Within the context of this post, there are a suprising amount of votes for Miller. I rate him way higher than most. Behind only Bradman, the big 4ARs, and maybe Murali.
But is he ahead of even Pollock here on this timeframe? Pollock has nearly triple the amount of games, over triple the the amount of wickets, and clearly superior stats.
No personal offence, but I don't get this, at all.
The notion by some that all rounders are automatically better, just because they're all rounders, while not looking at their impact to games or to the sport is frustrating to me.
McGrath is a considerably better cricketer than Kallis and I would argue Miller. Just because he couldn't bat doesn't take away his impact with the ball. I think Hammond is arguably better than Kallis.
And I'll answer this in advance as I'm trying to have a productive work day today. How about Sobers?
He was the best bat of his era, more importantly a match winning batsman and retired as the 2nd best of all time. He wasn't a 5th bowler, he was often a 2nd or 3rd who delivered more opm than most specialists. He was also very arguably the greatest close catcher of all time, and a top 5 slip of all time, who took catches that most wouldn't even attempt.
one of the main reasons I appreciate American sports, specifically American football is that they have gleaned what's important isn't what's more visible. Offensive linemen are paid more than running backs, corners more than linebackers. It's not about the yards or tackles on the stat sheet.
Too many here are still stuck looking at the shiny yards the running backs get.
