Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[Craig]

Keith Miller

V

Sir Garry Sobers

Sobers > Miller with the bat and Miller > Sobers with the ball. You know the story and I will leave you do it

 

[_Ed_]

Cousins quite comfortably here.

 

[Richard]

Think Sobers was the more valuable cricketer and Miller the more rounded all-rounder. Sobers' total value (even excluding his close-catching skill) exceeded Miller's, but Sobers was a batting-all-rounder, Miller a genuine all-rounder.

 

[stumpski]

Comparing these mediocrities is all well and good, but when are we going to get the big one: Dave Mohamed vs Beau Casson?

Sobers clearly the more versatile, but Miller just shades it on star quality for me.

 

[sanga1337]

Clearly Ben Cousins. Can't see how you can say otherwise.

In all seriousness Sobers just for the his great batting record and his versatility as a bowler.

 

[ret]

did an analysis on all-rounders on the perfect all-rounder thread

Millar, obviously, is the more perfect one .... someone who could contribute almost equally with the bat and the ball

Sobers is the more effective one as he could leverage on his exceptional batting ability .... so Sir Gary, it is

 

[Anil]

as great as miller was, sobers

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

As an overall player it has to be Sobers. Really I don't think any player compares to Sobers other than Bradman, though, so it's not a huge slight on Miller, who was a true great.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, there is a much larger disparity between Sobers batting and bowling in comparison to Miller but 'effectively' he is still a great all-rounder.

But for me, I can never rate Sobers ahead of Miller no matter how 'effective' Sobers is. His bowling, although being capable of coming up trumps and making a match-winning performance, is overall not strong at all. In fact, in another team he would have bowled much less and really could never influence a game with his bowling.

If I were picking an all-time XI, I would never pick Sobers as an all-rounder. I will never give Sobers the chance to bowl unless I was desperate and it was a "throw the kitchen sink" move. To let him bowl would be to really handicap my team. Whereas with Miller (and bowling all-rounders in general) he WILL have to bat anyway (everyone does, unlike bowling) and he is a pretty good considering his average and his place in the 'Invincibles' squad. His bowling, of course, is more than good. Takes more wickets while bowling less and conceding less runs. That's all you need from an all-rounder. I do not think giving an all-rounder almost 40 overs a test to take 2 wickets is justifiable unless you have pretty ordinary bowlers.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Sobers was a much more effective seam bowler than some people try to make out. His overall average and wickets per balls bowled is grossly inflated by the fact that he was often asked to bowl finger and leg spin, had he not done so his record would be even more impressive.

 

[Ikki]

Sobers was a much more effective seam bowler than some people try to make out. His overall average and wickets per balls bowled is grossly inflated by the fact that he was often asked to bowl finger and leg spin, had he not done so his record would be even more impressive.

I've heard this before but it doesn't wash for me. You would never be asked to bowl finger-spin or any other type over what you are good at unless the conditions suited it. It makes absolutely ZERO sense to bowl finger-spin unless it will help the side, and if it helps the side of course it will help your record.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I've heard this before but it doesn't wash for me. You would never be asked to bowl finger-spin or any other type over what you are good at unless the conditions suited it. It makes absolutely ZERO sense to bowl finger-spin unless it will help the side, and if it helps the side of course it will help your record.

Just because a finger spinner comes on to bowl it doesn't automatically mean he bowls well and helps the side and automatically improves his record.
The majority of even specialist spinners will bowl more balls to take a wicket than seamers over a course of time and this has had an effect on Sobers over all record.

 

[Sanz]

If I were picking an all-time XI, I would never pick Sobers as an all-rounder. I will never give Sobers the chance to bowl unless I was desperate and it was a "throw the kitchen sink" move. To let him bowl would be to really handicap my team. Whereas with Miller (and bowling all-rounders in general) he WILL have to bat anyway (everyone does, unlike bowling) and he is a pretty good considering his average and his place in the 'Invincibles' squad. His bowling, of course, is more than good. Takes more wickets while bowling less and conceding less runs. That's all you need from an all-rounder. I do not think giving an all-rounder almost 40 overs a test to take 2 wickets is justifiable unless you have pretty ordinary bowlers.

Hey we are just glad that you never made it to International Cricket. Your Best Value(on Cricket related matters) is on Internet forums, offering some high quality entertainment.

 

[fredfertang]

I am not convinced this is a fair comparison - Sobers was a truly great batsman and his bowling was a nice bonus but if he couldn't bat he'd never have been picked as a bowler - but if he couldn't bowl he'd still have played in every one of the 90 odd tests as a batsman

Miller on the other hand at various times would have been selected as either but would probably not have played as many tests as he did had he had only one discipline or the other.

 

[aussie]

Hey we are just glad that you never made it to International Cricket. Your Best Value(on Cricket related matters) is on Internet forums, offering some high quality entertainment.

.

Yea another stats round there. Its very amusing at times to see people go into such detail debate about past players basing it purely on stats when they have never seen them play.

 

[Sanz]

Now now, aussie dont fuel here. Me and Kazo are cool as ICE. He knows that I was just having some fun. I totally respect his opinion on Keith Miller.

 

[aussie]

Nah i aint starting no vybz son just stating my opinion on fairly common pattern on CW.

 

[SJS]

Who is a better all rounder ?

Don Bradman or Muralitharan ?

Rate Murali's batting (PLUS his bowling) against Bradman's bowling (PLUS his batting).

Feel free to use statistics, logarithms. theory of relativity etc etc.

 

[sanga1337]

I am not convinced this is a fair comparison - Sobers was a truly great batsman and his bowling was a nice bonus but if he couldn't bat he'd never have been picked as a bowler - but if he couldn't bowl he'd still have played in every one of the 90 odd tests as a batsman

Miller on the other hand at various times would have been selected as either but would probably not have played as many tests as he did had he had only one discipline or the other.

He was picked as a bowler on debut. And I think before Wes Hall and Charlie Griffith came along he would've played a number of matches as a bowler as The West Indies fast bowling back then in the early to mid 1950's was pretty ordinary.

 

[Gowza]

wasn't sobers picked as a spinner on debut? batted at 9, over the years he opened the bowling for 20 odd matches and was a great fielder.