Imran v Hadlee v Miller

[h_hurricane]

Pure speculation and not backed by evidence at all. As someone (Red Hill?) said earlier in the thread, on the occasions when Miller was required to bowl more he stepped up and was good, or better, than ever.

If you disregard wickets per match like this, Doug Walters was as good as Rodney Hogg with the ball. That would be silly isn't it ?

By nature, bowling is a skill which follows the law of diminishing returns beyond a point. Otherwise why wouldn't you bowl 2 ATG bowlers all time along with 8-9 batsmen ? Injuries and burning out happens a lot to bowlers. Miller was possibly fortunate to be on the right side of work load management.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you disregard wickets per match like this, Doug Walters was as good as Rodney Hogg with the ball. That would be silly isn't it ?

By nature, bowling is a skill which follows the law of diminishing returns beyond a point. Otherwise why wouldn't you bowl 2 ATG bowlers all time along with 8-9 batsmen ? Injuries and burning out happens a lot to bowlers. Miller was possibly fortunate to be on the right side of work load management.

You've just repeated the same erroneous logic in more words. Your logic isn't difficult to understand. More workload = more tired = lower average. But that doesn't mean that it holds true, and there's no reason to think it does in the case of Miller at the types of workloads we're talking about.

Diminishing returns works both ways. If someone averages 22 with the ball bowling enough for 3 wickets per match, would they averaged even less if they bowled less? If he only bowled enough for 1 wpm would he average 13 with the ball? unlikely. Speculating that his bowling average would blow out if his workload increased by, say, 30% is pure guesswork, and again if anything his actual career shows that it wouldn't be the case. When he bowled more in a game, his output and average didn't suffer in the slightest.

 

[h_hurricane]

You've just repeated the same erroneous logic in more words. Your logic isn't difficult to understand. More workload = more tired = lower average. But that doesn't mean that it holds true, and there's no reason to think it does in the case of Miller at the types of workloads we're talking about.

Diminishing returns works both ways. If someone averages 22 with the ball bowling enough for 3 wickets per match, would they averaged even less if they bowled less? If he only bowled enough for 1 wpm would he average 13 with the ball? unlikely. Speculating that his bowling average would blow out if his workload increased by, say, 30% is pure guesswork, and again if anything his actual career shows that it wouldn't be the case. When he bowled more in a game, his output and average didn't suffer in the slightest.

I don't think anyone is saying it would blow out. Probably run or two more.

On the other hand, how much do you think Walters would have averaged if he bowled as much as Hogg in a match ? I know it is an extreme example, but it is difficult to think his average being as good as what he ended up with.

 

[harsh.ag]

You've just repeated the same erroneous logic in more words. Your logic isn't difficult to understand. More workload = more tired = lower average. But that doesn't mean that it holds true, and there's no reason to think it does in the case of Miller at the types of workloads we're talking about.

Diminishing returns works both ways. If someone averages 22 with the ball bowling enough for 3 wickets per match, would they averaged even less if they bowled less? If he only bowled enough for 1 wpm would he average 13 with the ball? unlikely. Speculating that his bowling average would blow out if his workload increased by, say, 30% is pure guesswork, and again if anything his actual career shows that it wouldn't be the case. When he bowled more in a game, his output and average didn't suffer in the slightest.

So do you rate Miller more highly as a bowler than, say, Gillespie?

 

[trundler]

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...rt;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings

Average of 23.93 in innings where he bowled over 120 balls. Still befitting an ATG bowler. So good enough to be a frontline bowler.

 

[ankitj]

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...rt;template=results;type=bowling;view=innings

Average of 23.93 in innings where he bowled over 120 balls. Still befitting an ATG bowler. So good enough to be a frontline bowler.

We don't know the cause and effect in those stats. So completely useless.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think anyone is saying it would blow out. Probably run or two more.

On the other hand, how much do you think Walters would have averaged if he bowled as much as Hogg in a match ? I know it is an extreme example, but it is difficult to think his average being as good as what he ended up with.

I think Doug Walters is an unusual example. He was a more-than-handy bowler but his Test average definitely flatters him. Probably a case of him being used as a bowler more when conditions suited his style, ie. swing around and a bit in the surface. But I am speculating here.

So do you rate Miller more highly as a bowler than, say, Gillespie?

Always difficult comparing between eras but, probably would rate Miller higher tbh.

Miller is a genuine ATG bowler, Gillespie is not quite.

 

[honestbharani]

Wait, if the fact that Imran scored less runs overall in his career can be held against him to argue that he was not a "proper" enough batsman, why can't the same be true for Miller with respect to bowling?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Doug Walters bowling stats are a complete shambles. I wouldn't be trying to draw any telling conclusions from them.

He averaged 35 in FC cricket but just 29 in Tests.

Conversely he averaged 68 in ODIs (small sample) and 22 in other List A games.

Trying to make sense out of that would lead one to believe that in long-form cricket he was more effective against higher quality opposition whereas in Limited-overs cricket he was more effective against weaker opposition.

Wait, if the fact that Imran scored less runs overall in his career can be held against him to argue that he was not a "proper" enough batsman, why can't the same be true for Miller with respect to bowling?

Who is this question aimed at? I'm definitely not holding anything against Imran

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Imran ahead of hadlee by quite some distance as he was a much better batsman.
Miller was better than immy with the bat(dont care about avg) but immys bowling was better.
I think imran should be the rated ahead of miller, hadlee and even kallis.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Also miller wasn't even the best bowler in his team .

 

[trundler]

We don't know the cause and effect in those stats. So completely useless.

It disproves the notion that he was lucky to average as low as he did. It's being made out to sound like he took less than 2 WPM. Miller's WPM is closer to Dev than to Kallis. It's obvious he had a unique role and did it well. I can't think of players who opened the bowling but were still used for the shock element. Miller took way more wickets per match than Greig or Stokes but not quite as much as Dev or Botham. You could flip the criticism on its head and almost claim he was a batting all rounder who took a remarkable number of poles.

 

[ImpatientLime]

still trying to pick myself up off the floor after seeing ravi jadeja getting shout outs in this thread.

 

[ankitj]

It disproves the notion that he was lucky to average as low as he did.

It doesn't prove that. It's possible that he bowls 120+ balls when he is in really good form or conditions are helpful. It's also possible that he bowls that much when it's a flat track and opposition is making a mountain of runs. It doesn't isolate impact of bowling long spells on his performance. It's classic selection bias. Much like "average in wins".

 

[h_hurricane]

Wait, if the fact that Imran scored less runs overall in his career can be held against him to argue that he was not a "proper" enough batsman, why can't the same be true for Miller with respect to bowling?

I would say both these statements have merits. They are both ATG allrounders. However, people just look at Imran's batting average and Miller's bowling average, both are slightly misleading due to different reasons imo.

 

[h_hurricane]

Also miller wasn't even the best bowler in his team .

Was about to say this. Nearly everyone who saw that era rates Lindwall the better bowler. Ray sharing more workload has to be one of the solid reasons behind it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It disproves the notion that he was lucky to average as low as he did. It's being made out to sound like he took less than 2 WPM. Miller's WPM is closer to Dev than to Kallis. It's obvious he had a unique role and did it well. I can't think of players who opened the bowling but were still used for the shock element. Miller took way more wickets per match than Greig or Stokes but not quite as much as Dev or Botham. You could flip the criticism on its head and almost claim he was a batting all rounder who took a remarkable number of poles.

While ankitj is correct that it doesn't necessarily "prove" anything, it still strongly indicates.

I expect it will help put it in perspective to pointing out the similar wpm of Miller (3.1) and Kapil Dev (3.3) next time someone tries to talk down Miller's bowling because of wpm

I would say both these statements have merits. They are both ATG allrounders. However, people just look at Imran's batting average and Miller's bowling average, both are slightly misleading due to different reasons imo.

you still think Miller's bowling average is misleading? Nothing's probably going to change your mind then

 

[trundler]

Wait, if the fact that Imran scored less runs overall in his career can be held against him to argue that he was not a "proper" enough batsman, why can't the same be true for Miller with respect to bowling?

I'm not holding either against either. But Miller was more of a bowler than Imran was a batsman for most of his career and I don't see how you can argue otherwise. >3 WPM is still better than <50 runs a test. They're definitely not equally misleading. Look at Miller's FC bowling average if you think he was a regular Ross Taylor at test level. When Kallis bowls over 120 balls, he's averaging 46 ftr. That's what I call misleading. Not someone who took almost as many wickets per match as Kapil Dev.

 

[h_hurricane]

While ankitj is correct that it doesn't necessarily "prove" anything, it still strongly indicates.

I expect it will help put it in perspective to pointing out the similar wpm of Miller (3.1) and Kapil Dev (3.3) next time someone tries to talk down Miller's bowling because of wpm



you still think Miller's bowling average is misleading? Nothing's probably going to change your mind then

Wpm makes sense when comparing bowlers of similar averages. So yes, when it is Miller vs Imran. No, when it is Miller vs Kapil.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Also miller wasn't even the best bowler in his team .

Was about to say this. Nearly everyone who saw that era rates Lindwall the better bowler. Ray sharing more workload has to be one of the solid reasons behind it.

And this is just bizarre. Nothing to do with anything.

Wpm makes sense when comparing bowlers of similar averages. So yes, when it is Miller vs Imran. No, when it is Miller vs Kapil.

what? You've completely missed the point