• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Would Jacques Kallis and Imran Khan get more respect if they weren't all-rounders?

ohnoitsyou

International Regular
I actually just spent an hour going through all of Miller's biggish scores with bat and ball, in an innings by innings list on cricinfo because I'm pathetic and have no life. It's actually quite remarkable how many times he turned a match around with a quick burst of wickets or some crucial runs. Incredible cricketer really, I may have been underrating him all this time. Also I never realized he has well over 50 runs a match. Imo, he's a much better batsman than Imran even though the averages don't show it, and Imran a much better bowler again, though the averages don't show it. There are definitely reasons I can find for picking Miller in my AT XI now. He produced the goods in both disciplines simultaneously a lot more than other all rounders, and he did it pretty much all throughouthis career.

And his country wise record isn't as lopsided as I thought. West indies, as people pointed out weren't that weak, especially their batting. And against England, Miller's performances were damn impressive with both bat and ball. Honestly I think he's a better all rounder in my mind than the likes of Kallis. Shouldering the burden of dual disciplines and actually delivering in both is what makes an all rounder great for me. And Miller probably did that more than anyone else (along with Sobers and maybe Botham)
Cairns. Even if he wasn't anywhere near the player. Procter at domestic level as well.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Shouldering the burden of dual disciplines and actually delivering in both is what makes an all rounder great for me. And Miller probably did that more than anyone else (along with Sobers and maybe Botham)
Agree that he probably did it better than anyone else, but this is not what makes an all rounder great as far as I'm concerned. It depends on the balance of the team, but just because one skill dominates an allrounder's game doesn't make them less of an addition to a team.

Remember, Test teams are going to have at least 5 other batsmen and at least 3 other bowlers. So it's perfectly natural that one discipline will be relied upon more than the other.
 
Last edited:

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Agree that he probably did it better than anyone else, but this is not what makes an all rounder great as far as I'm concerned. It depends on the balance of the team, but just because one skill dominates an allrounder's game doesn't make them less of an addition to a team.

Remember, Test teams are going to have at least 5 other batsmen and at least 3 other bowlers. So it's perfectly natural that one discipline will be relied upon more than the other.

Fine if you think that way. But I just think most people get carried away with the thinking that the player who provides better balance in a fictitious AT XI is a better player. Honestly think it's BS. In a realistic scenario, in my opinion, a more rounded all rounder who performs two disciplines very well and is capable of delivering good returns with both simultaneously is in all probability better and of greater value to the side.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
Fine if you think that way. But I just think most people get carried away with the thinking that the player who provides better balance in a fictitious AT XI is a better player. Honestly think it's BS. In a realistic scenario, in my opinion, a more rounded all rounder who performs two disciplines very well and is capable of delivering good returns with both simultaneously is in all probability better and of greater value to the side.
They have to be a very good batsman to bat in the top 6, or a very good bowler to bat at 8. Those are the requirements they must fulfill. I think we're in agreement on this, we've just come to the conclusion from different ends of the spectrum.

I think, for example, that NZ should pick a better batsman than Corey Anderson most times if there is one available. Similarly, India should pick a better bowler than Ravi Jadeja if there is one available.
 

Top