**Official** England in New Zealand

[Richard]

Jeez all the stat-bashing is a great irritant on CW. Sure it's a fantastic guide but at the highest level more often than not you should be able to see who is the best without the statistics.

Well... not neccessarily if you haven't seen every ball of every game. In any case, there's no getting away from the fact that someone who's taken 2-186 has had a bad game, really.

TBH, the opening game of this series is an excellent example of how someone can bowl well without ever being really able to be a devastating threat. Vettori's performance was excellent, as good as one could expect, but the pitch he was bowling on meant he could never bowl batsmen out. He did as good a job as could be expected of him, however, and unquestionably contributed to an excellent performance from his team.

 

[Athlai]

Well... not neccessarily if you haven't seen every ball of every game. In any case, there's no getting away from the fact that someone who's taken 2-186 has had a bad game, really.

TBH, the opening game of this series is an excellent example of how someone can bowl well without ever being really able to be a devastating threat. Vettori's performance was excellent, as good as one could expect, but the pitch he was bowling on meant he could never bowl batsmen out. He did as good a job as could be expected of him, however, and unquestionably contributed to an excellent performance from his team.

2 from 186 could still mean that excellent team innings, though to a lesser extent as a personal total of that means a score of 500+ but we are of course speaking in hyperbole. While I said that statistics were no great guide how a days bowling of such figures could possibly contradict my argument by in fact looking very good is hard to believe. To have 186 runs scored against you while bowling the tightest of cricket always looking challenging seems near impossible, so it would be a bad day indeed.

And as you say, a bowler like Vettori can't force the wicket away from the batsman, he can only count on the batsman making a mistake on an unhelpful pitch. And in my opinion no finger spinner presents more opportunity for mistake than Dan Vettori.

 

[Prince EWS]

And as you say, a bowler like Vettori can't force the wicket away from the batsman, he can only count on the batsman making a mistake on an unhelpful pitch.

And a bowler who can only do that is less valuable than a bowler who can actually get batsmen out themselves, or even a bowler who is more likely to come across a pitch suited to his bowler. Vettori is very good at what he does. What he does is simply not as effective as what Franklin does, though, on the majority of pitches NZ play on.

I'm certainly not saying he should be dropped or anything of that nature, but whilst Vettori is a very good fingerspinner, they aren't particularly useful as bowlers in the current cricket climate.

 

[Athlai]

And a bowler who can only do that is less valuable than a bowler who can actually get batsmen out themselves, or even a bowler who is more likely to come across a pitch suited to his bowler. Vettori is very good at what he does. What he does is simply not as effective as what Franklin does, though, on the majority of pitches NZ play on.

I'm certainly not saying he should be dropped or anything of that nature, but whilst Vettori is a very good fingerspinner, they aren't particularly useful as bowlers in the current cricket climate.

Teams are not comprised of single players, if we were playing infinity balls to one man then sure pick Franklin he'll get that wicket taking ball eventually, whether in ten balls or ten thousand.

Vettori's value is that he forces the mistake, though not always to himself, he allows bowlers like Franklin to bowl aggressively and to take wickets. And you could argue if Vettori had better bowling at his side he could in turn take more wickets through the forcing of errors.


I mean who would you want more on a deck thats doing nothing with a ball that isn't turning nor swinging?

Vettori or Franklin?

I know who I would pick.

 

[Richard]

2 from 186 could still mean that excellent team innings, though to a lesser extent as a personal total of that means a score of 500+ but we are of course speaking in hyperbole. While I said that statistics were no great guide how a days bowling of such figures could possibly contradict my argument by in fact looking very good is hard to believe. To have 186 runs scored against you while bowling the tightest of cricket always looking challenging seems near impossible, so it would be a bad day indeed.

 

[Athlai]

4am out in town all night.

In short.

**** figures may still = good bowling. Though unlikely (5-10% if as **** as you pointed out.)

Most of the time, 2 for 186 would be Elliot-esque bowling direness. Yet due to good bowling (in very very rare cases) this 186 could present chances and pressure that go to other bowlers and don't reflect how effectively someone bowled. Vettori is exactly the type of bowler to do this.

 

[Richard]

4am out in town all night.

Brave of you to come on CW after that I must say. Not learnt from my experiences?

 

[GIMH]

Well... not neccessarily if you haven't seen every ball of every game. In any case, there's no getting away from the fact that someone who's taken 2-186 has had a bad game, really.

TBH, the opening game of this series is an excellent example of how someone can bowl well without ever being really able to be a devastating threat. Vettori's performance was excellent, as good as one could expect, but the pitch he was bowling on meant he could never bowl batsmen out. He did as good a job as could be expected of him, however, and unquestionably contributed to an excellent performance from his team.

What if they had LOADS of dropped catches

 

[Richard]

Would depend, ITBT - if they were off Long-Hops and slogs, no. If they were off outstanding turning balls that caught the outside-edge to wicketkeeper\slip or flighted and turning balls that were bat-padded to silly-point\short-leg, yeah.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Brave of you to come on CW after that I must say. Not learnt from my experiences?

Yes, because we all have to learn from Richards experiences.

 

[Richard]

My experiences with the old and CW are more notable than anyone else's known, bar that Tarique Weber.

 

[GIMH]

Me FTW

 

[Leslie1]

Guys, the issue with Vettori is the uneven balance of the bowling attack with him having to be constantly in there.

Nothing against him as a bowler, batsman or a fielder. The issue is now, we have a Patel who can spin it more and has in general bowled better than Vettori this entire English series.

Ok let's take conditions into account:

Seaming wicket - no assistance at all for spin.

Generally if it's England, they would drop Panesar, and have another seamer - 4 prong seaming attack.

With New Zealand, because of Vettori's constant selection, we have one less.

(for example)
Mills
Martin
Southee, otherwise it's Patel -
Vettori - constant
Oram - All rounder - bowling option and if he's injured we get Elliot - a medium pacer.
-batsmen - 1 - 6

England -
Anderson
Harmison / Panesar (depending on the pitch)
Hoggard
Sidebottom
Broad
-batsmen - 1 - 6

As shown in tests 2 and 3 in New Zealand. Day 1 and Day 2, we are conceding one extra seamer to the opposition because Vettori HAS to be there.

We definitely got found out in the 3rd test when Elliot was our 1st change bowler! Goodness gracious. That's like asking Collingwood (no offence) to come in first change if the opening bowlers can't get a breakthrough). And with two openers like Vaughn and Cook set, imagine Elliot or Oram coming in to bowl first change, THE BEST they can do is hold up one end. We have too many bowlers in this side doing the holding job, not enough wicket taking bowlers. Against batsmen in form (like Strauss and Bell did to us) it's like charity. Imagine this bowling attack plan against the Indians.

If Vettori cannot command a spot on the team as a spinner, he cannot be captain. If we have to have Patel because Vettori can't spin sides out on his own, we end up relying on "Mr Glass" Oram as our 3rd seamer. That's ridiculous.

 

[FBU]

England tend to play a spinner on green tops because over the course of 5 days the wicket can change considerably. Out of 35 Tests in England over the last 5 years only two have been minus a spinner.

2007 - Panesar played all 7 Tests
2006 - Panesar played all 7 Tests
2005 - 6 out of 7 Tests Batty/Giles - Lords v Bangladesh no spinner (Won)
2004 - 7 out of 7 Test played Giles -
2003 - 6 out of 7 Tests - Giles - Headingley v South Africa no spinner (Lost)

 

[Richard]

TBH, I'm not terribly sure about that. England have mostly always played a spinner because of the "you need variation" rubbish, not because that many wickets have started offering no help to spin and ended offering some or much. Giles and MSP have usually been effective either throughout the game, or not at all. It's fairly rare, these days, for a wicket to deteriorate sufficiently over the course of five days to see fingerspinners coming into the game later on having not been in it earlier.

If the ball swings in this country - which it should, and which it did last season for the first time in 7 years - then fingerspinners should mostly be redundant, becuase most of the Test grounds in this country don't often produce pitches that offer much to spin.

However, a few times in recent years (notably 2004 and 2006) there's been a handful of such things. And unfortunately, you can't really know how a wicket's going to play until you bowl on it, though sometimes you can take a decent guess.

 

[Richard]

As shown in tests 2 and 3 in New Zealand. Day 1 and Day 2, we are conceding one extra seamer to the opposition because Vettori HAS to be there.

Who'd you prefer have, Vettori or Iain O'Brien?

If the question is whether you pick Vettori instead of one of (say all were available and good at the same time, which never happened) Bond, Franklin, Mills and Southee, then maybe you'd have a case.

But mostly, Vettori has played because there's been a shortage of seamers bashing down the door. If there's lots of high-quality seamers - as there was for us in 2000 and 2001, the only time we regularly played without spinners - then you can think about no Vettori. But right now, the options are not, to my mind, widescale enough.

 

[paddy11]

TBH, I'm not terribly sure about that. England have mostly always played a spinner because of the "you need variation" rubbish, not because that many wickets have started offering no help to spin and ended offering some or much. Giles and MSP have usually been effective either throughout the game, or not at all. It's fairly rare, these days, for a wicket to deteriorate sufficiently over the course of five days to see fingerspinners coming into the game later on having not been in it earlier.

If the ball swings in this country - which it should, and which it did last season for the first time in 7 years - then fingerspinners should mostly be redundant, becuase most of the Test grounds in this country don't often produce pitches that offer much to spin.

However, a few times in recent years (notably 2004 and 2006) there's been a handful of such things. And unfortunately, you can't really know how a wicket's going to play until you bowl on it, though sometimes you can take a decent guess.

Monty takes more wickets on english picture than he does in the subcontinent. And dropping him for Harmison is just insulting.

 

[Richard]

Monty takes more wickets on english picture than he does in the subcontinent.

Well, he's had more wicket-hauls in home games than games on the subcontinent, yes, but that's not a 100% scientific way of looking at things.

For a start, much of this emanates from the West Indies series of 2007, which had little to do with good bowling on turning pitches (though it wasn't completely absent) and much more to do with shoddy batting. Unbelievably poor batting of times.

For seconds, MSP has bowled very poorly in several of his games on the subcontinent, failing to cash-in on turning surfaces - see Mohali 2005/06, Mumbai 2005/06, and Galle 2007/08. Equally, not every pitch on the subcontinent turns: there was absolutely nothing in the wickets at Nagpur 2005/06 and SSC 2007/08 for seam or spin, both surfaces were flat as pancakes.

For thirds, there's been more turning surfaces in this country since 2004 than at pretty much any time in the previous 30 years. This started just before MSP came into the Test team - easy to forget, but Giles took 25 wickets in 3 Tests on 3 consecutive turning pitches at Trent Bridge, Lord's and Edgbaston in the middle of summer 2004, and played a vital part in the dominance of the Tests at Edgbaston and Old Trafford in 2005 too (which is often forgotten). MSP then found turning surfaces at Trent Bridge and Old Trafford in 2006, and again at Old Trafford in 2007, and cashed-in on them.

However, in his other 8 home Tests (excluding 3 against West Indies because of the execrable batting) he's not really done much of note.

But pitches in the UK and the subcontinent are not never-changing things. There is variance within the areas.

And dropping him for Harmison is just insulting.

Obviously - no-one would suggest that. Harmison is almost into the realms of "should never have played Test cricket" now.

 

[Leslie1]

Who'd you prefer have, Vettori or Iain O'Brien?

If the question is whether you pick Vettori instead of one of (say all were available and good at the same time, which never happened) Bond, Franklin, Mills and Southee, then maybe you'd have a case.

But mostly, Vettori has played because there's been a shortage of seamers bashing down the door. If there's lots of high-quality seamers - as there was for us in 2000 and 2001, the only time we regularly played without spinners - then you can think about no Vettori. But right now, the options are not, to my mind, widescale enough.

The emergence of Southee is why I raised the question. Southee only played in the 3rd test because Mills is unfit. When Mills is fit Southee is out the door.

The real question is, Vettori or Southee?

We can have a potent swing attack with Vettori not figuring in the side...

Martin, Mills, Southee, Franklin (when fit) - batting-wise Franklin has a test century and is a more accomplished batsman than Vettori.
OR
Martin Mills Southee Gillespie/Mason - Gillespie provides the low trajectory quick... Mason is just one of those consistent bowlers like Martin.
OR
Martin Mills Southee Vettori - it means they stop obssessing over Patel or having 2 spinners in the side, which is ridiculous when we got found out in the 3rd test with Elliot our first change seamer.

 

[99*]

The emergence of Southee is why I raised the question. Southee only played in the 3rd test because Mills is unfit. When Mills is fit Southee is out the door.

The real question is, Vettori or Southee?

We can have a potent swing attack with Vettori not figuring in the side...

Martin, Mills, Southee, Franklin (when fit) - batting-wise Franklin has a test century and is a more accomplished batsman than Vettori.
OR
Martin Mills Southee Gillespie/Mason - Gillespie provides the low trajectory quick... Mason is just one of those consistent bowlers like Martin.
OR
Martin Mills Southee Vettori - it means they stop obssessing over Patel or having 2 spinners in the side, which is ridiculous when we got found out in the 3rd test with Elliot our first change seamer.

No. Just no. Franklin in no way is near Vettori in test batting skill, how do you come to that sort of conclusion?

Martin, Mills/Franklin, Southee/Mason/Gillespie/ and Vettori should be our attack. I'd really want Patel in the team but unless we drop Oram or select one less batsman then I can not find any room for him. The problem (as Richard has said) is our lack of quality seam bowling, he've been found out without Bond in our team that we have almost no bowlers of test quality anymore.