Who was ahead between Imran Khan or Keith Miller as a pure all-rounder?

[Harsh Thakor]

Without doubt Keith Miller and Imran Khan were 2 of the greatest fast bowling allrounders of all time and match-winners.Both could be express fast with the ball at their best.Miller was however significantly more flamboyant with the bat and consistently more effective with both bat and ball .Imran certainly made a greater cricketing contribution than Miller or impact but that was mainly as a fast bowler or skipper and not an all-round cricketer.Imran became a very good batsmen late in his career but in his prime as fast bowler did not champion the cause so much with the bat.If I chose an allrounder at no 6 if I already had a captain then I may prefer Miller to Imran because of his flamboyance and ability with the bat.At no 8 I would prefer Imran because of his great prowess as a fast bowler.In pure all-round skill Miller was reminiscent of Ian Botham .If Miller captured 3-4 wickets I would back him to score a quickfire 50 more than Imran.In seperate parts Imran was ahead but in singe tests and series Miller was by a whisker the more genuine all-rounder excluding aspect of captaincy.In matches and series Miller had a better record with both bat and ball.Alan Davidson chose Miller as the absolute match-winner and so did Richie Benaud.Few players had as much a penchant for hitting sixes as Miller.In his time Miller also encountered some staggering oppostion playing against the strongest English sides.Overall as a cricketer or fast bowler Imran eclipsed him ,no doubt.Imran possibly had the penchant for playing more painstaking innings and producing more match-winning bowling skills.Overall by the slenderest margin I would choose Miller above Imran as a pure all-rounder.He has a good case of even ranking only 2nd to Sobers.Influenced greatly by Miller's performances with both bat and ball in West Indies in 1955 and the Ashes in 1950-51.One has to adjust his bowling strike rate in comparison with other later greats in accordance with his era.

Quoting A.G.Moyes "He always looks the complete batsmen when he takes the stance,,and often plays that way,for his cover drive came from the book,his hits for 6 left no doubts where the ball would go,while his forcing shots between mid-on and mid-wicket is a sight to make old men young.'

Alan Kippax stated"Very few batsmen I have watched have his rare ability to blend beauty and power."

Quoting ex-crickete r Ashley Mallet when ranking great allroundeers: " Second to Sobers, in terms of skill and an innate ability to perform when needed, was Keith Miller. Miller was right out of the Boy's Own Annual. He was a war hero and a supreme athlete with the sort of star quality we associate with stage and screen. In 55 Tests he hit 2958 runs at 36.97, with seven hundreds, and he took 170 wickets at an average of 22.97, with a career-best 7 for 60 among his seven bags of five wickets or more in an innings."

"Sir Leonard Hutton told me that the best bowler he ever faced was SF Barnes. Barnes was 62, Hutton a boy of 16, but on the Test stage, Hutton said, "the most dangerous bowler was undoubtedly Keith Miller". He was just as likely to bowl a legbreak as he was a fast outswinger in his first over of a Test match. He batted and bowled on whim and the need of the side. If Australia were in trouble he lifted a few gears and got the job done. "

KEITH MILLER STATS BY S.RAJESH IN CRICINFO

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

Best Test bowlers between 1946 and 1956 (Qual: 100 wickets) Bowler Tests Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM
Jim Laker 30 134 21.46 7/ 3
Ray Lindwall 55 212 22.16 12/ 0
Keith Miller 55 170 22.97 7/ 1
Brian Statham 32 101 23.85 2/ 0
Bill Johnston 40 160 23.91 7/ 0
Alec Bedser 51 236 24.89 15/ 5

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.

With the ball, he was an even greater match-winner, and is one of only seven Australians who've taken more than 100 wickets at a sub-20 average in victories. All of his seven five-fors helped Australia win matches.

Best averages by Australian bowlers in wins (Qual: 100 wickets) Bowler Tests Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM
Clarrie Grimmett 20 143 17.60 15/ 6
Dennis Lillee 31 203 18.27 17/ 6
Richie Benaud 24 128 18.32 10/ 1
Ray Lindwall 33 138 19.13 8/ 0
Glenn McGrath 84 414 19.19 18/ 3
Garth McKenzie 18 112 19.49 9/ 3
Keith Miller 31 113 19.60 7/ 1

Miller had a special affinity for the West Indians: four of his seven Test hundreds and three of the seven five-fors came in the 10 Tests he played against them. In each of the two series versus West Indies, Miller achieved the double of 250 runs and 20 wickets, a feat that has only been accomplished 22 times against all opposition in Test history. Sobers and Ian Botham are the only ones to do this on three occasions, while Kapil Dev is the one player, apart from Miller, to do it twice.

In one of those Tests against West Indies, in Kingston, Miller took 6 for 107 in West Indies' first innings and scored 109, thus making him only the third Australian at the time to manage the double of a century and a five-for in the same match. Since then, Richie Benaud has been the only Australian to match the feat; he did it in 1958, which means it hasn't been achieved by an Australian in the last 52 years. The degree of difficulty of the task can be gauged from the fact that it's only been done 23 times in Tests; and of the four famous allrounders who played in the 1980s, neither Kapil nor Richard Hadlee achieved it in their entire careers.

IMRAN KHAN STATS BY S .RAJESH IN CRICINFO

Imran Khan's Test career Period Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM
Till Dec 1979 25 832 22.48 0/ 1 98 31.88 5/ 1
Jan 1980 to Dec 1988 48 2028 39.76 4/ 10 236 17.77 18/ 5
Jan 1989 onwards 15 947 72.84 2/ 7 28 33.53 0/ 0
Overall 88 3807 37.69 6/ 18 362 22.81 23/ 6

Top allrounders between 1980 and 1988 (Qual: 1500 runs, 100 wickets) Player Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s Wickets Average 5WI/ 10WM Diff in ave
Imran Khan 48 2028 39.76 4/ 10 236 17.77 18/ 5 21.99
Richard Hadlee 51 1987 31.04 2/ 10 284 19.03 28/ 7 12.01
Ian Botham 72 3989 34.38 10/ 19 255 31.83 15/ 2 2.55
Kapil Dev 72 3103 31.98 5/ 16 242 30.05 14/ 2 1.93
Ravi Shastri 61 2702 34.64 7/ 10 132 38.24 2/ 0 -3.60

In fact, extending this analysis to all Test cricket, only Sobers had a higher difference between batting and bowling averages (among those with at least 3000 runs and 200 wickets, and two wickets per Test). Jacques Kallis is the other allrounder who has more than 3000 runs and 200 wickets - and a huge difference between batting and bowling averages - but for much of his career Kallis has been a batsman who bowls a bit: his 266 wickets have come from 140 Tests, an average of less than two wickets per match.

Best allrounders in Tests (Qual: 3000 runs and 200 wkts; at least two wkts per Test) Player Tests Runs Average 100s Wickets Average 5WI Diff in ave
Garry Sobers 93 8032 57.78 26 235 34.03 6 23.75
Imran Khan 88 3807 37.69 6 362 22.81 23 14.88
Shaun Pollock 108 3781 32.31 2 421 23.11 16 9.20
Ian Botham 102 5200 33.54 14 383 28.40 27 5.14
Richard Hadlee 86 3124 27.16 2 431 22.29 36 4.87
Chris Cairns 62 3320 33.53 5 218 29.40 13 4.13
Kapil Dev 131 5248 31.05 8 434 29.64 23 1.41

In his pomp, not only was Imran the best allrounder, he was also the best bowler in the world. At a time when a connoisseur of fast bowling would have been spoilt for choice, for there were so many great ones going around, Imran was still the best of the lot with an average of 17.77 and a strike rate of less than 44 balls per wicket. Hadlee was next in line, with three West Indians following in their wake. The top six all averaged less than 25, which is also a telling commentary on the balance of power between bat and ball during that period.

Top bowlers in the world between 1980 and 1988 (Qual: 150 wickets) Bowler Tests Wickets Average Strike rate 5WI/ 10WM
Imran Khan 48 236 17.77 43.6 18/ 5
Richard Hadlee 51 284 19.03 47.0 28/ 7
Malcolm Marshall 58 297 20.20 44.7 18/ 3
Joel Garner 49 210 20.62 51.8 7/ 0
Michael Holding 45 184 23.38 50.3 9/ 1
Dennis Lillee 35 171 24.07 52.3 11/ 3

What's more surprising, though, is the sort of numbers Imran racked up as a batsman when his glory days as a bowler were over. He was technically sound and could play with the straightest of bats, and when he worked on his patience and temperament, the result was a batsman who could play long innings and adapt his game according to the needs of the hour. In the last five years of his career, Imran averaged 59.69 in 28 Tests, and four of his six Test hundreds came during this period. Among those who scored at least 1500 runs during this period, only New Zealand's Martin Crowe had a better average.

Admittedly, the average was boosted by the number of not-outs he notched up - 11 in 37 innings - but that further illustrates how difficult he was to dismiss during the last years of his Test career. Even Javed Miandad had a lower average, though he scored almost 1000 more runs than Imran.

Highest batting averages between Jan 1, 1987 and Jan 6, 1992 (Qual: 1500 runs) Batsman Tests Runs Average 100s/ 50s
Martin Crowe 24 2186 60.72 8/ 8
Imran Khan 28 1552 59.69 4/ 9
Graham Gooch 32 3282 55.62 8/ 18
Andrew Jones 20 1703 54.93 5/ 6
Javed Miandad 35 2512 54.60 8/ 10
Mark Taylor 28 2565 53.43 7/ 17
Robin Smith 28 2118 52.95 6/ 15
Shoaib Mohammad 32 2175 50.58 7/ 8

 

[ExpressPacer]

Miller played good cricket but at a time when countries like Pakistan, India, New Zealand barely took it seriously.

 

[Bilal7]

Imran Khan is the greatest all-rounder of all time and greatest cricketer from Asia. That is all one needs to know.

 

[Cric1234]

Imran Khan is the greatest all-rounder of all time and greatest cricketer from Asia. That is all one needs to know.

The greatest bowling all rounder ahead of Miller Botham Hadlee and others but the best batting all rounder is Sobers marginally ahead of Kallis that's a better way of saying it.

 

[Ab Fan]

Imran khan

 

[Bilal7]

The greatest bowling all rounder ahead of Miller Botham Hadlee and others but the best batting all rounder is Sobers marginally ahead of Kallis that's a better way of saying it.

Imran was a better test player than Sobers and Kallis, as well. Sobers had a bowling SR of 92, which is horrible, and Kallis averaged around one wicket per innings.
Not to mention Imran's captaincy and ODI exploits, which definitely propel him to the top of the list.

 

[Buffet]

Pure all rounder ? I take it that it means bringing your A game in both at the same time and make impact with both skills. Miller takes it.

 

[Cric1234]

Imran was a better test player than Sobers and Kallis, as well. Sobers had a bowling SR of 92, which is horrible, and Kallis averaged around one wicket per innings.
Not to mention Imran's captaincy and ODI exploits, which definitely propel him to the top of the list.

It's a tricky one Imran did well with the bat in the second half of his career but still is well short as a batsman compared to Sobers and Kallis as a bowler well ahead.
During his prime Imran averaged 19 with the ball and 50 with the bat Sobers 27 with the ball 60 with the bat either way not easy to make a call.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Imran was a better test player than Sobers and Kallis, as well. Sobers had a bowling SR of 92, which is horrible, and Kallis averaged around one wicket per innings.
Not to mention Imran's captaincy and ODI exploits, which definitely propel him to the top of the list.

Kallis had bowling avg of 32, would make Pakistani team as pacer where all bowlers have similar or more avg. However a batsman avg 36 won't make Pakistani batting line up easily.

 

[Cric1234]

Pure all rounder ? I take it that it means bringing your A game in both at the same time and make impact with both skills. Miller takes it.

Imran is a better bowler Miller is a bit behind overall.

 

[Robert]

I didn't know Sir Len put Nugget ahead of Lindy - that's interesting.

I would say that Miller was the most naturally skilled player ever. He bowled equally fast off seven, eight or nine steps, depending on how he felt on a given day. Would just drop his bowling marker at random and start off either foot.

Hard to say overall. Miller was a much more positive batter that Imran. A top order batter who pushed some excellent men down to #6. But he didn't really like bowling, while Imran would run in hard all day. I am inclined to say Imran, by a nose.

But then Miller gets massive kudos for being a combat fighter pilot and for that great quote about dealing with pressure.

.

 

[Cric1234]

I didn't know Sir Len put Nugget ahead of Lindy - that's interesting.

I would say that Miller was the most naturally skilled player ever. He bowled equally fast off seven, eight or nine steps, depending on how he felt on a given day. Would just drop his bowling marker at random and start off either foot.

Hard to say overall. Miller was a much more positive batter that Imran. A top order batter who pushed some excellent men down to #6. But he didn't really like bowling, while Imran would run in hard all day. I am inclined to say Imran, by a nose.

But then Miller gets massive kudos for being a combat fighter pilot and for that great quote about dealing with pressure.

.

Imrans era was more competitive overall that gives him the edge aswell.

 

[Bilal7]

Kallis had bowling avg of 32, would make Pakistani team as pacer where all bowlers have similar or more avg. However a batsman avg 36 won't make Pakistani batting line up easily.

It's not solely about the average. Kallis would bowl only a few overs every innings which helped him keep that average down. You wouldn't see him bowling 20-25 overs an innings.

Like I said, Kallis averaged around a wicket a innings, which is not befitting a pure bowler. Imran, improved him batting considerably and averaged 50 during his peak, while also averaging 19 with the ball. That is outstanding.

It's a tricky one Imran did well with the bat in the second half of his career but still is well short as a batsman compared to Sobers and Kallis as a bowler well ahead.
During his prime Imran averaged 19 with the ball and 50 with the bat Sobers 27 with the ball 60 with the bat either way not easy to make a call.

Yes, it is obvious that Sobers and Kallis are better than Imran with the bat, whereas Imran is much better with the ball. Which is why we have to compare their weaker skills and Imran comes out ahead.

 

[AlizeeFan]

It's not solely about the average. Kallis would bowl only a few overs every innings which helped him keep that average down. You wouldn't see him bowling 20-25 overs an innings.

Like I said, Kallis averaged around a wicket a innings, which is not befitting a pure bowler. Imran, improved him batting considerably and averaged 50 during his peak, while also averaging 19 with the ball. That is outstanding.



Yes, it is obvious that Sobers and Kallis are better than Imran with the bat, whereas Imran is much better with the ball. Which is why we have to compare their weaker skills and Imran comes out ahead.

You bring wickets per match for Kallis, while ignoring runs per inn for Imran. Even during his his avg of 50, Imran wasn't comparable to other top order bats having similar avg.

30 runs per inning for Imran is comparable to Kallis' 1 wicket per inning, however bat avg of 36 is not comparable to bowl avg of 32.
Comparing weaker skills Kallis is easily ahead.

 

[DRsohail]

[MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] here we need you..

 

[DRsohail]

You bring wickets per match for Kallis, while ignoring runs per inn for Imran. Even during his his avg of 50, Imran wasn't comparable to other top order bats having similar avg.

30 runs per inning for Imran is comparable to Kallis' 1 wicket per inning, however bat avg of 36 is not comparable to bowl avg of 32.
Comparing weaker skills Kallis is easily ahead.

soon [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] will answer your wuestions that how great imran was...

 

[DRsohail]

It's not solely about the average. Kallis would bowl only a few overs every innings which helped him keep that average down. You wouldn't see him bowling 20-25 overs an innings.

Like I said, Kallis averaged around a wicket a innings, which is not befitting a pure bowler. Imran, improved him batting considerably and averaged 50 during his peak, while also averaging 19 with the ball. That is outstanding.



Yes, it is obvious that Sobers and Kallis are better than Imran with the bat, whereas Imran is much better with the ball. Which is why we have to compare their weaker skills and Imran comes out ahead.

just tell them how much effort does it take to be a top class fast bowler and then a decent bat,,,maintaining fitness and managing workload is so defficult,,,kallis would have broken 7 to ten years earlier if he had the workload of imran.....

 

[MMHS]

soon [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] will answer your wuestions that how great imran was...

OP has given enough explanation for those who can see. Regarding Miller's batting, he was quite good actually, but his stats are massively inflated by one series against WI. Still, he didn't bash minnows like Sobers to puff up stats.

Truly a remarkable all-rounder, probably 2nd best after Imran.

 

[DRsohail]

OP has given enough explanation for those who can see. Regarding Miller's batting, he was quite good actually, but his stats are massively inflated by one series against WI. Still, he didn't bash minnows like Sobers to puff up stats.

Truly a remarkable all-rounder, probably 2nd best after Imran.

if op was gonna prove that both were batter all rounder than imran then i would not even see it...what about kallis??

 

[squarecut]

Someone here will prove that Imran Khan was better because he had a world cup title to his name whereas Miller did not have.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Sobers' strike rate of 92 was not because he was a bad bowler, it was a product of his generation when spin bowlers were made to bowl very negatively and defensively. Here are strike rates of some of the other top bowlers of that era:

Lance Gibbs: 88
Bishen Bedi: 80
Richie Benaud: 77

In general strike rates were very high that decade and only England had pitches extremely conducive to spin. Sobers strike rate in that context is acceptable.

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Imran is the greatest cricketer to ever grace this great game ~ No one even comes close tbh.

 

[khurram39]

ATG Imran Khan

 

[Robert]

Imran, improved him batting considerably and averaged 50 during his peak, while also averaging 19 with the ball. That is outstanding.

This again?

Imran got five test centuries in that 60 test "peak". That is not outstanding. Twelve to fifteen centuries in sixty tests in those days would have been outstanding, like Richards, Miandad and Border. You have to look at the actual run aggregate. Imran had a very high proportion of not outs which artificially inflated his average.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Still, he didn't bash minnows like Sobers to puff up stats.

Lol myth

 

[tandapanii]

Imran was clearly the better all rounder. I do not understand all the recent hype Miller has been getting after some articles appeared on cricinfo a few years ago. The four greats of the 80s and Sobers, along with Kallis, have always and should always be ranked higher.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Imran was clearly the better all rounder. I do not understand all the recent hype Miller has been getting after some articles appeared on cricinfo a few years ago. The four greats of the 80s and Sobers, along with Kallis, have always and should always be ranked higher.

please respect the era of Miler and impact.Do read what great players write about him just like they do of Vinoo Mankad.particularl;y Alan Davidson,Len Hutton and Denis Compton.

 

[shaz619]

This again?

Imran got five test centuries in that 60 test "peak". That is not outstanding. Twelve to fifteen centuries in sixty tests in those days would have been outstanding, like Richards, Miandad and Border. You have to look at the actual run aggregate. Imran had a very high proportion of not outs which artificially inflated his average.

Am not sure if the number of hundreds is a useful metric for an A/R compared to average unless they bat in the top or middle order because there are only so many oppourtunities to get the 3 digits, for example Mo doesnt have as many hundreds as Joe Root but he has played some very handy innings at the bottom regardless.

 

[tandapanii]

please respect the era of Miler and impact.Do read what great players write about him just like they do of Vinoo Mankad.particularl;y Alan Davidson,Len Hutton and Denis Compton.

Do you read what great players write and say about Imran Khan?

 

[MMHS]

Lol myth

Check stats and use common sense. 50 years later, Sanga's 311* at Chittagong might not look against minnows.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Check stats and use common sense. 50 years later, Sanga's 311* at Chittagong might not look against minnows.

There were no minnows in Sobers' era. None.

Australia and England had two of the greatest teams in their entire history with powerful bowling lineups. India had the spin quartet. Pakistan had Fazal and Khan Mohammad,who were our first great seam bowlers. People think our entire cricket history began with Imran but I suggest you read up on the Fazal-Khan combo. They were a match winning bowling combination who beat every team of that era atleast once. They even beat Australia and England twice in that era. So no, there were no minnows.

 

[MMHS]

There were no minnows in Sobers' era. None.

Australia and England had two of the greatest teams in their entire history with powerful bowling lineups. India had the spin quartet. Pakistan had Fazal and Khan Mohammad,who were our first great seam bowlers. People think our entire cricket history began with Imran but I suggest you read up on the Fazal-Khan combo. They were a match winning bowling combination who beat every team of that era atleast once. They even beat Australia and England twice in that era. So no, there were no minnows.

Again, I say check stats, a bit minutely.

For example, start with 365*, 125, 109* and look at the bowling charts. Spin quartet sounds good, until you look as series by series - may be you can start from 1970-71 or say 1958 series or 1962 series. Or say his English tours till Truman, Laker & Statham were playing .......



I was expecting a little better from you to back your "lol", have to say you disappointed me. Expecting better from someone with such confidence.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Again, I say check stats, a bit minutely.

For example, start with 365*, 125, 109* and look at the bowling charts. Spin quartet sounds good, until you look as series by series - may be you can start from 1970-71 or say 1958 series or 1962 series. Or say his English tours till Truman, Laker & Statham were playing .......



I was expecting a little better from you to back your "lol", have to say you disappointed me. Expecting better from someone with such confidence.

You called them minnows. They were not. Don't try and act all high and mighty pointing to individual series now. Your original post was bad.

 

[MMHS]

You called them minnows. They were not. Don't try and act all high and mighty pointing to individual series now. Your original post was bad.

What individual series - I am talking about every series against IND between 1958 to 1970 and you were talking about spin quartet.......... then about trash, lol ......... indeed you can do better.

IND definitely and PAK as well were as minnows as ZIM had been in 1990s or BD even now. 1/2 Test win doesn't make much difference - ZIM won Tests & Series against PAK & IND in 90s. What makes them minnow that time was the lack of depth - few individuals were indeed great, but take out those, PAK/IND wasn't far ahead of a County side. That's true even now actually - arguably Shakib, Tamim will make 16 men world XI, but after them hardly anything left.

Leave the minnow part, otherwise you'll educate me on Fazal Mahmood - is there any other explanation why he averages 43 against AUS, and 83 against IND, 90 against PAK? May be he didn't like their skin color.

Or for that matter, till 1963 his English tour average was 32 ('57), 40 ('63) ... then 103 ('66), 77 ('73) - may be he didn't like the skin color of Truman, Laker & Statham either who retired before 1966 Wisden trophy.

This is one debate I don't want to get engaged - Sobers was an outstanding individual for the then time when the 2nd best all-rounder was Intekhab Alam or Trevor Bailey and he batted in an era when RR of 2.5 was like T20, but everything touching him was blown out of proportion - therefore individual series has to come in to equation, for those who can relate.

 

[DRsohail]

You called them minnows. They were not. Don't try and act all high and mighty pointing to individual series now. Your original post was trash.

i think in his 365 our two main weapon were inured on that docile pitch as the scorecard snd some of the expert suggest,,,

 

[The_Odd_One]

As a pure all-rounder, I will pick Miller.

 

[Robert]

Am not sure if the number of hundreds is a useful metric for an A/R compared to average unless they bat in the top or middle order because there are only so many oppourtunities to get the 3 digits, for example Mo doesnt have as many hundreds as Joe Root but he has played some very handy innings at the bottom regardless.

Moeen doesn't get as many hundreds because he isn't such a good batsman as Root.

I saw a lot of Imran. He was a competent test batter, about as good as Mudassar or Qasim Omar. People use a cherry picked stat to make it look like he was as good as Miandad and Border. He wasn't.

 

[Robert]

There were no minnows in Sobers' era. None.

Australia and England had two of the greatest teams in their entire history with powerful bowling lineups. India had the spin quartet. Pakistan had Fazal and Khan Mohammad,who were our first great seam bowlers. People think our entire cricket history began with Imran but I suggest you read up on the Fazal-Khan combo. They were a match winning bowling combination who beat every team of that era atleast once. They even beat Australia and England twice in that era. So no, there were no minnows.

Good point. Pakistan were never minnows. They started beating good sides immediately.

 

[Sidilicious]

My ranking for an AR delivering at the same time is

Keith Miller
Gary Sobers
Ian Botham
Imran Khan

Why?
Keith Miller played in 55 tests, out of which in 14 of those he scored at least 50 runs and took 3 wickets. Approx 25% of test matches. In any 10 consecutive test match period, Miller averaged (not batting average) at least 50 runs per test and 3 wickets per test at the same time on 24 occasions (out of possible 46 such outcomes). Thats 52% of the time, Miller contributed with the bat and ball at the same time.

Gary Sobers played in 93 tests, out of which in 18 of those he scored at least 50 runs and took 3 wickets. Approx 19% of test matches. In any 10 consecutive test match period, Sobers averaged (not batting average) at least 50 runs per test and 3 wickets per test at the same time on 35 occasions (out of possible 84 such outcomes). Thats 42% of the time, Sobers contributed with the bat and ball at the same time.

Ian Botham played in 102 tests, out of which in 20 of those he scored at least 50 runs and took 3 wickets. Approx 19% of test matches. In any 10 consecutive test match period, Botham averaged (not batting average) at least 50 runs per test and 3 wickets per test at the same time on 39 occasions (out of possible 93 such outcomes). Thats 42% of the time, Botham contributed with the bat and ball at the same time.

Imran Khan played in 88 tests, out of which in 14 of those he scored at least 50 runs and took 3 wickets. Approx 16% of test matches. In any 10 consecutive test match period, Khan averaged (not batting average) at least 50 runs per test and 3 wickets per test at the same time on 7 occasions (out of possible 79 such outcomes). Thats 9% of the time, Khan contributed with the bat and ball at the same time. Thats why Khan falls below Miller, Sobers and Botham while contributing at the same time.

The difference where Imran Khan as done well, is in those 7 instances of 10 consecutive tests when he contributed with the bat and the ball, his average difference between Bat and ball was the highest. 3 times that of Botham, and twice that of Miller.

But Sobers does equally well as Imran Khan in the average difference during the period he contributed with the bat and the ball at the same time. The difference being, Sobers did it over 40% of his career, whereas Imran Khan did only around 9% of his career. And thats why Sobers is considered the greatest allrounder ever!

 

[Harsh Thakor]

My ranking for an AR delivering at the same time is

Keith Miller
Gary Sobers
Ian Botham
Imran Khan

Why?
Keith Miller played in 55 tests, out of which in 14 of those he scored at least 50 runs and took 3 wickets. Approx 25% of test matches. In any 10 consecutive test match period, Miller averaged (not batting average) at least 50 runs per test and 3 wickets per test at the same time on 24 occasions (out of possible 46 such outcomes). Thats 52% of the time, Miller contributed with the bat and ball at the same time.

Gary Sobers played in 93 tests, out of which in 18 of those he scored at least 50 runs and took 3 wickets. Approx 19% of test matches. In any 10 consecutive test match period, Sobers averaged (not batting average) at least 50 runs per test and 3 wickets per test at the same time on 35 occasions (out of possible 84 such outcomes). Thats 42% of the time, Sobers contributed with the bat and ball at the same time.

Ian Botham played in 102 tests, out of which in 20 of those he scored at least 50 runs and took 3 wickets. Approx 19% of test matches. In any 10 consecutive test match period, Botham averaged (not batting average) at least 50 runs per test and 3 wickets per test at the same time on 39 occasions (out of possible 93 such outcomes). Thats 42% of the time, Botham contributed with the bat and ball at the same time.

Imran Khan played in 88 tests, out of which in 14 of those he scored at least 50 runs and took 3 wickets. Approx 16% of test matches. In any 10 consecutive test match period, Khan averaged (not batting average) at least 50 runs per test and 3 wickets per test at the same time on 7 occasions (out of possible 79 such outcomes). Thats 9% of the time, Khan contributed with the bat and ball at the same time. Thats why Khan falls below Miller, Sobers and Botham while contributing at the same time.

The difference where Imran Khan as done well, is in those 7 instances of 10 consecutive tests when he contributed with the bat and the ball, his average difference between Bat and ball was the highest. 3 times that of Botham, and twice that of Miller.

But Sobers does equally well as Imran Khan in the average difference during the period he contributed with the bat and the ball at the same time. The difference being, Sobers did it over 40% of his career, whereas Imran Khan did only around 9% of his career. And thats why Sobers is considered the greatest allrounder ever!

A brilliant analysis and post.congrats.In spirit of sport.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

This again?

Imran got five test centuries in that 60 test "peak". That is not outstanding. Twelve to fifteen centuries in sixty tests in those days would have been outstanding, like Richards, Miandad and Border. You have to look at the actual run aggregate. Imran had a very high proportion of not outs which artificially inflated his average.

I agree.Morally his batting is overrated here.He was not out on many an occasion and not as flamboyant or atcaking as the best of them.His run aggregate is significantly below Sobers ,Kallis,Botham or Kapil.Average has to be tallied with aggregate runs.As a batsmen both Botham and Miller could make more of an impact.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

It's a tricky one Imran did well with the bat in the second half of his career but still is well short as a batsman compared to Sobers and Kallis as a bowler well ahead.
During his prime Imran averaged 19 with the ball and 50 with the bat Sobers 27 with the ball 60 with the bat either way not easy to make a call.

It is not just a question of statistics.Morally Sobers was head and shoulders above everybody if you ***** game.Never forget Imran does not comparatively have a high run aggregate or equal Sobers, Miller or even Botham in performances with both ball and bat in a peak era.

 

[shaz619]

Moeen doesn't get as many hundreds because he isn't such a good batsman as Root.

I saw a lot of Imran. He was a competent test batter, about as good as Mudassar or Qasim Omar. People use a cherry picked stat to make it look like he was as good as Miandad and Border. He wasn't.

Within the confines of your ability, the higher you bat the more likely you are to get to 3 figures and often the lower order guys may not get there for obvious reasons but that doesn't mean pretty 50's-70's can not be useful knocks which change the course of the game, my point is for an A/R no. of hundreds is not as significant as average which is a better indication of useful contributions. A/R's do not always bat in the top or middle orders to have enough time to score hundreds all the time.

 

[squarecut]

Test cricket started in 1870s, not 1970s, and there have been great allrounders in test cricket even before Imran Khan.

Keith Miller, Sobers, Vinoo Mankad- these were considered the greatest all rounders of test cricket by the cricket experts of that era (1970s and before). One cannot write them off now just because most of posters here are too young and under informed about test cricket of the past.

 

[Cric1234]

It is not just a question of statistics.Morally Sobers was head and shoulders above everybody if you ***** game.Never forget Imran does not comparatively have a high run aggregate or equal Sobers, Miller or even Botham in performances with both ball and bat in a peak era.

If you talk about both bat and ball at the same time then yes but an average of 19 during his peak is ATG bowling in a more competitive era to Millers similar to Sobers 60 average during his peak which is ATG batting.

 

[Robert]

Within the confines of your ability, the higher you bat the more likely you are to get to 3 figures and often the lower order guys may not get there for obvious reasons but that doesn't mean pretty 50's-70's can not be useful knocks which change the course of the game, my point is for an A/R no. of hundreds is not as significant as average which is a better indication of useful contributions. A/R's do not always bat in the top or middle orders to have enough time to score hundreds all the time.

Ian Botham got fourteen of them, despite batting at #7 for half his career.

As I have pointed out, average can be distorted by a lot of not outs. The number of runs scored is more important.

 

[Sidilicious]

Within the confines of your ability, the higher you bat the more likely you are to get to 3 figures and often the lower order guys may not get there for obvious reasons but that doesn't mean pretty 50's-70's can not be useful knocks which change the course of the game, my point is for an A/R no. of hundreds is not as significant as average which is a better indication of useful contributions. A/R's do not always bat in the top or middle orders to have enough time to score hundreds all the time.

But what about the volume of runs? Botham, despite playing only 15 tests more scored 1400 runs more than IK. Which means Botham scored more runs from the same position as IK. And also towards the last 20 odd tests, didn't IK also bat from no.5/6?

 

[AlizeeFan]

Within the confines of your ability, the higher you bat the more likely you are to get to 3 figures and often the lower order guys may not get there for obvious reasons but that doesn't mean pretty 50's-70's can not be useful knocks which change the course of the game, my point is for an A/R no. of hundreds is not as significant as average which is a better indication of useful contributions. A/R's do not always bat in the top or middle orders to have enough time to score hundreds all the time.

By the time Botham batted in 127 innings, he had scored 4453 runs at avg of 36 with 13 centuries.

Compare that to Imran's 3807 runs in 126 innings at avg of 37 with 6 hundreds.

Botham batted at no 6 and Imran at no 7.

 

[Buffet]

The number of runs scored is more important.

Avg is not that useful if you don't score many runs, agree with that. You don't win matches based on average. Some one has to score runs and some one has to take wickets to win.

Having said that, I think average is pretty decent way to look for contribution by a top order batsman. For most top order batsmen, high average will mean lots of runs.

 

[shaz619]

Ian Botham got fourteen of them, despite batting at #7 for half his career.

As I have pointed out, average can be distorted by a lot of not outs. The number of runs scored is more important.

And had he batted higher he'd have more of an opportunity to score even more hundreds, but his individual contributions should not be generalised as a blue print for what is deemed an impactful innings because that can be one which isn't necessarily a hundred, hence the average is a better metric for me compared to the number of hundreds scored by lower order batsman as an indication of how good or bad they were, how you look at the influence of not outs is subjective but when we're looking at guys who are no mugs with the bat then there's an argument to be made that said not outs could have been converted to hundreds were they batting higher; and being unbeaten is hardly a bad thing, it can point to your batting pedigree.