me.

 

[kyear2]

Miller averaged 31 overs a game. Cummins as regular third seamer averages 33 overs a game. So Miller could handle a third seamer load IMO.

Miller averages max 30 in an ATG bat scenario.

That wasn't the question asked.

If he's the 5th bowler in the attack listed, how much overs is he really going to get. And is that worth the massive drop off in batting from a Border / Smith?

So again how many overs do you think he'll bowl, and how much do you think he'll average in the bat.

 

[kyear2]

Not really better batting if you play Miller in the top 6. You sort of diminish the Bradman advantage. That's why I have Miller at 8.

Exactly what it does.

 

[kyear2]

Where did this myth about Miller didn't bowl enough so can't be a 3rd pacer come from?

Lindwall, Miller and Davidson played 8 Tests together as a pace attack (Davidson 1st change)

Miller - 2094 balls - 23 wkts
Lindwall - 1918 balls - 27 wkts
Davidson - 990 balls - 10 wkts

Note: the trio actually played 9 tests together but Miller didn't bowl at all in Davidson's test debut (assume injury?)

I don't think anyone said that. What I specifically said is that the other options are better.

Oh, and that he didn't exactly love to bowl.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Damn Australia is spoiled with so many riches...

 

[Qlder]

Whenever picking these imaginary XI's I think it's only fair to pick players at their peak. Here's Keith Miller's stats on his 33rd birthday (remembering he was a fighter pilot in the war up to age 26)

31 tests, 1741 runs @ 42.46, 94 wkts @ 20.77

Or after he broke the then very rare 2000 runs / 100 wkts milestone also at 33

37 tests, 2088 runs @ 40.94, 108 wkts @ 21.00

Someone with that much skill and versatility so as to be like two players (just like Bradman) is an easy choice in my Aussie ATG XI (his averages declined after 33 but which ATG averages didn't)

 

[shortpitched713]

You can go Miller 7, Gilly 6. Personally I think that's the most balanced lineup for Aus when they have Bradman too, you don't need additional batting cover.

And Gilly is a great bat, would have been at 6 as well as 7. He wasn't some sort of glorified slogger, who wouldn't adapt his game to very slightly different circumstances due to batting position.

 

[kyear2]

Gilchrist was also a much better bat than Symonds and yet he still batted #7 behind him. I remember reading that Gilchrist only ever wanted to bat 7 as it gave him the freedom to play as he liked (and that is what strengthened the team).

That's why I hate it when people move Gilly to 6 where he never batted and it takes away a significant unique strength at 7

Agree

Plus it gave him time to rest after keeping.

 

[mr_mister]

Like Gilly suddenly averages 10 one spot up at 6. I've always thought people put a little too much stock in "average at position x" on CW. An exception being maybe your number 5 moving to opener. But just one spot up or down shouldn't matter that much.