• 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.

***Official*** New Zealand in South Africa

Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Athlai said:
He's actually averaged 50 since some point of his career (including Bangers and Zim though) which is fantastic, without as many N/O's as you may think, well earns his title as one of the best lower order test batsman in the world. Doesn't he have the best record at 8 or 9?

His bowling I feel suffers due to how he is heavily relied on to just bowl unassisted for so many overs. He's certainly useful but has lost of his wicket taking potency (though I'm sure if he wanted to leak a few more runs he could get it back, though NZ may suffer a little for it). I honestly believe Patel could do better, yet I feel both could in tandem, a very useful bowling partnership that could bowl for very long spells IMO.
Click to expand...
I think he's got the best average at #8 from everybody in history, but don't take my word for it. Do you have an innings by innings breakdown of Vettori's batting since 2005? Excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, naturally.

I've heard any number of different stories with regards to Vettori. Some complain he doesn't get to bowl enough, others say he is being used too much as a stock bowler, while others (myself included) purely and simply don't think he's that good. I'm a Jeetan Patel fan, and I know you are :p, but his selection in Test cricket wouldn't be justified unless he starts taking more wickest at domestic level. The chances of this happening aren't that flash because he's being taken into the Black Caps squad and not getting enough game time.
 
Matt52

Matt52

U19 Vice-Captain
Perm said:
There is a reason that Kyle Mills was our best ODI bowler before he got injured. He was accurate and economical and would pick up wickets because of this. That is the ideal combination, rather than somebody who might pick up wickets and be expensive (Franklin). Failing that, economical bowlers like Vettori are good too, and more useful than an expensive wicket-taking bowler.
Click to expand...
Yeah ofcourse mate , if youve got someone that takes wickets and is economical then he should be chosen. but Im of the opinion ( about your last sentence there) that you have to choose the bowling unit as a whole.. failing that , take a wicket taker over an economical guy anyday, if you have a guy that has the ability to take wickets then he can work on his economy rate, and with more experience , it will come down. Case in point Brett Lee.

But if a guy just bowls economically and doesnt have the ability to produce a wicket taking delivery then hes just waiting for the batsmen to make a mistake. It becomes a case of how well the opposition bat rather than how well we bowl.. sort of lost that ability to dictate the play. The opposition wont fear an attack with all economical bowlers , because theyll realise thier score is entirely in their hands. Theyll be a bit more confident..imo....

But another guy who may be expensive but can get a few wickets, the batsmen always have it in their mind that the next ball might be too good,

Also, youre never out of the game with wicket takers, the way our batting lineups going if we get some rubbish score of 150 or so then you still have the possibility of winning, but with economical bowlers the opposition will just cruise through...
 
Last edited:
Fiery

Fiery

Banned
Perm said:
Do you have an innings by innings breakdown of Vettori's batting since 2005? Excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, naturally.
Click to expand...
Runs Pos Dismissal I *+ R Match

21 9 caught 1 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 2004/05 at Brisbane [1721]
2 9 caught 3
20 8 lbw 2 L 2nd Test v Aus in Aus 2004/05 at Adelaide [1723]
59 8 caught 4
24* 8 not out 1 L 1st Test v Aus in NZ 2004/05 at Christchurch [1739]
23 8 lbw 3
45 9 caught 2 D 2nd Test v Aus in NZ 2004/05 at Wellington [1742]
DNB - - 3
41* 8 not out 1 L 3rd Test v Aus in NZ 2004/05 at Auckland [1744]
65 8 caught 3
8* 9 not out 2 L Only Test v Aus in Aus 2005/06 at Sydney [1768]
0 9 caught 4
6 8 caught 1 W 1st Test v WI in NZ 2005/06 at Auckland [1787]
33 9 caught 3
42 8 caught 2 W 2nd Test v WI in NZ 2005/06 at Wellington [1790]
DNB - - 4
TDNB - - - D 3rd Test v WI in NZ 2005/06 at Napier [1793]
81 8 caught 2 L 1st Test v SA in SA 2005/06 at Centurion [1798]
38 9 caught wk 4
11 8 caught 1 D 2nd Test v SA in SA 2005/06 at Cape Town [1800]
DNB - - 3
2 8 lbw 1 L 3rd Test v SA in SA 2005/06 at Johannesburg [1801]
60 8 caught 3
63 8 caught 2 W 1st Test v SL in NZ 2006/07 at Christchurch [1820]
DNB - - 4
0 7 bowled 2 L 2nd Test v SL in NZ 2006/07 at Wellington [1822]
51 8 lbw 4
7 9 caught 2 * L 1st Test v SA in SA 2007/08 at Johannesburg [1846]
46* 8 not out 4 *
17* 8 not out 1 * L 2nd Test v SA in SA 2007/08 at Centurion [1848]
8 7 caught 3 *
 
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fiery said:
21 9 caught 1 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 2004/05 at Brisbane [1721]
2 9 caught 3
20 8 lbw 2 L 2nd Test v Aus in Aus 2004/05 at Adelaide [1723]
59 8 caught 4
24* 8 not out 1 L 1st Test v Aus in NZ 2004/05 at Christchurch [1739]
23 8 lbw 3
45 9 caught 2 D 2nd Test v Aus in NZ 2004/05 at Wellington [1742]
DNB - - 3
41* 8 not out 1 L 3rd Test v Aus in NZ 2004/05 at Auckland [1744]
65 8 caught 3
8* 9 not out 2 L Only Test v Aus in Aus 2005/06 at Sydney [1768]
0 9 caught 4
6 8 caught 1 W 1st Test v WI in NZ 2005/06 at Auckland [1787]
33 9 caught 3
42 8 caught 2 W 2nd Test v WI in NZ 2005/06 at Wellington [1790]
DNB - - 4
TDNB - - - D 3rd Test v WI in NZ 2005/06 at Napier [1793]
81 8 caught 2 L 1st Test v SA in SA 2005/06 at Centurion [1798]
38 9 caught wk 4
11 8 caught 1 D 2nd Test v SA in SA 2005/06 at Cape Town [1800]
DNB - - 3
2 8 lbw 1 L 3rd Test v SA in SA 2005/06 at Johannesburg [1801]
60 8 caught 3
63 8 caught 2 W 1st Test v SL in NZ 2006/07 at Christchurch [1820]
DNB - - 4
0 7 bowled 2 L 2nd Test v SL in NZ 2006/07 at Wellington [1822]
51 8 lbw 4
7 9 caught 2 * L 1st Test v SA in SA 2007/08 at Johannesburg [1846]
46* 8 not out 4 *
17* 8 not out 1 * L 2nd Test v SA in SA 2007/08 at Centurion [1848]
8 7 caught 3 *
Click to expand...
Haha, was thinking more of a link to that page. If you don't mind ;)
 
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Matt52 said:
Yeah ofcourse mate , if youve got someone that takes wickets and is economical then he should be chosen. but Im of the opinion ( about your last sentence there) that you have to choose the bowling unit as a whole.. failing that , take a wicket taker over an economical guy anyday, if you have a guy that has the ability to take wickets then he can work on his economy rate, and with more experience , it will come down. Case in point Brett Lee.
Click to expand...
Lee's E/R isn't too bad though, for somebody who takes wickets with such regularity. Compare that to the likes of Chris Martin, or James Franklin, and the gulf in class is so obvious. The selectors use the term 'wicket-taking' bowlers to describe this pair, but they just aren't good enough and you shouldn't try to justify their expensiveness just because they pick up a few wickets.

Matt52 said:
But if a guy just bowls economically and doesnt have the ability to produce a wicket taking delivery then hes just waiting for the batsmen to make a mistake. It becomes a case of how well the opposition bat rather than how well we bowl.. sort of lost that ability to dictate the play. The opposition wont fear an attack with all economical bowlers , because theyll realise thier score is entirely in their hands. Theyll be a bit more confident..imo....
Click to expand...
The bowler dictates how the game is played though, and accurate bowling will usually result in a low score. However, on the odd occasion the batsmen will cut loose and can smack accurate bowlers off their line and length. With quality bowlers it won't happen too often, and will result in wickets on a regular basis.

Matt52 said:
But another guy who may be expensive but can get a few wickets, the batsmen always have it in their mind that the next ball might be too good,
Click to expand...
They will also have it in their head that they can feast on the poor deliveries this bowler will serve up.

Matt52 said:
Also, youre never out of the game with wicket takers, the way our batting lineups going if we get some rubbish score of 150 or so then you still have the possibility of winning, but with economical bowlers the opposition will just cruise through...
Click to expand...
Unless everything goes to plan the opposition will chase that down easily against wayward bowlers, even if they do lose a few wickets. That's more of a reflection upon our batting though, and our bowlers shouldn't have to contend with it.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
Perm said:
Here we go.

I think this was what Athlai was getting at, although he appeared to be selling Vettori short :-O.

It's good from Vettori, but just 13 games.
Click to expand...
Actually knew all along how good the figures were as I discussed it with someone else the other day, but it's more satisfying to be genuinely surprised than told I feel.
 
Fiery

Fiery

Banned
Perm said:
Lee's E/R isn't too bad though, for somebody who takes wickets with such regularity. Compare that to the likes of Chris Martin, or James Franklin, and the gulf in class is so obvious. The selectors use the term 'wicket-taking' bowlers to describe this pair, but they just aren't good enough and you shouldn't try to justify their expensiveness just because they pick up a few wickets.
Click to expand...
People forget whenever comparing Australian bowlers with those from other countries that they never have to bowl to the Australian batting order, something which NZ bowlers have to often given the number of games we play with the Chappell Hadlee series, etc
 
Last edited:
Perm

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fiery said:
People forget whenever comparing Australian bowlers with those from other countries that they never have to bowl to the Australian batting order, something which NZ bowlers have to often given the number of games we play with the Chappell Hadlee series and everything
Click to expand...
It is a factor, but only a small one. You could also point to the number of games Australia have to play on their mostly flat pitches as something that could boost their bowlers E/R.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
If New Zealands bowlers got to bowl against NZ batsman you would feel they would have better figures though :laugh:
 
Fiery

Fiery

Banned
Perm said:
It is a factor, but only a small one. You could also point to the number of games Australia have to play on their mostly flat pitches as something that could boost their bowlers E/R.
Click to expand...
It's nice to have a conversation with you that doesn't degenerate into insults btw Perm ;)
(and I know it takes two to tango)
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Perm said:
**** you Chris Martin. Get the **** out of the side and let Jeetan Patel play.
Click to expand...
More of a concern that Hopkins is playing as a specialist bat, IMO. Only five bowling options in the side, too, unless you count Taylor.

Two spinners in a four-man attack in ODIs on South African pitches would be pretty ridiculous from where I sit, but I think Patel would offer more to the team than Hopkins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top