Keith Miller vs Shane Warne

[Johan]

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

A Brilliant fielder in general and the best slip fielder in the world, according to Sir Don Bradman.

 

[Al Salvador]

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.

Exactly the point. He was as good as Roberts with the ball and he matches very well with Stokes the batsman. Combination of that is one of the top 5/10 players of all time very easily. Very very easily.

 

[kyear2]

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?

In England he averaged 24 with the bat.

He's not close to a Harvey level bat, not remotely close.

And as a cricketer, yes I'm taking Imran ahead of him.

 

[kyear2]

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.

I mentioned earlier this week in another thread that I have 3 wicket keepers who I rate as ATG's, Evans is one of them, and I do rate Allan Knott and Godfrey Evans over Compton and Bedser.

For the record I have Knott rated as the 33rd greatest cricketer of all time.

Yes, after advent of covered pitches and less spin, the wicketkeeper position did become much more an all rounder one, but the value of a great gloveman is still there, and for teams will return .

 

[kyear2]

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.

I change my order all the time, there's already changes I have for the next list. I listen to everything said on the forum and question my own philosophies...

But heaven forbid I disagree with you.

I like Keith Miller, I have him as an ATG and he's ranked one place above Knott.

He's also on my 3rd AT XI, the fact that one can't rate someone differently to you with it being ridiculous is what is ridiculous.

 

[kyear2]

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.

First up, the only all rounders I don't rate in terms of the ATG scenarios are the ones that are the "genuine" all rounders, because that's basically not "excelling" at anything.

I prefer a batting or bowling all rounder who can hold down a space in any XI based on that primary skills first and foremost.

I have Sobers and Hadlee in my very top tier of ATG players, but it's based on the fact that they are both elite in said primary skills, the rest are well a graciously accepted bonus. Imran, Kallis, Hammond are right behind them.

And I do easily rate Miller as an ATG, Botham isn't in the top 40, but definitely in the top 50, but unlike any other player there, it's purely for peak and that explosive match winning potential.

The only guy here than some rate highly that I don't rate as an ATG at all is Dev. Forget ATG, he's not even great at anything. He's an average bowler and a useful lower order hitter.

But for Miller, he wasn't a fan of bowling, and the more he did, apparently his batting suffered.

I do t think he's a good a test bat that many here five him credit for. He's a average lower end batsman and lacked volume as a pacer. I'm sorry, that's not a top 10 pacers for me.

And it's not slip fielding and sunshine vs Miller. It's Chappell, an ATG batsman and slip against Miller, and I'm taking Chappell all day.

 

[kyear2]

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

Primary skills take prescedence.

It's really not more complicated than that.

A Brilliant fielder in general and the best slip fielder in the world, according to Sir Don Bradman.

Yes he was.

 

[kyear2]

Exactly the point. He was as good as Roberts with the ball and he matches very well with Stokes the batsman. Combination of that is one of the top 5/10 players of all time very easily. Very very easily.

Not to me, and that's fine.

 

[sayon basak]

In England he averaged 24 with the bat.

He's not close to a Harvey level bat, not remotely close.

And as a cricketer, yes I'm taking Imran ahead of him.

What he asked probably was "If a player were a Harvey level batsman and a Hazlewood level bowler, would you rate Imran over him?"

 

[subshakerz]

Primary skills take prescedence.

It's really not more complicated than that.



Yes he was.

who has more per match impact, Miller or Warne? He honest.

 

[Johan]

I mentioned earlier this week in another thread that I have 3 wicket keepers who I rate as ATG's, Evans is one of them, and I do rate Allan Knott and Godfrey Evans over Compton and Bedser.

For the record I have Knott rated as the 33rd greatest cricketer of all time.

Yes, after advent of covered pitches and less spin, the wicketkeeper position did become much more an all rounder one, but the value of a great gloveman is still there, and for teams will return .

I mean that's just wrong, there is a reason Compton and Bedser are rated in the pantheon of English greats and Godfrey Evans and Alan Knott are merely afterthoughts, the value of wicket keeping is there but in no sense is it comparable to the value of batsmanship or bowling.

Wicket Keepers are not the main show, they exist to maximize efficiency of bowlers by cutting down on byes and not dropping catches and chances by bowlers, they amplify bowlers, they do not and will not have impact anywhere near the same level as a great or batting performance.

 

[Johan]

In England he averaged 24 with the bat.

He's not close to a Harvey level bat, not remotely close.

I mean okay but it's not like Warne has a squeaky clean record either, bowling average of what? 50? in India, bowled one of the most vile spells ever by a good or great bowler in the third test of 2001 series and lost the entire series. Also, Miller averaged 24 with the ball in England and won the 1956 Lord's game with the ball.

 

[DrWolverine]

who has more per match impact, Miller or Warne? He honest.

Shane Warne was a bigger match winner imo

Keith Miller was the charismatic genius who often played second fiddle both in batting & bowling

 

[Johan]

Being the second best Australian batsman and second best Australian bowler in a particularly strong Australian era would be an incomprehensible feat so that's more praise than it is critique.

 

[reyrey]

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

Darren Lehmann with his 45 batting average and 27 bowling average would like a word

 

[DrWolverine]

2nd best Australian batsman is too much.

Neil Harvey. Arthur Morris. Lindsay Hassett.
I am sure all 3 were better batsmen than Miller.

 

[DrWolverine]

Even 2nd best Australian bowler is a stretch.
Lindwall was obviously better.
So was Bill Johnston I think

 

[Johan]

Miller is better than Johnston but not Lindwall, but it doesn't matter, Miller is a legit 36+ averaging batsman combined with an ATG quality bowler, nobody was as good a bowler as him while being as good a batsman. He is literally Botham on steroids, 85 to 90% of Botham's peak but never had a decline

 

[capt_Luffy]

Ofcourse, Evans is better than Compton. Also, Kirmani is better than Laxman comfortably, and Tallon vs Harvey is a no contest.

 

[subshakerz]

2nd best Australian batsman is too much.

Neil Harvey. Arthur Morris. Lindsay Hassett.
I am sure all 3 were better batsmen than Miller.

It doesn't matter. He was good enough to bat in the top 6 while being a worldclass bowler. In terms of match impact, he is easily exceeding Warne.