Imran Khan vs Keith Miller

[silentstriker]

gee should we listen to a guy's opinion who has IMRAN KHAN AS HIS GOD DAM AVATAR?!

gee absolutely NO BIAS there whatsoever.

Miller was a better all rounder for sure.

Better batsman + better bowler

No way Miller was the better bowler. Better batsman, yes.

 

[Richard]

Abit OT but I was also thinking of the definition of these two below and the difference between them and I don't think I've seen it discussed here before so I was wondering what people thought.

Player (ie who is the better player): Includes batting, bowling, fielding, captaincy, wicket-keeping
All-Rounder (ie who is the better all-rounder): Includes just batting and bowling

Thoughts?

In addition, of course, you've got
Cricketer (ie who contributed most to the game of cricket) in all of the composites of player, plus anything done in retirement and also the impact on the public.

 

[Athlai]

In addition, of course, you've got
Cricketer (ie who contributed most to the game of cricket) in all of the composites of player, plus anything done in retirement and also the impact on the public.

Best hair too.

 

[The_Bunny]

Best hair too.

Nathan Bracken ftw

 

[Richard]

 

[The_Bunny]

Nah Sidebottom> Bracken by a distance in the hair stakes

Agreed

 

[Richard]

I actually think Sidebottom should probably remove the locks in the interests of his bowling TBH.

 

[Fusion]

I rate the AR's in the following order:

(1) Sobers
(2) Imran
(3) Miller
(4) Botham
(5) Dev

 

[Richard]

*Cough*RichieBenaud*Cough*AlanDavidson*Cough*

 

[Fusion]

We all have our preferences Richard.

 

[Richard]

Am only kidding TBH. Certainly, Kapil > both of them as batsmen by a fair bit.

Botham, I really find it so difficult to rate. Because for part of his career he was sensational beyond sensation, and for another part he was little more than extremely poor (though many refused to recognise this due to what he once had been). It's almost like the two parts of his career have to have different ratings to me - few have been two so totally different players over the course of a career.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I rate the AR's in the following order:

(1) Sobers
(2) Imran
(3) Miller
(4) Botham
(5) Dev

Mine:

1.Imran Khan
2.Keith Miller
3.Ian Botham
4.Shaun Pollock
5.Kapil Dev

 

[Pratters]

Mine:

1.Imran Khan
2.Keith Miller
3.Ian Botham
4.Shaun Pollock
5.Kapil Dev

Sobers?

 

[Fusion]

Sobers?

You're going to regret asking that!

 

[Pratters]

Don't bother Bhupinder, don't answer it...

 

[R_D]

Sobers?

Doesn't think much of him because Sobers usually steals the glory from his beloved Imran. As most cricket pundits rate Sobers as best all-rounder.

I've read a bit about Keith Miller certainly agree that he probaly could've had much better record if he had put his mind to it but obvious ally after being to war and all. He just took it as game. Who knows maybe the fact that he didn't take it that seriously is what made him this successful in the first place.
I rate Keith Miller > Imran Khan.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Doesn't think much of him because Sobers usually steals the glory from his beloved Imran. As most cricket pundits rate Sobers as best all-rounder.

No,Its not because of that reason at all.I consider only those players as true allrounders who average 30+ with the bat & 30- with the ball.Others are either batting or bowling allrounders & have to be placed below true allrounders.Thats the actual reason why Sobers doesn't find a place in my top 5,not for the one you mentioned.

 

[Richard]

I've read a bit about Keith Miller certainly agree that he probaly could've had much better record if he had put his mind to it but obvious ally after being to war and all. He just took it as game. Who knows maybe the fact that he didn't take it that seriously is what made him this successful in the first place.
I rate Keith Miller > Imran Khan.

Exactly. It could go either way. Maybe he'd have been better if he'd taken it even more seriously (I hardly think it's likely he went out thinking "doesn't really matter if I score or not here" very often, and I certainly highly doubt he deliberately bowled long-hops, probably ever) but maybe he'd have been worse. The "pressure is having a whateveritwas up your arse" attitude is a wonderful one and can help hugely in playing cricket.

The only way to judge Miller is on what he was, not on what he possibly could have been had he been this different or that different.

Nonetheless, I still think what Miller was is better, if only by a fairly small margin, than Imran.

And as I've said: Miller > Imran as a batsman (by a bit) and Imran > Miller as a bowler (by a little bit).

 

[BhupinderSingh]

And as I've said: Miller > Imran as a batsman (by a bit) and Imran > Miller as a bowler (by a little bit).

I think the difference in their bowling was more than in their batting tbh.

 

[The Sean]

I rate the AR's in the following order:

(1) Sobers
(2) Imran
(3) Miller
(4) Botham
(5) Dev

*Cough*RichieBenaud*Cough*AlanDavidson*Cough*

Pretty much agree with Fusion's five there - Davo was a magnificent bowler but not a good enough batsman IMO to be a genuine all rounder, though he certainly had the ability to score runs when they were needed. I've always considered Richie more of an all-rounder due to his superior batting ability (despite the fact that his Test average is fractionally lower than Davo's) - even Richie though was very much a bowler first.

In fact, next in line after those five for me would be Aubrey Faulkner.