Keith Miller vs Shane Warne

[DrWolverine]

If he existed, would he be ATG or not?

Yes.

 

[DrWolverine]

You said a player needs to be ATG on a particular disciplines to be an ATG Allrounder.

I should have been more specific and used my words properly.

Miller is a great all rounder but I do not place him on same tier as Hadlee, Imran, Sobers or Kallis.

 

[sayon basak]

Yes.

But what if he were a Ashwin level bowler (Who you don't think is ATG) and a Doug Walters level batter (Who is also not an ATG)? Would he somehow be ATG overall without being ATG in either of the disciplines?

I should have been more specific and used my words properly.

Miller is a great all rounder but I do not place him on same tier as Hadlee, Imran, Sobers or Kallis.

Great, meaning ATG?

 

[Coronis]

Mulder will get there soon. If he'd batted for another 30 mins he might already have done it.

My money’s on Webster

 

[Coronis]

Who is the all rounder that is averaging 24 with the ball and 48 with the bat?

There is none, that’s the point. Hypothetically if you had a player with averages that, who is neither ATG as a batsman or ATG as a bowler, would you consider them ATG? Simple yes or no

 

[Fuller Pilch]

No cricketer has averaged 40+ with the bat and less than 30 with the ball in last 100 years so what you are saying is just theoretical nonsense

Washington Sundar

 

[kyear2]

Shane Warne

Miller is not an ATG in both batting & bowling for me unlike Sobers, Hadlee, Imran and Kallis.

Neither.

I don't know how that's missed.

Shane Warne easily better for me.

 

[kyear2]

useless point. If someone averages 48 with the bat and 26 witn the ball then they are still not ATG in either discipline, but they'd be the second greatest Cricketer. You don't need to be ATG in primary disciplines to be an ATG all rounder.

Think Gilchrist is around a 26 ~ 28 average with the ball quality with the gloves?

He averaged 48 with the bat. Is he the 2nd greatest cricketer of all time?

No.

 

[Johan]

Think Gilchrist is around a 26 ~ 28 average with the ball quality with the gloves?

He averaged 48 with the bat. Is he the 2nd greatest cricketer of all time?

No.

Wicket Keeping is not a secondary skill, nor is it as consistently impactful. Alan Knott averages around 33 with the bat and is a whole tier above Gilchrist with the gloves and I don't even think he's a clearly better Cricketer than Ben Stokes of all people, should tell you what I think of wicket keepers vs all rounders.

 

[subshakerz]

Shane Warne easily better for me.

Based on what

 

[kyear2]

To be a great all rounder, you should be great at least in at least one discipline.

I fully agree, but Miller is really close to ATG classification as a bowler and hovers around being a test standard bat, who actually did bat in the top order.
He's a little overrated here as a batsman, but wayyyy better than the other all rounders.

 

[kyear2]

An allrounder who averages 24 with the ball and 48 with the is certainly on par with them, actually better.

Not close.

All those had that one primary skills to hang their hats on. His wpm and s/r are both a bit too low and his batting output isn't near great. Almost half his hundreds vane in one series and he averaged 24 against his great rival and main compeditor.

That's not a top 10 cricketer.

 

[kyear2]

Wicket Keeping is not a secondary skill, nor is it as consistently impactful. Alan Knott averages around 33 with the bat and is a whole tier above Gilchrist with the gloves and I don't even think he's a clearly better Cricketer than Ben Stokes of all people, should tell you what I think of wicket keepers vs all rounders.

If course wicket keeping isn't a secondary skill, it's their primary one.

Gilchrist is easily a top 5 all rounder of all time, fighting it out with Miller for the 4th spot.

 

[Johan]

All those had that one primary skills to hang their hats on. His wpm and s/r are both a bit too low and his batting output isn't near great. Almost half his hundreds vane in one series and he averaged 24 against his great rival and main compeditor..

He averages 33.58 with the bat against England and 53.40 with the bat against the West Indies. Also averages 22.40 against England with the ball and 25.98 against West Indies with the ball, Against the three true enemies of the era he averages 23.05 with the ball and 37.65 with the bat, what are you talking about?

also, are you seriously suggesting you'd take Imran over a say Hazlewood level bowler and a Harvey level batsman?

 

[Johan]

If course wicket keeping isn't a secondary skill, it's their primary one.

Gilchrist is easily a top 5 all rounder of all time, fighting it out with Miller for the 4th spot.

Even if it is the primary skill, The impact that quality wicket keepers bring is not even close to quality batsmanship or bowling, an ATG quality wicket keeper is not even close to being rated as highly as an ATG batsman, like, would you actually rate Godfrey Evans or Alan Knott over a Denis Compton or Alec Bedser? because I certainly won't.

 

[DrWolverine]

Hypothetically if you had a player with averages that, who is neither ATG as a batsman or ATG as a bowler, would you consider them ATG? Simple yes or no

If he existed, would he be ATG or not?

Yes.

 

[subshakerz]

He averages 33.58 with the bat against England and 53.40 with the bat against the West Indies. Also averages 22.40 against England with the ball and 25.98 against West Indies with the ball, Against the three true enemies of the era he averages 23.05 with the ball and 37.65 with the bat, what are you talking about?

also, are you seriously suggesting you'd take Imran over a say Hazlewood level bowler and a Harvey level batsman?

We would obviously take the latter over Imran. Nobody is cricket has specialized in both disciplines to that degree.

And his dismissal of Miller is so ridiculous.

He basically has this set order that is so sacred he never questions it.

 

[subshakerz]

I can understand someone voting Warne based on career length.

But per match impact, Miller is simply better. A bowler arguably of Roberts quality and a bat of Stokes quality. Anyone like that today would be the best in the world.

 

[Johan]

We would obviously take the latter over Imran. Nobody is cricket has specialized in both disciplines to that degree.

And his dismissal of Miller is so ridiculous.

He basically has this set order that is so sacred he never questions it.

He really values slip fielding and wicket keeping, glovework and so forth but generally doesn't seem keen on rating conventional all rounders as much, don't get the logic personally, I get the value of slips and keeping but no way they come close to proper test standard secondary skill that's either bowling or batting.

 

[subshakerz]

He really values slip fielding and wicket keeping, glovework and so forth but generally doesn't seem keen on rating conventional all rounders as much, don't get the logic personally, I get the value of slips and keeping but no way they come close to proper test standard secondary skill that's either bowling or batting.

Well Miller was arguably a better fielder than Warne and he doesn't even rate Warnes slip skills.