What's new

Tribute on Keith Miller's 100 birthday - Where did he rank amongst the best all-rounders?

Harsh Thakor

First Class Star
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Runs
3,519
Post of the Week
2
Exactly 100 years a genius of the cricketing fraternity was born.Few sportsman ever sparkled such fragrance or were ever as explosive on a cricket field as Miller,who was an embodiment of grace and hostility personified.He could turn a game 360 degrees in just a few moments like a sudden attack of a bomber on an airbase.His cavalier cricketing style was a trademark of his day which none else posessed He had great attacking flair with the bat taking domination of bowling to its ultimate zenith and combined incredible speed,bounce and movement with the ball to break the ribcage of the strongest of batting lineups.He was also amongst Cricket's most good-looking men with a suave or debonair appearance like a Hollywood star.Today on his birth centenary I am paying him the tribute the legend richly deserves.



Arguably no allrounder ever would be as attacking when his team was in the depths of despair or repair a sinking ship with such elan.Miller was an entertainer par excellence with the bat displaying the most majestic of strokes..From the shortest of run ups Miller could create lightning with a cricket ball with his short lifting delivery often unplayable.He was also a master on bowling a quick leg -break which could rip through the defence or armoury of the best of batsmen.Miller could extract pace from the slowest tracks and also deployed incredible variations of sped in addition to subtle or even disguised movement.He also was a great exponent of the bouncer ,but like a true sportsman never used it on the tail.At his best Miller resembled a python swooping in to attacki its prey as a fast bowler.



Fascinatingly he played a role as a fighter pilot in world war 2 serving for 169 squadron in England flying Beaufighter and Mosquito fighter-bombers.He was granted leave to play for Dulwich in United Kingdom,with cricket thus probably saving his life.Significantly he bestowed the same hostility in his cricketing years as he did as a fighter pilot.



Miller broke into the cricketing field made a spectacular 1st class debut for Victoria in 1938 scoring 181 versus Tasmania at the MCG.Thus he gave the great glimpses of his incredible talent with the bat.In his tset debit versus New Zealand in March 1946 he scored 30 runs and captured 2 wickets for 6 runs with Australia gaining a comprehensive innings victory.He made his Ashes debut in scintillating fashion scoring 79 and capturing 7 wickets for 60 runs enabling Australia to triumph by a staggering margin if an innings and 332 runs.At Adelaide in the same Ashes series he scored his 1st century with 141 not out .At Trent Bridge he captured 3-38 and 4-125 creating tremors in the batmen with his bouncers.Thus in his 1st Ashes series he averegaed 76.80 with the bat and 20.88 with the ball.



He was not at his best in the 1948 tour of England taking 13 scalps and averaging 26 with the bat.This caused his controversial sacking for the subsequent tour of South Africa in 1949-50.Ironically he joined the tour as a replacdement for injured players and performed on par.



In the 1950-51 Ashes series he topped the bating averages and also captured 17 wickets,including 2 five wicket hauls.

In the nest 3 test series at home against South Africa and away versus Australia Miller scored only once century at Lords in 1953 scoring just 114 run sin 8 remaining innings.

On his final ashes tour he achieved his first ever 10 wicket haul ion his career enabling Australia to secure their only test win of the series.



One of his most memorable performances were his dazzling and penetrating spell of 3 for 5 at MCG in an Ashes test in 1954 claiming Len Hutton,Bil Edrich and Denis Compton.In a subsequent test at Adelaide he was more lethal creating pandemomium in the English camp inducing them to 49-4 when chasing a meagre target of 94 runs to win,removing Hutton,Edrich,Cowdrey and May in successive overs.

His greatest bowling spell was in 1955 on Sydney Cricket ground when he blew apart South Australia for a record low of 27,capturing 7-12.



On Australia's maiden tour of West Indies in 1955 he hit 3 centuries and captured 20 wickets.He scored an unbeaten 147 at Kingston in the 1st test.







Keith Miller retired from test cricket with a haul of 10 wickets averaging 22.97 ,with 7 5 wicket hauls and scoring 2958 run with the bat at an average of 36.98, with 7 centuries.In first class cricket he scored 14183 runs ta 48.91 and captured 497 scalps at 22.31. When Miller performed to his potential, Australia usually won. Of the 55 Tests he played Australia won 31, which illustrates how strong the team was during that era, and Miller's contributions in those victories were immense: with the bat he averaged 43.39, and he scored four of his seven hundreds in those games; in contrast, in the nine Tests he played in that Australia lost, his average fell to a miserable 17, and he scored only one half-century in 18 innings.



Sadly Miller was never tested in One day cricket in which he may well have become the most outstanding of all the allrounders with his character.



In peak era in his first 11 tests Miller was statistically the best of all the allrounders averaging over 54 with the bat and less than 21 with the ball..For the major part of his career with both bat and ball he was statistically marginally overshadowed by Botham and Imran but one has to consider strike rate was much less in Miller's days and even playing conditions more challenging.Notable that even if Botham had far more staggering booty of runs and wickets Miller overshadowed him in terms of batting and bowling average.Imran bettered Miller statistically but could not turn the complexion of game or serise with both bat and ball as Miller did in peak period.On statistical merit Sobers is still the king at his peak while Kallis was a great batsmen and not at his best at both bat and ball as Miller in peak period.



On figures Miller would not match the stature of Sobers or Kallis or even Botham or Imran.However in my opinion as an all-rounder he was overall 2nd to only Garfield Sobers when taking into consideration his ability as a match-winner.No great fast bowler was as skilled with the bat and fast bowling all-rounders are greater match-winners than batting al-rounders.As a pure match-winner he may have even superseded Sobers.Kallis never posessed the impetuousity of Miller with both bat and ball,to turn the course of games.Botham may have been more explosive but to me was not the technical equal of Miller with the bat and ball nor as consistent.Statistically Imran and Miller are very similar in terms of average but unlike Imran Miller was at his best with both b at and ball unlike Imran who became a very good batsmen late in his career.Imran lacked the flamboyance of Miller with the bat even if he was technically sound.Miller had the most outstanding record as a match-winner than an all-rounder even if he was part of a very powerful team.Alan Davidson rates Keith Miller as the best all -rounder he saw as well as Richie Benaud. For sheer artistry no right-handed all-rounder was the equal of Miller.In the end the ranking is very subjective as conditions varied in different eras which makes it very complex to make an accurate statistical evaluation.



Cristopher Martin Jenkins ranks him at 16th pace amongst the best cricketers of all ,ahead of Botham,Kapil Dev and Jacques Kallis. and behind only Sobers and Imran.Geoff Armstrong even though a Australian himself ranks Miller at 34th place ,below Sobers.Imran,Hadlee,Botham and Kapil Dev,weighing the International impact.Very creditable that Cristopher Martin Jenkins and John Woodcock rank Miller as a cricketer ahead of stalwarts like George Headley,Dennis Lillee and even Brian Lara.In my view as a pure cricketer Imran may just shave Miller by a whisker because of his incredible contribution as a skipper.I would choose Miller amongst my 15 best cricketers of all time ,above even the greats like Wasim Akram.Conclusively such rankings are hypothetical as cricketers belonged to different eras.Miller would anyway win my vote amongst the 5 most entertaining cricketers ever.



Miller will be remembered as one of the supreme entertainers of the game and also for his devastating good looks which attracted many a women.He may be gone but his image shimmers for ever amongst cricket lovers like a star radiating for ever.



Statistics from cricinfo(S.Rajesh)


Keith Miller's Test career
Period Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM
First 11 Tests 599 54.45 1/ 3 27 20.85 1/ 0
Next 33 Tests 1685 32.40 3/ 9 100 21.77 3/ 0
Last 11 Tests 674 39.64 3/ 1 43 27.11 3/ 1
Career (55 Tests) 2958 36.97 7/ 13 170 22.97 7/ 1
 
Ian Chappell considers him the second greatest all rounder after Sobers.
 
Do you?Ahead of Botham and Kallis?

Can't compare him with Botham and Kallis. All of them played in different eras. Keith Miller played during a time way ahead of both the other two. But Botham and Kallis can certainly be compared because their eras weren't such wide apart.
 
I cant add any value to this thread, because i never saw the bloke play.
I doubt anyone on this forum has, maybe junaids.
So all in all, a silly thread, where posters are judging how good a player is that they never saw by simply looking at his stats.
Just plain out ridiculous!
 
I cant add any value to this thread, because i never saw the bloke play.
I doubt anyone on this forum has, maybe junaids.
So all in all, a silly thread, where posters are judging how good a player is that they never saw by simply looking at his stats.
Just plain out ridiculous!

History not relevant to game of cricket.Did everyone see Bradman or Sobers or in this generation Viv Richards?
 
Without fail do contribute to this thread cherishing your views [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] [MENTION=139595]Ab Fan[/MENTION]

@Freelance Cricketer [MENTION=538]bilal[/MENTION]
 
History not relevant to game of cricket.Did everyone see Bradman or Sobers or in this generation Viv Richards?
I saw king viv and he was the greatest batsman of all time as far as i am aware.
Bradman, sobers before my time, nothing i can say will.be relevant, because i didnt see them play.
Stats were never meant for comparison over the decades of different players.
Stats were just meant as personal records of achievements of players, nothing more.
 
What about Imran?

Statistically very similar. However, he never truly lead an attack for a long period of time like Imran did due to his back. Imran definitely achieved more, but Miller never really took the game seriously due to his perspectives from the war
 
I saw king viv and he was the greatest batsman of all time as far as i am aware.
Bradman, sobers before my time, nothing i can say will.be relevant, because i didnt see them play.
Stats were never meant for comparison over the decades of different players.
Stats were just meant as personal records of achievements of players, nothing more.

This is a very knowledgeable bloke over at cricketweb called JBMac who has seen Bradman and views him as incomparable. Everybody who saw Bradman, who also saw greats like Sobers, Chappell, Viv, Pollock and Barry view him as the greatest by a huge margin
 
I saw king viv and he was the greatest batsman of all time as far as i am aware.
Bradman, sobers before my time, nothing i can say will.be relevant, because i didnt see them play.
Stats were never meant for comparison over the decades of different players.
Stats were just meant as personal records of achievements of players, nothing more.

OP does not only talk about stats. There are other things as well.
 
I’d say he was better than Botham. As good a batter, as good a fielder, but properly quick.

Perhaps the most natural player ever. He would drop his bowling marker at seven, eight or nine paces and say “That will do for today”. Hutton said he was scarier to face than the great Lindwall at the other end.

Ended up with 170 test wickets but who knows how many he might have had if the war had not curtailed him?

Batted at five in a very powerful line. Would have walked in for his batting alone. Lavish natural ability.

Utterly unfazed by pressure due to his combat flying experience.

He was top all-rounder in history until Sobers. I will put him a smidge behind Imran because Nugget didn’t much like bowling and Imran would bowl fast all day.

1. Sobers
2. Kallis
3. Imran
4. Miller
5. Botham
6. Kapil
 
Last edited:
I’d say he was better than Botham. As good a batter, as good a fielder, but properly quick.

Perhaps the most natural player ever. He would drop his bowling marker at seven, eight or nine paces and say “That will do for today”. Hutton said he was scarier to face than the great Lindwall at the other end.

Ended up with 170 test wickets but who knows how many he might have had if the war had not curtailed him?

Batted at five in a very powerful line. Would have walked in for his batting alone. Lavish natural ability.

Utterly unfazed by pressure due to his combat flying experience.

He was top all-rounder in history until Sobers. I will put him a smidge behind Imran because Nugget didn’t much like bowling and Imran would bowl fast all day.

1. Sobers
2. Kallis
3. Imran
4. Miller
5. Botham
6. Kapil

Why Kallis above Miller ?
 
I’d say he was better than Botham. As good a batter, as good a fielder, but properly quick.

Perhaps the most natural player ever. He would drop his bowling marker at seven, eight or nine paces and say “That will do for today”. Hutton said he was scarier to face than the great Lindwall at the other end.

Ended up with 170 test wickets but who knows how many he might have had if the war had not curtailed him?

Batted at five in a very powerful line. Would have walked in for his batting alone. Lavish natural ability.

Utterly unfazed by pressure due to his combat flying experience.

He was top all-rounder in history until Sobers. I will put him a smidge behind Imran because Nugget didn’t much like bowling and Imran would bowl fast all day.

1. Sobers
2. Kallis
3. Imran
4. Miller
5. Botham
6. Kapil

Was not Miller a greater match winner than Kallis and better performer with both bat and ball?
 
I’d say he was better than Botham. As good a batter, as good a fielder, but properly quick.

Perhaps the most natural player ever. He would drop his bowling marker at seven, eight or nine paces and say “That will do for today”. Hutton said he was scarier to face than the great Lindwall at the other end.

Ended up with 170 test wickets but who knows how many he might have had if the war had not curtailed him?

Batted at five in a very powerful line. Would have walked in for his batting alone. Lavish natural ability.

Utterly unfazed by pressure due to his combat flying experience.

He was top all-rounder in history until Sobers. I will put him a smidge behind Imran because Nugget didn’t much like bowling and Imran would bowl fast all day.

1. Sobers
2. Kallis
3. Imran
4. Miller
5. Botham
6. Kapil

Surprise you put Kallis so high. First time I saw you rating a modern era player higher over the previous generations player.
 
Among top 5 AR in cricket history.
1. Sobers (best batting AR)
2. Imran Khan (best bowling AR)
3. Kallis (2nd best batting AR)
4. Miller (2nd best bowling AR)
5. Bothom (best peak AR)
 
If he played today he wouldn’t be any better than Stokes.
 
If he played today he wouldn’t be any better than Stokes.

I don’t think he would be a better batsman and fielder than Stokes. I think he would be a much better bowler. He was getting the new ball ahead of world class guys like Johnston and Davidson. Stokes has had to work very hard bowling for limited returns, while Miller could blow away England and WI seemingly without trying. If he had a weakness, it was that cricket was just too easy for him.
 
Last edited:
If he played today he wouldn’t be any better than Stokes.

Significantly better than stokes. Best bowling allrounder after Imran. Stokes hasn't been a genuine matchwinner really at all with the ball, and has been quite inconsistent with the bat, shown by his mid-thirties average.
 
Very, very ignorant

Keith Miller was a folk hero, he played in the post-war years when the public needed someone to help them forget the horrors of the time. He was a brilliant cricketer and a flamboyant personality, and his legend was helped no less (usually by himself) by apocryphal tales about his role in the war.

Nonetheless, fact remains he played against one serious opponent and a couple of minnows. Despite all the excuses forwarded by Richie Benaud and Ian Chappell with respect to his larrikin attitude to batting, we don't have enough proof that Miller could succeed as a genuine batsman in international cricket in a different era. I'm just not sure about his actual legacy as a pure cricketer, as fact tends to dissolve effortlessly with legend because of his larger than life persona.

I actually feel that Ben Stokes is the closest equivalent to a modern day Keith Miller, someone who plays for the team first and foremost, without actual regard for statistics. I can readily imagine Miller bowling 15 overs unchanged at full tilt and then returning the next morning to hit a matchwinning century for his team in a high profile game.
 
Again, I’d remind everyone that there are three types of all-rounder:

1. Batting all-rounders like Sobers and Kallis. And Ben Stokes.

2. Bowling all-rounders like Hadlee and Pollock.

3. Balanced all-rounders like Imran, Kapil Dev and Botham.

Miller falls in the third category - the players who are most skilled in BOTH dimensions.

I’d put Miller level with Imran, marginally ahead of Mike Procter.

Botham was the same level in 1978-1981, but then his bowling fell away. Kapil Dev is a little further behind.
 
Keith Miller was a folk hero, he played in the post-war years when the public needed someone to help them forget the horrors of the time. He was a brilliant cricketer and a flamboyant personality, and his legend was helped no less (usually by himself) by apocryphal tales about his role in the war.

Nonetheless, fact remains he played against one serious opponent and a couple of minnows. Despite all the excuses forwarded by Richie Benaud and Ian Chappell with respect to his larrikin attitude to batting, we don't have enough proof that Miller could succeed as a genuine batsman in international cricket in a different era. I'm just not sure about his actual legacy as a pure cricketer, as fact tends to dissolve effortlessly with legend because of his larger than life persona.

I actually feel that Ben Stokes is the closest equivalent to a modern day Keith Miller, someone who plays for the team first and foremost, without actual regard for statistics. I can readily imagine Miller bowling 15 overs unchanged at full tilt and then returning the next morning to hit a matchwinning century for his team in a high profile game.

He had a larrikin attitude at times but was also very correct - good enough to bat at #4 in the Invincibles side ahead of Brown and Hassett. He would argue with Bradman, feeling that the skipper was batting too slow, and swing the bat to try to accellerate the scoring.

He played against England, SA and WI as well as relative minnows India and NZ. Pakistan were never really minnows as they started winning very quickly.

It's true that part of his appeal was that he was an ad man's dream - 6'2" and big shouldered, which was impressive in those postwar austerity days - and movie star handsome, a ladies' man decades before Imran's playboy days. Supposedly had an affair with Princess Margaret. He was an icon of health and joyfulness in a hard age.
 
Again, I’d remind everyone that there are three types of all-rounder:

1. Batting all-rounders like Sobers and Kallis. And Ben Stokes.

2. Bowling all-rounders like Hadlee and Pollock.

3. Balanced all-rounders like Imran, Kapil Dev and Botham.

Miller falls in the third category - the players who are most skilled in BOTH dimensions.

I’d put Miller level with Imran, marginally ahead of Mike Procter.

Botham was the same level in 1978-1981, but then his bowling fell away. Kapil Dev is a little further behind.

Great analysis So Miller overall on par with Sobers and Kallis or below?I still feel Miller and Imran were basically in the category of fast bowling allrounders or even Kapil Dev and Botham.Compare bowling performances to batting and you will notice the difference with all excelling considerably more with the ball.Where would you rank Procter?
 
Keith Miller was a folk hero, he played in the post-war years when the public needed someone to help them forget the horrors of the time. He was a brilliant cricketer and a flamboyant personality, and his legend was helped no less (usually by himself) by apocryphal tales about his role in the war.

Nonetheless, fact remains he played against one serious opponent and a couple of minnows. Despite all the excuses forwarded by Richie Benaud and Ian Chappell with respect to his larrikin attitude to batting, we don't have enough proof that Miller could succeed as a genuine batsman in international cricket in a different era. I'm just not sure about his actual legacy as a pure cricketer, as fact tends to dissolve effortlessly with legend because of his larger than life persona.

I actually feel that Ben Stokes is the closest equivalent to a modern day Keith Miller, someone who plays for the team first and foremost, without actual regard for statistics. I can readily imagine Miller bowling 15 overs unchanged at full tilt and then returning the next morning to hit a matchwinning century for his team in a high profile game.

It is not all bout statistics.Miller was far more artistic overall and turned more games with both bat and ball.Compare performances in wins .
 
Great analysis So Miller overall on par with Sobers and Kallis or below?I still feel Miller and Imran were basically in the category of fast bowling allrounders or even Kapil Dev and Botham.Compare bowling performances to batting and you will notice the difference with all excelling considerably more with the ball.Where would you rank Procter?

Imran started off as a medium pacer, became a fast bowler and then became a solid test batsman over time.

Miller was a cavalier test batsman in the first instance, who one day discovered that he could bowl fast. He didn't really like it though, which is weird because he was a natural at it.
 
Yep, I rank Sobers a little lower in all-rounder terms - I think he was an ATG batsman who could bowl multiple types of bowling quite well but none as well as a specialist.

Miller and Imran and Procter (and briefly Botham) were special because they could bat and bowl as well as a specialist. Kallis was close but his bowling wasn’t quite there.
 
Anyone trying to argue Ben Stokes is not every bit as good a cricketer as Keith Miller is either clueless or wilfully nostalgic.
 
Anyone trying to argue Ben Stokes is not every bit as good a cricketer as Keith Miller is either clueless or wilfully nostalgic.

I don’t think anyone on PP is old enough to have watched him play so nostalgia is not a factor. However, some refuse to acknowledge the greatness of some of the modern players because of certain factors. Stokes is definitely a great of the game and he will be remembered long after he is gone.
 
I don’t think anyone on PP is old enough to have watched him play so nostalgia is not a factor. However, some refuse to acknowledge the greatness of some of the modern players because of certain factors. Stokes is definitely a great of the game and he will be remembered long after he is gone.

No, it is well-documented that people can be nostalgic even for periods they didn't live through. It's sufficient to read or hear about such a period during your youth for one to lapse into imagined misty-eyed reminiscence. It's hankering for a lost time if you were. There are certain posters here that seem to revel in glorifying the past which leaves them blind to the present.
 
Anyone trying to argue Ben Stokes is not every bit as good a cricketer as Keith Miller is either clueless or wilfully nostalgic.

I think that Stokes bats and fields as well as Miller but the Australian’s bowling was on another planet. Hutton said he was even harder to face than Lindwall.
 
Anyone trying to argue Ben Stokes is not every bit as good a cricketer as Keith Miller is either clueless or wilfully nostalgic.

Ben Stokes is probably a better batsman but Miller was an accurate seam bowler who could open the bowling while Stokes is more of a part timer who bowls the odd decent spell here and there.
If it was easy why is Miller the only great all rounder pre Sobers in the first half century surely most players could’ve bowled and batted with equal success in test cricket.
 
Ben Stokes is probably a better batsman but Miller was an accurate seam bowler who could open the bowling while Stokes is more of a part timer who bowls the odd decent spell here and there.
If it was easy why is Miller the only great all rounder pre Sobers in the first half century surely most players could’ve bowled and batted with equal success in test cricket.

Wilfred Rhodes, FS Jackson.
 
Wilfred Rhodes, FS Jackson.

Stanley Jackson only took 24 wickets in test cricket in 20 matches while Rhodes wasn’t a great bowler or batsman but the first proper all rounder possibly in the history of test cricket?
 
My all rounder ranking:

Sobers: top 5 batsmen ever. Bowling is slightly overrated but still good
Imran: top 10 fast bowler ever. BAtting can be slightly overrated (people claiming that 50 average, someone like miller, botham with more hundreds would be considered better
Kallis: 10-15 as a batsmen. Good bowler. Does not have the x-factor and clutch ability others on this list have
Miller: Balanced. Good bowler but restricted by low WPM's (possibly caused by back, but this, like imran's diabetes is not an excuse). Good batsmen as well, shown by high no. of hundreds
Hadlee: top 5 bowler, batting not as good. Barely considered AR for me
Botham: for 5 year peak was the biggest matchwinner ever. If continued that for career would be top 3 player ever. Poor following this.

Then proctor, dev, stokes etc. Can't be bothered ranking these blokes
 
See my comment later. Stokes nowhere near as good a bowler

Cricket was a completely different sport in the 1950s. It was amateurish and the players were nowhere as fit as they are today. Moreover, the fast bowlers were medium pacers by today’s standards. There is absolutely no way any 1950 bowler bowled close to the 90 mph mark.

Furthermore, players today have to deal with a lot more pressure because they play a lot more games across all formats and have to face intense public scrutiny and expectations. Cricket was not a full-time job in the 50s and a lot of players had part-time jobs. Also, it is difficult to sustain good performances today because of all the analysis involved because of an overflow of information.

The 1950s had great cricketers like Miller, Weekes, Benaud, Laker, Walcott, Fazal, Harvey etc. etc., but if the 1950s world XI players the world XI of today, they will be obliterated.

It is not because they were bad cricketers, but because they are constrained by the limitations of the game and the limitations of technology during their time. It is like comparing the best car of the 50s to the best car of today.

If Stokes of today goes back to the 50s with the same skills, he will definitely average in the early 20s with the ball if not the teens. However, there is no way that the 50s Miller with the same skill set would average 23 with the ball. No chance.

Hence, it is pointless to compare averages across completely different eras. Cricket has come a long way and today it is nothing like the game back in the 50s.

Great players should be respected for what they achieve in their respective eras and thus, it is ultimately futile to compare players across drastically different generations. Miller deserves respect and recognition as a great of the game for what he achieved in his time. It is not necessary to have him belittled by forcing comparisons with modern cricketers.
 
Cricket was a completely different sport in the 1950s. It was amateurish and the players were nowhere as fit as they are today. Moreover, the fast bowlers were medium pacers by today’s standards. There is absolutely no way any 1950 bowler bowled close to the 90 mph mark.

There were no amateurs left by the 1950s. Everyone was getting paid to play cricket.

Yeah, they did. Larwood was at 90 mph in 1930. Look at where the slips stood to him. Consider the great Jesse Owens who was 90% as fast as Usain Bolt. Speeds have not gone up that much in ninety years. We are close to the human limit.

Humans are not cars, they are humans. Move Fangio into 2020 and he would beat everyone.
 
Last edited:
Cricket was a completely different sport in the 1950s. It was amateurish and the players were nowhere as fit as they are today. Moreover, the fast bowlers were medium pacers by today’s standards. There is absolutely no way any 1950 bowler bowled close to the 90 mph mark.

Furthermore, players today have to deal with a lot more pressure because they play a lot more games across all formats and have to face intense public scrutiny and expectations. Cricket was not a full-time job in the 50s and a lot of players had part-time jobs. Also, it is difficult to sustain good performances today because of all the analysis involved because of an overflow of information.

The 1950s had great cricketers like Miller, Weekes, Benaud, Laker, Walcott, Fazal, Harvey etc. etc., but if the 1950s world XI players the world XI of today, they will be obliterated.

It is not because they were bad cricketers, but because they are constrained by the limitations of the game and the limitations of technology during their time. It is like comparing the best car of the 50s to the best car of today.

If Stokes of today goes back to the 50s with the same skills, he will definitely average in the early 20s with the ball if not the teens. However, there is no way that the 50s Miller with the same skill set would average 23 with the ball. No chance.

Hence, it is pointless to compare averages across completely different eras. Cricket has come a long way and today it is nothing like the game back in the 50s.

Great players should be respected for what they achieve in their respective eras and thus, it is ultimately futile to compare players across drastically different generations. Miller deserves respect and recognition as a great of the game for what he achieved in his time. It is not necessary to have him belittled by forcing comparisons with modern cricketers.

Your the only one belittling mate. Not this stuff again.

https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/frank-tyson-one-of-the-fastest-ever-334137
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/quiet-man-dealt-in-terror-at-100mph-1592794.html

The main issue with this argument is Miller shared an era with Trueman, Sobers etc that shared an era with Chappell, Imran etc who shared an era with Waugh, Sachin etc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it important to compare players from different eras? Is it not enough to say that they were/are the best in whichever era they played in ?
 
This is an interesting one, there are five all rounders which are generally considered to be the best ever -

Sobers
Khan
Kallis
Botham
Dev
Hadlee

Usually in that order but it can be interchangeable. Having said that the likes of Miller, maybe Benaud and a few others are in discussion but they do not have the almost super human achievements of the others.
 
This is an interesting one, there are five all rounders which are generally considered to be the best ever -

Sobers
Khan
Kallis
Botham
Dev
Hadlee

Usually in that order but it can be interchangeable. Having said that the likes of Miller, maybe Benaud and a few others are in discussion but they do not have the almost super human achievements of the others.

Hadlee would not get into even the NZ side for his batting and therefore is not a true test AR.

You could say the same if Sobers’ bowling but he actually did get into WI as a slow bowler.
 
There were no amateurs left by the 1950s. Everyone was getting paid to play cricket.

Yeah, they did. Larwood was at 90 mph in 1930. Look at where the slips stood to him. Consider the great Jesse Owens who was 90% as fast as Usain Bolt. Speeds have not gone up that much in ninety years. We are close to the human limit.

Humans are not cars, they are humans. Move Fangio into 2020 and he would beat everyone.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iKaDqm-aMGc

This video clearly shows Larwood was an express bowler (1930’s) who’s top speeds are close to the fastest ever but why let the facts get in the way of presumed assumptions which is the case for older era critics.
 
People can argue about the eras, but let’s be frank here.

Every Test and ODI and T20 team in 2020 would kill to have a player like Keith Miller.

At worst his batting was comparable to Asad Shafiq, but combined with bowling very similar to Kagiso Rabada.

That’s an incredibly high standard: unlike Kallis, Sobers, Stokes and Hadlee BOTH his batting AND his bowling were good enough to be in the team as a specialist.
 
Hadlee would not get into even the NZ side for his batting and therefore is not a true test AR.

You could say the same if Sobers’ bowling but he actually did get into WI as a slow bowler.

That is plain silly.

A test standard all rounder does not have to get into a side JUST based on one discipline...kind of kills the idea of the all rounder doesn't it? For example, Stokes would not get into the England side on his bowling alone. I also don't think Kallis would have been a test quality bowler with his 30+ average, especially in a side like SA during the 90s and 00s which produced so many quality pace bowlers.

This is also why the truly upper tier of Khan and Sobers are so special...but that is me going off track.
 
Back
Top