Keith Miller vs Shane Warne

[subshakerz]

Nuance, and I've said this so many times..

Is it an absolute necessity? No.

Does it have overall value and situational importance, of course.

Do I want a tail of rabbits? Definitely not.

But do I believe the no. 8 spot is a designated all rounder position? No. There's 6 & 7 for that.

Would I select a bowling attack factoring in batting averages, no.

I've also said this before, if Bumrah hits 300 wickets, my all time attack (in batting order) is
Marshall | Warne | Bumrah | McGrath

And no one can tell me that isn't the best attack.

But more importantly, you ORS and myself have similar thought processes but for difference disciplines. You're happy with the preferred in one area and average in the next. I go the opposite direction.

I think the history of the game has clearly showed us which of the two should be preferred.

But to be clear, lower order batting has value, doesn't mean you make it a primary consideration for selection.

You are moving goalposts because neither Aus or WI had batting ARs but you still insist on their importance.

 

[subshakerz]

How?

We all have preferences and I prefer a specialists who can add a secondary contribution.

As a cricketer, I prefer even a Hammond over Miller.

The question is who gives more value to a side and worldclass pacer + good bat + great fielder is better than ATG spinner. You've never addressed the real impact.

 

[kyear2]

The problem in judging based on rankings is that it doesn't match real world results.

In terms of rankings there is a big difference between Warne and Miller as bowlers. But so much as match impact.

Miller allows a team an extra bowler in the side by virtue of batting in the top six.

Which is why I also referenced the fact that one was much more of a match winner, directly impacted matches more.

 

[subshakerz]

Which is why I also referenced the fact that one was much more of a match winner, directly impacted matches more.

The differential in won matches with ball doesn't match the rest of the skills.

And Miller allows an extra bowler in a side

 

[kyear2]

You are moving goalposts because neither Aus or WI had batting ARs but you still insist on their importance.

We've been through this.

In this rest match, how many overs have Root bowled, how many overs did Reddy?

I've said this before, it's a position that's the most essential to have in your team, but probably 3rd with regards to the required effectiveness.
The success of the role has more to do with facilitation and utility and less with regards to direct results. You job is to keep things right, don't be a liability and any wickets taken is a plus.

Australia had Waugh, Clarke and Symonds, the West Indies utilized Harper, Viv and Hooper. They don't have to be great, but they have to be there, hence their importance.

 

[kyear2]

The question is who gives more value to a side and worldclass pacer + good bat + great fielder is better than ATG spinner. You've never addressed the real impact.

Yes I have, one won more matches for his team.

And Warne, though not as good, made contributions in all 3 areas as well.

 

[h_hurricane]

Your secondary skills do not matter until you are a certain Garfield St Aubrun Sobers. So a 34 averaging bowler with a SR of 90 becomes the most versatile bowler in history whereas a 29 averaging bowler who was once the highest wicket taker in history was just an average bowler.

 

[Coronis]

Coronis in another thread explained it perfectly, be it for rankings or selection for an XI, you generally start with who's the better specialist and on tie breakers you then progress to secondary. I've said this in the past as well, it's close you use these skills as tie breakers.

Disclaimer: This is my personal selection “policy”. I don’t expect or think anyone else should necessarily follow it. Note: This is also only really for my ATG XI selection. Think there becomes more and more room for flexibility even moving amongst team ATG XIs, and so of course, as we see, in real world XIs.

 

[kyear2]

Your secondary skills do not matter until you are a certain Garfield St Aubrun Sobers. So a 34 averaging bowler with a SR of 90 becomes the most versatile bowler in history whereas a 29 averaging bowler who was once the highest wicket taker in history was just an average bowler.

Just for reference, when I mentioned certain posters who I didn't remotely respect, posts primarily based on personality, and is as tribalistic as they come, you were one of the very few I was speaking of.

I generally try to ignore, but when it travels from simple trolling and into the realm of showing your ignorance, bias and dishonesty I can't just let it go.

1. Never remotely intimated that Sobers was a better bowler than Kapil.

2. If Sobers averaged 30 with the bat, his bowling also wouldn't be enough to propel him in ATG status either.

3. Sobers was the most versatile bowler ever, I'm not sure what you actually read with regards to the game, but I'm far from the only person to have said that. It doesn't mean he was the greatest, it just refers to his versatility.

4. Kapil was around the 10th best bowler from the era in which he played, of the great all rounders of the 80's, Kapil was easily the least impactful with the ball. Sobers was at least that in his era, and at times higher.

5. Anyone who reads my posts also knows that I think Sobers was over bowled and he and the team would have been better served by him bowling less and spending more time in the cordon. Where I would mention he was an elite ATG performer and something I rate way higher than his bowling.

6. His primary is the foundation for why he's rated by me and most as highly as he was. He's rates by many as the 2nd best batsman of all time, you thennnnn add that to his rating by some as one who was the equal to Hammond and Simpson in the slip cordon, and thennnnn added to the fact that he was a front line bowler for his team who was a top 7 / 8 performer with the ball if not higher, for a decade.

You're comparing all of that to an average bowler who played in an era where he was at the average average for pace bowlers and was at best a useful lower order bat. Are you insane?

You've been trying to bait me and get my attention all day, you've got it.

 

[kyear2]

Disclaimer: This is my personal selection “policy”. I don’t expect or think anyone else should necessarily follow it. Note: This is also only really for my ATG XI selection. Think there becomes more and more room for flexibility even moving amongst team ATG XIs, and so of course, as we see, in real world XIs.

Never suggested that it should be, was explaining how it's similar to mine and you explained it well.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes I have, one won more matches for his team.

And Warne, though not as good, made contributions in all 3 areas as well.

Warne more matches in volume not pro-rata.

 

[kyear2]

Warne more matches in volume not pro-rata.

Of course he did.

And we're back again to you wanting me to see the game the same way you do, and we don't.

Warne won more games, was impactful on more games.

 

[subshakerz]

Of course he did.

And we're back again to you wanting me to see the game the same way you do, and we don't.

Warne won more games, was impactful on more games.

Can you show me based on record?


I think you are seriously downplaying the value of Millers batting.

 

[kyear2]

Can you show me based on record?


I think you are seriously downplaying the value of Millers batting.

I don't think he was a very good batsman. Please note that while you're probably comparing it to that if bowling all rounders, he averaged basically what Carl Hooper did.

For some who some want to place in an AT top 6, I don't see it. Almost half his hundreds came in one series and in the home of the enemy, he averaged a very underwhelming 24.

I think he had the ability, I think, like a Hooper he greatly underachieved, more than likely due to the amount of overs he bowled.

An ATG no doubt, don't think he batting is quite what we want to frame it.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think he was a very good batsman. Please note that while you're probably comparing it to that if bowling all rounders, he averaged basically what Carl Hooper did.

For some who some want to place in an AT top 6, I don't see it. Almost half his hundreds came in one series and in the home of the enemy, he averaged a very underwhelming 24.

I think he had the ability, I think, like a Hooper he greatly underachieved, more than likely due to the amount of overs he bowled.

An ATG no doubt, don't think he batting is quite what we want to frame it.

Millers entire career was virtually in the top 5 for an incredibly strong team. He was a bottomline good bat.

My point was for an average to good side, Miller is good enough to bat in the top six, and therefore allow five bowlers.

 

[kyear2]

Millers entire career was virtually in the top 5 for an incredibly strong team. He was a bottomline good bat.

My point was for an average to good side, Miller is good enough to bat in the top six, and therefore allow five bowlers.

That doesn't make one better than the other though.

 

[subshakerz]

That doesn't make one better than the other though.

Being a good standard test bat is a hell of a plus on top of being a worldclass bowler and great fielder.

Do you consider Kallis better than Warne?

 

[Bolo.]

I swear you are just trolling at this point, otherwise just incredibly obtuse.

Coronis in another thread explained it perfectly, be it for rankings or selection for an XI, you generally start with who's the better specialist and on tie breakers you then progress to secondary. I've said this in the past as well, it's close you use these skills as tie breakers.
Unlike those who selectively only use that adage for some skills, it can be used for all 3.

Now Miller is a special case because as some has said, on secondary skill he's probably the best there's been. The problem there though, at least for me, is that Warne is one of the very best in primary as well, and it's not remotely close. As I said in a previous post, he's multiple tiers ahead of Miller on primary and that's not easy to overcome. It's not like Warne is the 5th best bowler and Miller is 15th, one's a top tier ATG and the other, on the judgement of most, isn't. And primary to primary, Miller's batting at best rates out as average if not below for a top order batsman.

So one is at best an borderline top order quality batsman who quite honestly underachieved in the role, who was also at best the 3rd most utilized bowler for those teams.

Warne is contrast is a player who as referenced wasn't only one of the great bowlers of all time and one of the two greatest spinners, he's one of the greatest match winners

There is no comparison between these two players and Sobers and Sachin or Sobers and Hadlee. I have Sobers ahead of Hadlee on primary and miles ahead in secondary, either of them.
With Sachin, ones 2nd and one 4th all time as batsmen, while the other was a top 5 slip of all time and a legitimate front line bowler who peaked out as the 6th best bowler in the world and around that for a decade averaging 27.

Id you can't grasp the differences between those examples, it genuinely doesn't make sense continuing the conversation.

You said that secondary can't make up for a gap in primary.

Do I follow this and say Hobbs is better than Sobers? Secondary isn't a tiebreak. Hobbs is clearly ahead.

If I don't follow this, I'm gonna apply the same standards to other players. Imran is better than McGrath. Kallis is better than Lara. Hadlee isn't relevant to me in this context, cos of how highly I rate him on primary, except in comparison to people that

Where exactly do we stop or start with deferring to the idea of looking at primary over secondary? There are points that it is tempting to do so, but trying to draw a fence around some players and saying it counts for them and not others is clearly wrong.

 

[kyear2]

You said that secondary can't make up for a gap in primary.

Do I follow this and say Hobbs is better than Sobers? Secondary isn't a tiebreak. Hobbs is clearly ahead.

If I don't follow this, I'm gonna apply the same standards to other players. Imran is better than McGrath. Kallis is better than Lara. Hadlee isn't relevant to me in this context, cos of how highly I rate him on primary, except in comparison to people that

Where exactly do we stop or start with deferring to the idea of looking at primary over secondary? There are points that it is tempting to do so, but trying to draw a fence around some players and saying it counts for them and not others is clearly wrong.

My God, you're not even trying.

Large gaps, for me it can't make up the large gaps that exists in this scenario.

I've been asked about McGrath and Hadlee. For me overall they're really close, but I mostly prefer Pigeon over Paddles.

It's not that I don't think that lower order batting can overcome a gap, I don't think Hadlee's is good enough to supercede one of the only two bowlers I rate as being in the GOAT discussion.

But in this instance the chasm between Warne and Miller in primary is massive.

With regards to the example you give, I have Sobers over Hobbs, so that doesn't factor in.

With Imran, I'm not rating my 9th rated bowler over someone I have as top 2 and in the GOAT debate. Same with Tendulkar and Kallis. Now Hammond tempts me, but yeah, even him I'm not rating above Sachin.

 

[subshakerz]

With Imran, I'm not rating my 9th rated bowler over someone I have as top 2 and in the GOAT debate. Same with Tendulkar and Kallis. Now Hammond tempts me, but yeah, even him I'm not rating above Sachin.

Why is bowling ranking relevant for Imran but not relevant for Wasim who you actually select but rate even lower than Imran?

If you think it's because Wasim is best with the old ball, then surely Imran is very close to him in that (I would argue more effective) and a better overall bowler, enough that Imrans much superior batting can overcome him.

So whichever way you look at it you are contradicting yourself.