Keith Miller vs Shane Warne

[Johan]

Like Hadlee or Imran Khan

wait, is this comment trying to put Hadlee in a similar league as Miller with the bat? lmfao.

 

[DrWolverine]

Millers comfortably a better bat in their respective all rounder phases

Sure
My thoughts.

Miller is a great all rounder
Top 5 of all time

He wasn’t ATG batsman like Sobers or Kallis.
He wasn’t ATG bowler like Hadlee or Imran.

He was a much better bowler than Sobers/Kallis.
He was a much better batsman than Hadlee/Imran

 

[capt_Luffy]

Like Sobers or Jacques Kallis



Like Hadlee or Imran Khan

And he was a significantly better bowler than Sobers and Kallis, and far than Imran and significantly than Hadlee

 

[Johan]

1. Keith Miller is qualitatively an ATG bowler, his 22 average shows that.
2. Miller did not like bowling to Tail enders, only 22% of his wickets are of tail end batsmen. He also didn't bowl much to India, when just about any seamer could've ripped post war India apart like Trueman did.
3. He could bowl long spells as Coronis mentioned.
4. He was a good Test Standard batsman who can bat at either 5 or 6.
5. He was a supremely athletic outfielder and a sensational slip fielder

In other words, while Kallis, Imran and Hadlee excelled more in their primary, Miller was much better in secondary, their primary suits were stronger but he was the most balanced among great all rounders, and that's why he's elite ATG even without being ATG in either discipline – Balance.

 

[subshakerz]

1. Keith Miller is qualitatively an ATG bowler, his 22 average shows that.
2. Miller did not like bowling to Tail enders, only 22% of his wickets are of tail end batsmen. He also didn't bowl much to India, when just about any seamer could've ripped post war India apart like Trueman did.
3. He could bowl long spells as Coronis mentioned.
4. He was a good Test Standard batsman who can bat at either 5 or 6.
5. He was a supremely athletic outfielder and a sensational slip fielder

In other words, while Kallis, Imran and Hadlee excelled more in their primary, Miller was much better in secondary, their primary suits were stronger but he was the most balanced among great all rounders, and that's why he's elite ATG even without being ATG in either discipline – Balance.

Agree completely.

And that's why he is better than Warne.

 

[DrWolverine]

And he was a significantly better bowler than Sobers and Kallis, and far than Imran and significantly than Hadlee

Agreed

 

[DrWolverine]

In other words; while Kallis, Imran and Hadlee excelled more in their primary, Miller was much better in secondary,

 

[kyear2]

Funnily enough, Kyear likes to bring the argument that ATG sides didn't need ARs yet he can't do that with Miller.

Again, didn't say that.

I said they haven't commonly featured in great teams, which they haven't.

 

[subshakerz]

I said they haven't commonly featured in great teams, which they haven't.

And then you said because they don't need them.

 

[kyear2]

The key is 37 is a hell of a lot more than the 24 you kept throwing around.

Yes, he was a better bat than Imran, but Imran was easily the better and more productive bowler.

So if what I'm looking for is a strike bowler, I'm going Imran.

If what I'm looking for someone to bat in the top order, I'm going Kallis.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, he was a better bat than Imran, but Imran was easily the better and more productive bowler.

So if what I'm looking for is a strike bowler, I'm going Imran.

If what I'm looking for someone to bat in the top order, I'm going Kallis.

Such a reductive way of judging ARs.

 

[kyear2]

1. Keith Miller is qualitatively an ATG bowler, his 22 average shows that.
2. Miller did not like bowling to Tail enders, only 22% of his wickets are of tail end batsmen. He also didn't bowl much to India, when just about any seamer could've ripped post war India apart like Trueman did.
3. He could bowl long spells as Coronis mentioned.
4. He was a good Test Standard batsman who can bat at either 5 or 6.
5. He was a supremely athletic outfielder and a sensational slip fielder

In other words, while Kallis, Imran and Hadlee excelled more in their primary, Miller was much better in secondary, their primary suits were stronger but he was the most balanced among great all rounders, and that's why he's elite ATG even without being ATG in either discipline – Balance.

Yeah, but how is supremacy in secondary, supercede supremacy in primary.

It just doesn't.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, but how is supremacy in secondary, supercede supremacy in primary.

It just doesn't.

He isn't saying that. But clearly because his secondary is so good he can overtake Warne.

 

[Johan]

Yeah, but how is supremacy in secondary, supercede supremacy in primary.

It just doesn't.

supercede is the wrong word but it makes it more even, same way primary can make someone better, superiority in secondary can, as well.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah, but how is supremacy in secondary, supercede supremacy in primary.

It just doesn't.

So guys like Sachin and Hadlee are better than Sobers?

 

[kyear2]

So guys like Sachin and Hadlee are better than Sobers?

You make the presumption that either are clearly better. Most don't

 

[Fuller Pilch]

1. Keith Miller is qualitatively an ATG bowler, his 22 average shows that.
2. Miller did not like bowling to Tail enders, only 22% of his wickets are of tail end batsmen. He also didn't bowl much to India, when just about any seamer could've ripped post war India apart like Trueman did.
3. He could bowl long spells as Coronis mentioned.
4. He was a good Test Standard batsman who can bat at either 5 or 6.
5. He was a supremely athletic outfielder and a sensational slip fielder

In other words, while Kallis, Imran and Hadlee excelled more in their primary, Miller was much better in secondary, their primary suits were stronger but he was the most balanced among great all rounders, and that's why he's elite ATG even without being ATG in either discipline – Balance.

Who was better in secondary between Miller and Aubrey Faulkner?

 

[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

Ross Taylor - 44.66 and 16

1st player to play 100 tests, 100 ODIs, and 100 T20is. He also took a wicket with his last ball in test cricket like other great bowlers such as Hadlee, McGrath, and Murali.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ross Taylor - 44.66 and 16

1st player to play 100 tests, 100 ODIs, and 100 T20is. He also took a wicket with his last ball in test cricket like other great bowlers such as Hadlee, McGrath, and Murali.

He couldn't bowl a hoop down a hill.

 

[Bolo.]

You make the presumption that either are clearly better. Most don't

Even you rate some players as ahead of Sobers in primary discipline. Why do rate him so highly if the advantage in primary can't be made up in secondary? Why do you struggle so much in understanding that the standards you apply to him are standards others people apply consistently?