• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Shaun Pollock vs Keith Miller

Shaun Pollock vs Keith Miller

  • Total voters
    25
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
My ratings have Miller ahead as a cricketer, but in the same tier and close.

Who I prefer on the average team?

On potential, Miller.

In reality, probably Pollock? Can bowl longer, sustained spells.
 
A

Al Salvador

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
kyear2 said:
My ratings have Miller ahead as a cricketer, but in the same tier and close.

Who I prefer on the average team?

On potential, Miller.

In reality, probably Pollock? Can bowl longer, sustained spells.
Click to expand...
Miller being same tier with pollock is ridiculous. There's literally 10 runs rpi gap ffs. And while pollock has better wpm, it's not like he takes 4 WPM either. It's below that.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Miller, I'm pretty confident Miller's low WPM is a resultant of a very small percentage of lower order wickets, like 20% or something, makes sense why you won't bowl your express pace AR to bowlers. Miller just a different league with the bat.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Johan said:
Miller, I'm pretty confident Miller's low WPM is a resultant of a very small percentage of lower order wickets, like 20% or something, makes sense why you won't bowl your express pace AR to bowlers. Miller just a different league with the bat.
Click to expand...
Who was the better bowler?

I have Pollock as a very borderline ATG, Miller decidedly not so.
 
Thala_0710

Thala_0710

International Vice-Captain
DrWolverine said:
Miller better batsman.
Pollock better bowler.
Click to expand...
That's obvious. The fact that the gap between batting is bigger than bowling should also be. But the question is since bowling is their primary skill, does the extra edge in batting compensate for it?
 
R

reyrey

First Class Debutant
Miller is a new ball bowler who can bowl fast. In an average team he would be the X factor bowler and his batting allows you to comfortably pick 4 other specialist bowlers. With Pollock that wouldn't be the case, unless you're comfortable having a really long tail.

So whilst Pollock might have the edge bowling wise, he wouldn't necessarily make an average bowling attack better than Miller would (4 bowling options vs 5)
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Thala_0710 said:
That's obvious. The fact that the gap between batting is bigger than bowling should also be. But the question is since bowling is their primary skill, does the extra edge in batting compensate for it?
Click to expand...
That's it.

That's exactly my point for all of these arguments.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Prince EWS said:
Massive fan of both in this context - I would take both ahead of McGrath - but Miller.
Click to expand...
For an average cricket team, sorry, for any cricket team....

You're taking Shaun Pollock over Glenn McGrath?

To lead your attack, you're taking Miller over McGrath?

I can't think of a single scenario where Pollock would be preferred over McGrath.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
for the average Cricket team, Miller bats at 5 or 6 and fits perfectly, and then gives you an opening bowler of the highest class, allowa you to pick your second and best specialist bowler as #3 and #4 bowlers, your entire attack is massively upgraded. Give South Africa Keith Miller in the WTC final and they get Marco Jansen and Lungi Ngidi as 3rd and 4th pacer, with Keshav as the spinner, no need to have Wiann Mulder play the role of the 5th bowler, they can either bat deep now or play two spinners, a huge upgrade.

He literally changes the complexion and level of bowling lineup while almost zero drop off in batting.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Johan said:
for the average Cricket team, Miller bats at 5 or 6 and fits perfectly, and then gives you an opening bowler of the highest class, allowa you to pick your second and best specialist bowler as #3 and #4 bowlers, your entire attack is massively upgraded. Give South Africa Keith Miller in the WTC final and they get Marco Jansen and Lungi Ngidi as 3rd and 4th pacer, with Keshav as the spinner, no need to have Wiann Mulder play the role of the 5th bowler, they can either bat deep now or play two spinners, a huge upgrade.

He literally changes the complexion and level of bowling lineup while almost zero drop off in batting.
Click to expand...
I've said this before and I get crucified for it.

I think Miller is a way better batsman than any of the other bowling all rounders and definitely had the potential to be a quality batsman.

I also don't think he was quite the batsman many think he was. An average of 24 in England and almost half his hundreds coming in one test series doesn't exactly inspire me.

I'm not sure how he goes in that WTC final with the bat.

With the ball, it's his wpm, but also the s/r a bit as well. Again, especially in and vs England.

Give SA McGrath and he and Rabada wrecks havoc.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
I've said this before and I get crucified for it.

I think Miller is a way better batsman than any of the other bowling all rounders and definitely had the potential to be a quality batsman.

I also don't think he was quite the batsman many think he was. An average of 24 in England and almost half his hundreds coming in one test series doesn't exactly inspire me.

I'm not sure how he goes in that WTC final with the bat.

With the ball, it's his wpm, but also the s/r a bit as well. Again, especially in and vs England.

Give SA McGrath and he and Rabada wrecks havoc.
Click to expand...
McGrath is better than either.

Regardless, nothing really wrong with his record, he averages low in England but there are very little batman who would be able to make runs in the England of the 1950s, Harvey was their best batsmen and he managed 32 in the 1950s, it all comes down really to the wickets.

Miller outside England averaged 40, he is an upgrade over almost any #6 in the world, he was better at batting than Cameron Green (so far) and Beau Webster from that final, he was also better than Wiaan Mulder from what I can tell, arguably better than current Stubbs too. He makes either of those teams with the bat, and at that point you have five bowling options, not four.

that kind of is the thing with Miller, he can bat 5 or 6 without any drop in quality for 99% of the teams, but he can also come out and open the bowling and bowl on par with Lindwall as he did for years, giving you a frontline paceman, now the 4th seamer can be someone of specialist class rather than a Wiann Mulder, Josh Tongue, Nitish Kumar Reddy, Mitchell Marsh or Beau Webster. He is more than just his stats
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top