Would Jacques Kallis and Imran Khan get more respect if they weren't all-rounders?

[OverratedSanity]

He got most of the runs vs them in the W.I at a time when the pitches were honestly pancake flat and Ramdin and Valentine were unfortunately overworked by that time and way past their collective best. He bowled well against us in Australia where he and Lindwall bowled leg theory while targeting Weekes in particular.

Miller was a great all rounder but unfortunately like Botham neither an ATG batsman or bowler. His bolwing average was great, but his WPM and s/r and percentage of 5 wickets hauls were just a touch below that level and he mainly just bowled short spurts with the new ball. Again great all rounder though.

I actually just spent an hour going through all of Miller's biggish scores with bat and ball, in an innings by innings list on cricinfo because I'm pathetic and have no life. It's actually quite remarkable how many times he turned a match around with a quick burst of wickets or some crucial runs. Incredible cricketer really, I may have been underrating him all this time. Also I never realized he has well over 50 runs a match. Imo, he's a much better batsman than Imran even though the averages don't show it, and Imran a much better bowler again, though the averages don't show it. There are definitely reasons I can find for picking Miller in my AT XI now. He produced the goods in both disciplines simultaneously a lot more than other all rounders, and he did it pretty much all throughouthis career.

And his country wise record isn't as lopsided as I thought. West indies, as people pointed out weren't that weak, especially their batting. And against England, Miller's performances were damn impressive with both bat and ball. Honestly I think he's a better all rounder in my mind than the likes of Kallis. Shouldering the burden of dual disciplines and actually delivering in both is what makes an all rounder great for me. And Miller probably did that more than anyone else (along with Sobers and maybe Botham)

 

[Red]

Miller began his career as a batsman, and it was Bradman who turned him into a fast bowling all rounder. But he was always a top 6 batsman.

His test batting average of 37 isn't flattering, but it should be remembered his FC batting average was near 50. I know everyone will say "he didn't cut it at the top level", but I think his FC average is far more indicative of his batting ability.

I've never had any doubt that if Miller played as a batsman in test cricket, he'd have averaged 50ish with the bat. He is the only opening bowler to have ever batted in the top 6 regularly (Botham and Sobers perhaps could be included in this)

 

[The Sean]

I actually just spent an hour going through all of Miller's biggish scores with bat and ball, in an innings by innings list on cricinfo because I'm pathetic and have no life. It's actually quite remarkable how many times he turned a match around with a quick burst of wickets or some crucial runs. Incredible cricketer really, I may have been underrating him all this time. Also I never realized he has well over 50 runs a match. Imo, he's a much better batsman than Imran even though the averages don't show it, and Imran a much better bowler again, though the averages don't show it. There are definitely reasons I can find for picking Miller in my AT XI now. He produced the goods in both disciplines simultaneously a lot more than other all rounders, and he did it pretty much all throughouthis career.

And his country wise record isn't as lopsided as I thought. West indies, as people pointed out weren't that weak, especially their batting. And against England, Miller's performances were damn impressive with both bat and ball. Honestly I think he's a better all rounder in my mind than the likes of Kallis. Shouldering the burden of dual disciplines and actually delivering in both is what makes an all rounder great for me. And Miller probably did that more than anyone else (along with Sobers and maybe Botham)

Good man. Welcome to the Brotherhood.

 

[Furball]

Miller began his career as a batsman, and it was Bradman who turned him into a fast bowling all rounder. But he was always a top 6 batsman.

His test batting average of 37 isn't flattering, but it should be remembered his FC batting average was near 50. I know everyone will say "he didn't cut it at the top level", but I think his FC average is far more indicative of his batting ability.

I've never had any doubt that if Miller played as a batsman in test cricket, he'd have averaged 50ish with the bat. He is the only opening bowler to have ever batted in the top 6 regularly (Botham and Sobers perhaps could be included in this)

Yep. Miller was a batting allrounder who underachieved in his primary discipline.

 

[Red]

Yep. Miller was a batting allrounder who underachieved in his primary discipline.

Kind of. I think he was a batsman, who was asked to be a fast bowler, did that and was great at it, but his batting suffered because of it.

 

[Red]

Let's keep in mind Shane Watson, who's held a spot in the Australian top 6 for over 50 tests, with a batting average of similar to Miller, but with nowhere near the bowling output.

I doubt we'll ever see a player who can average 45+ with the bat, and under 25 with the ball (taking 3 or for wickets per test).

Miller is as close as anyone can come to this imo

 

[kyear2]

I actually just spent an hour going through all of Miller's biggish scores with bat and ball, in an innings by innings list on cricinfo because I'm pathetic and have no life. It's actually quite remarkable how many times he turned a match around with a quick burst of wickets or some crucial runs. Incredible cricketer really, I may have been underrating him all this time. Also I never realized he has well over 50 runs a match. Imo, he's a much better batsman than Imran even though the averages don't show it, and Imran a much better bowler again, though the averages don't show it. There are definitely reasons I can find for picking Miller in my AT XI now. He produced the goods in both disciplines simultaneously a lot more than other all rounders, and he did it pretty much all throughouthis career.

And his country wise record isn't as lopsided as I thought. West indies, as people pointed out weren't that weak, especially their batting. And against England, Miller's performances were damn impressive with both bat and ball. Honestly I think he's a better all rounder in my mind than the likes of Kallis. Shouldering the burden of dual disciplines and actually delivering in both is what makes an all rounder great for me. And Miller probably did that more than anyone else (along with Sobers and maybe Botham)

As I said, he was a great All Rounder. The W.I. batting was very strong during that period and as he did destroy it in Australia where the conditions were more conducive than in the Caribbean and even in the West Indies only Walcott dominated him and Lindwall. He could have been a greater bowler if he really wanted to but I don't think he really enjoyed it.
As a batsman he was superior to Imran despite the similar average and again could have been much better with more application.
With regard to his rating as a genuine all rounder, for mine he is in a small group of Botham, Gilchrist, Sobers, MaCartney (etc) and himself who consistently bore the burden of two disciplines at an elite level.

 

[kyear2]

Kind of. I think he was a batsman, who was asked to be a fast bowler, did that and was great at it, but his batting suffered because of it.

It's an interesting argument, especially for even Sobers who bowled considerably more overs than Miller in Tests and FC cricket.

 

[viriya]

Let's keep in mind Shane Watson, who's held a spot in the Australian top 6 for over 50 tests, with a batting average of similar to Miller, but with nowhere near the bowling output.

I doubt we'll ever see a player who can average 45+ with the bat, and under 25 with the ball (taking 3 or for wickets per test).

Miller is as close as anyone can come to this imo

Aubrey Faulkner disagrees.

 

[kyear2]

I personally find Aubrey Faulkner's stats to be a tad misleading, but yea.

 

[akilana]

I actually just spent an hour going through all of Miller's biggish scores with bat and ball, in an innings by innings list on cricinfo because I'm pathetic and have no life. It's actually quite remarkable how many times he turned a match around with a quick burst of wickets or some crucial runs. Incredible cricketer really, I may have been underrating him all this time. Also I never realized he has well over 50 runs a match. Imo, he's a much better batsman than Imran even though the averages don't show it, and Imran a much better bowler again, though the averages don't show it. There are definitely reasons I can find for picking Miller in my AT XI now. He produced the goods in both disciplines simultaneously a lot more than other all rounders, and he did it pretty much all throughouthis career.

And his country wise record isn't as lopsided as I thought. West indies, as people pointed out weren't that weak, especially their batting. And against England, Miller's performances were damn impressive with both bat and ball. Honestly I think he's a better all rounder in my mind than the likes of Kallis. Shouldering the burden of dual disciplines and actually delivering in both is what makes an all rounder great for me. And Miller probably did that more than anyone else (along with Sobers and maybe Botham)

You went through his stats? Cricket isn't played on spreadsheet though.

 

[kyear2]

But to see how he performed how else would you do it?

 

[OverratedSanity]

You went through his stats? Cricket isn't played on spreadsheet though.

No. Try again. I went through an innings by innings list with accompanying scorecards showing what match situation he scored his runs/took wickets in and even went through match reports of some of those games which were generally gushing with praise for Miller. Slow weekend.

 

[kyear2]

Those Wisden comments for the matches are quite useful especially for the older matches where they is little or no video evidence.

 

[akilana]

I personally find Aubrey Faulkner's stats to be a tad misleading, but yea.

How is that anyone that is not your favourite has misleading stats?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Those Wisden comments for the matches are quite useful especially for the older matches where they is little or no video evidence.

Can be prone to hyperbole and inaccuracies, but in general yes, very useful,

 

[akilana]

But to see how he performed how else would you do it?

Stats can be misleading. Try watching videoes.

 

[kyear2]

How is that anyone that is not your favourite has misleading stats?

It's just my opinion.

When I looked at his career, when the pitch was helpful and scores low he performed with the ball but struggled with the bat, when the opposite was true he scored but hardly contributed with the ball. I could be wrong but that's from memory the last I checked.

But thanks for continuing to critique my every post.

 

[Riggins]

Stats can be misleading. Try watching videoes.

yeah there's great quality in 50s cricket videos. sheesh.

 

[kyear2]

yeah there's great quality in 50s cricket videos. sheesh.

Was going to respond, just didn't bother.