Who is the greater allrounder - Miller or Davidson?

A. C. de Silva

CRICKET: Cricketers who have fared well in Test matches in the past are easily not forgotten. They may have gone on to the land from where there is no return, but their deeds when they were very active in the game, cannot easily be forgotten.

Australia and England in the past have had a number of good allrounders whose deeds are spoken about even in the present day.

There have been some wordy arguments as to who is the greater all-rounder, Keith Miller or Alan Davidson? There are so many who love to live in the past, savouring their fond memories as they recall them, Australia have had many outstanding cricketers.

In the past, there was Trumper and Duff, let alone Bardsley and Collins? There was a batsman by the name of Don Bradman, who, often who was a whole batting side in himself, there was another - Stan McCabe, who had three of the Greatest Test innings. Another named Alan Kippax.

Two others named Brown and Fingleton who had some pretty tall-scoring opening partnerships in Tests and elsewhere and there was another capable cricketer in Chipperfield. O’Reilly was a bowling side in himself, and Oldfield was one of the best wicket-keepers ever.

One is not prepared to join a debate on the respective merits of the players, but on two individuals, like Miller and Davidson, there could be an opinion given because they were, in large degree, contemporary. Miller born on 28th November 1919, died on 11th October 2004.

In 55 Tests, Miller scored 2,958 runs with seven centuries. He took 170 wickets at an average of 20.7. In 44 Tests Davidson has scored 1,170 runs, with no centuries but 80 as his highest and gone over the half-century mark five times. He has taken 186 wickets, having bowled 11,587 balls for an average of 20.53.

Miller’s greatest bowling feat was at Lord’s in 1956 when he took 10 for 152. Davidson’s best was 12 for 124 against India in 1959-60 but perhaps his best all-round match was against the West Indies in the historic “tie” at Brisbane in 1961 when he took 11 for 222 and made 44 and 80.

Miller’s best all-round feats were 79 and 8 for 77 against England in 1946-47, 145 not out and 4 for 37 against England in 1950-51 and 109 and 8 for 165 against the West Indies in 1965. Miller played for both Victoria and N.S.W. in Shielf cricket and did well.

Both were magnificent fieldsmen, Davidson, taking some of the most sensational catches seen in Tests, Davidson pulled in such remarkable catches in the close-up position that he was known as “The Claw” but Miller, in slips, also took some phenomenal catches.

Figures can be misleading. If an opinion is to be given on the merits of the two great cricketers - and these two would have been great in any period of the game - it must be given on an assessment of what is remembered, of feats done against strength and at tough times, and on one’s own basis of what constitutes greatness.

In delivering 11,655 balls in Tests with the most rhythmic action when he was riding it high, the 14-stone left-hander Alan Davidson has travelled at least 264 miles.

In bowling more than 37,000 balls to take 679 wickets in first-class matches, he has covered nearly 850 miles.

“I’ve usually worn out four pairs of boots a season - mostly the uppers give way.”

Australian skipper at that time Richie Benaud some times helped him off with the sweater.

“Richie is the best captain I’ve played under,” Alan said.

Davo kept his most baffling balls for the finest batsmen. He dismissed 50 Test openers (in seven innings getting both of them).

Close to two-thirds of his 186 Test victims were in the top six of the batting order.

Keith Miller suffered from a war disability and sometimes wasn’t fit and very many times he did his bowling job when he was in pain. Davidson was too young for the war but he, too, often suffered from injuries.

He was much more injury-prone than Miller and if one were to judge which man was most likely to be on deck, to answer all calls, the vote would go to Miller. Davidson has often needed great lot of pushing by a man like Benaud to forget his ills and to get on with the job.

That is not against Davidson, but it is an important point in Miller’s favour. Davidson has come to the fore with some glorious innings. Miller was always a great batsman, even when he was bowling his dozens of overs, but it was only in later years that Davidson jumped ahead in batting.

These are two wonderful cricketers and one would ask as to why an opinion was sought on which one was the greater. From all accounts, Miller was some way in advance of Davidson as a bowler and a batsman.