Bowling: Keith Miller vs. Ray Lindwall

[LongHopCassidy]

What it says on the packet.

Personally not completely sold on Miller as a shoe-in for an Australian ATG XI, given he averages 36 with the bat yet is entrusted with the number 6 position.

But that's another thread.

Who's bowling for your life?

 

[harsh.ag]

Lindwall. Unless Keith is super-duper motivated, and I am his close buddy.

 

[smash84]

has to be Lindwall....

 

[BoyBrumby]

Tough one, really. I instinctively favour Raymond because he was a St George man. Great action (stolen from Lol, by Lindwall's own admission) and it served well enough to still be bowling quickly nudging 40.

I know it's not under consideration, but he was no mug with the bat either; Richie reckons he was good enough to be considered a proper all-rounder.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think Bradman selected Lindwall as the best ever allrounder as well, ahead of Keith.

 

[smash84]

Badman's team was ridiculed a fair bit too.....and not too wrongly I would say

 

[Prince EWS]

In my estimation they were probably roughly equal in terms of skill, but Lindwall was able to shoulder a heavier load and was undoubtedly more professional and reliable in his approach to the game. I'd take him over Miller as a bowler alone every time.

 

[Howe_zat]

Badman's team was ridiculed a fair bit too.....and not too wrongly I would say

The balance of it doesn't look right any more, but the point I'm making is that Bradman clearly believed Lindwall was a better bowler than Miller by enough distance to make him a better allrounder.

 

[bagapath]

If miller were to choose a bowler to bowl for his life he would choose Raymond. Both were magnificent cricketers; But lindwall was the better bowler

 

[bagapath]

Badman's team was ridiculed a fair bit too.....and not too wrongly I would say

Don was a good man by all accounts

 

[Satyanash89]

Lindwall quite a distance ahead as a bowler in my opinion. He was obviously the genuine strike bowler, and has figures to match the best. Add in the fact that his action is one of my favourites, and it's and easy choice.

Even as overall cricketers, it's pretty close, but Lindwall's batting probably not quite good enough for him to be considered a true allrounder. Did get two hundreds though.

I think Bradman selected Lindwall as the best ever allrounder as well, ahead of Keith.

Not very surprising considering the well-documented differences Don had with Miller. He apparently hated his unproffesional approach sometimes.

 

[Coronis]

Lindwall quite a distance ahead as a bowler in my opinion. He was obviously the genuine strike bowler, and has figures to match the best. Add in the fact that his action is one of my favourites, and it's and easy choice.

Even as overall cricketers, it's pretty close, but Lindwall's batting probably not quite good enough for him to be considered a true allrounder. Did get two hundreds though.



Not very surprising considering the well-documented differences Don had with Miller. He apparently hated his unproffesional approach sometimes.

Well, if you were captain, you would want players who behaved professionally, on field at the very least. Would take Lindwall over Miller, for reasons others have mentioned.

 

[Howe_zat]

Not very surprising considering the well-documented differences Don had with Miller. He apparently hated his unproffesional approach sometimes.

Not sure that's why he was left out of the side, given that Bradman also had an infamous beef with Bill O'Reilly who did make the team. But we digress.

 

[Himannv]

Definitely Lindwall. Rate him quite highly.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If he knew he was bowling for your life and he liked you I would take Miller. Other than that it would be Lindwall.

 

[Red]

What most others said- Lindwall the better bowler.

Bradman says it pretty succinctly on some DVD I have. "Miller was the better better batsman, but Lindwall the better bowler. At times, when he was in the mood, Miller could be a devastating fast bowler".

There was a test once where Lindwall broke down with an injury, and Miller shouldered the bowling load and won the test for Australia, in spite of having to push a disk back into his spine before each delivery.

If I was picking an all time Australian 12, I'd have them both in the squad.

Morris
Trumper
Bradman
G. Chappell
Miller
Harvey
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

O'Reilly

 

[Satyanash89]

David clearly the better Miller

 

[kyear2]

Definitely Lindwall. Rate him quite highly.

Awta.

Carried the brunt of the work load along with Johnson, while Miller played the role of shock bowler. Lindwall when he retired was probably the greatest pure fast bowler to have played the game.

 

[Coronis]

What most others said- Lindwall the better bowler.

Bradman says it pretty succinctly on some DVD I have. "Miller was the better better batsman, but Lindwall the better bowler. At times, when he was in the mood, Miller could be a devastating fast bowler".

There was a test once where Lindwall broke down with an injury, and Miller shouldered the bowling load and won the test for Australia, in spite of having to push a disk back into his spine before each delivery.

If I was picking an all time Australian 12, I'd have them both in the squad.

Morris
Trumper
Bradman
G. Chappell
Miller
Harvey
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

O'Reilly

Interesting top 6 there...

 

[Red]

Interesting top 6 there...

Yeh. I'd like to have Simpson in as an opener for a number of reasons, but he can't edge out either Trumper or Morris in my head.

My reasons for having Miller at #5 over Ponting, S.Waugh or Border are mostly personal. I just think he's awesome. Gives a brilliant 5th option with the ball, and I think he's a vastly better batsman than his raw stats suggest.

Miller also allows the inclusion of both Warne and O'Reilly if you want to go down that path.