Where does Vettori rank all-time as an all-rounder?

[bagapath]

vinoo mankad, aubrey faulkner and wilfred rhodes are a few thousand miles ahead of daniel vettori in the test all rounders list. even richie benaud (with a batting avg of 24) was such a great bowler that he is a better overall allrounder than him. vettori is a mediocre bowler and a below average test batter. he is at par with ravi shastri (who was a very effective batsman and a slightly inferior bowler than dan).

 

[bagapath]

Pollock makes Vettori look like a donkey for mine.

absolutely. daniel vettroi averages 37 with the ball (minus bangladesh). to call him the greatest spin bowling all rounder is ridiculous

 

[Shri]

Shakib Al Hasan will fight him for that title in the years to come.

 

[Polo23]

Don't see how you can compare a seam bowler to a spinner when looking at their bowling. They both did entirely different jobs.

 

[MoxPearl]

vettori is a mediocre bowler and a below average test batter..

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Pollock makes Vettori look like a donkey for mine.

I dunno. Pollock's inability to interpret Duckworth-Lewis tables have directly cost South Africa more games than Vettori...

I would consider that considerably donkey-esque from Pollock.

 

[morgieb]

Not all that high. Take out minmows, and his bowling is quite poor.

Is a decent batsman though.

 

[zaremba]

Handy player, and you'd definitely want him in your team. But as an all rounder he's a bit of a Cunis, if you know what I mean - neither one thing nor the other.

 

[social]

absolutely. daniel vettroi averages 37 with the ball (minus bangladesh). to call him the greatest spin bowling all rounder is ridiculous

How many spin bowlers were capable of scoring test centuries at 6?

Oh, that's right NONE

You seem to forget that the term "all-rounder" is used to describe a cricketer that is proficient in more than one discipline - Benaud, as a glorified tail-ender, barely makes the grade

Vettori is not the best spinner ever nor is he the best batsman but as a package, he could very well go down as one of the best ever when his career is over

 

[The Sean]

How many spin bowlers were capable of scoring test centuries at 6?

Oh, that's right NONE

Faulkner, Noble, Rhodes, Woolley and Mankad all scored Test centuries higher up the order than that.

Rhodes actually the least legit of those, given that by the time he was scoring Test match centuries he was really only a part time bowler.

 

[vic_orthdox]

As did Marcus North...

 

[bagapath]

How many spin bowlers were capable of scoring test centuries at 6?

Oh, that's right NONE

You seem to forget that the term "all-rounder" is used to describe a cricketer that is proficient in more than one discipline - Benaud, as a glorified tail-ender, barely makes the grade

Vettori is not the best spinner ever nor is he the best batsman but as a package, he could very well go down as one of the best ever when his career is over

frank woolley was a great all rounder and he was a middle order bat and left arm spinner. a far superior bat and a marginally better bowler than vettori.

ravi shastri, who started at no.10, finished at the top of the order after scoring centuries against some of the best attacks in history at various postions in the top and middle. a far better batsman and a slightly inferior bowler to vettori.

rhodes and mankad spent a lot of time opening the bat. faulkner was good enough to play only as a batsman. and all three were solid batsmen and excellent spin bowlers. vettori is several rungs below them in either department.

 

[social]

Faulkner, Noble, Rhodes, Woolley and Mankad all scored Test centuries higher up the order than that.

Rhodes actually the least legit of those, given that by the time he was scoring Test match centuries he was really only a part time bowler.

Not to mention that Woolley was little more than a part-time bowler (80 wickets in 60 tests - he has more in common with Steve Waugh than Vettori) whilst Faulkner and Noble have as much relevance to modern cricket as tennis players do

Mankad is the only comparable player and even he played a lot on matting wickets

 

[The Sean]

Not to mention that Woolley was little more than a part-time bowler (80 wickets in 60 tests - he has more in common with Steve Waugh than Vettori) whilst Faulkner and Noble have as much relevance to modern cricket as tennis players do

Mankad is the only comparable player and even he played a lot on matting wickets

So when you asked "which spin bowlers have scored Test centuries from 6?", you actually meant to ask "which spin bowlers who have done a certain predetermined amount of bowling irrespective of their average and who have played Test cricket since WWII so I acknowledge them as being relevant to any kind of cricketing discussion have scored Test centuries from 6?"

 

[bagapath]

Not to mention that Woolley was little more than a part-time bowler (80 wickets in 60 tests - he has more in common with Steve Waugh than Vettori) whilst Faulkner and Noble have as much relevance to modern cricket as tennis players do

Mankad is the only comparable player and even he played a lot on matting wickets

among all those named daniel vettori all over the world, the bespectacled one playing test cricket for new zealand is the greatest spin bowling all rounder ever, i agree.

 

[Zinzan]

Reckon Scaly & Uppers are on the money in their assessments of Vettori as a Test cricketer. Overall I'd describe him as a very good Test player, but one who lacks the penetrability with the ball to be a genuine match-winner. For this reason, I agree that he's not in the class of those other names mentioned.

That said, he is a world-class ODI/T20 player in anybody's language

 

[bagapath]

I'd have him on a par with Kapil Dev and Ian Botham

You are joking, right?

Dan Vettori 95 3591 140 30.17 4 305 7/87 33.50 18 48 0

After 95 tests....

Ian Botham 95 5103 208 34.95 14 374 8/34 27.98 27 111 0

Kapil Dev 95 3996 163 31.96 6 329 9/83 29.44 19 52 0

I dont know how you could have one all-time great all rounder (Beefy), one world class all-rounder (Kapil) and a bits pieces cricketer (Dan) in the same category.

when you remove minnows from the equation vettori's batting average drops to 28 and bowling average goes up to 37. in other words, he is a below par test batsman and a mediocre bowler.

 

[Flem274*]

You are joking, right?

Dan Vettori 95 3591 140 30.17 4 305 7/87 33.50 18 48 0

After 95 tests....

Ian Botham 95 5103 208 34.95 14 374 8/34 27.98 27 111 0

Kapil Dev 95 3996 163 31.96 6 329 9/83 29.44 19 52 0

I dont know how you could have one all-time great all rounder (Beefy), one world class all-rounder (Kapil) and a bits pieces cricketer (Dan) in the same category.




when you remove minnows from the equation vettori's batting average drops to 28 and bowling average goes up to 37. in other words, he is a below par test batsman and a mediocre bowler.

A bits and pieces cricketer that everyone would love to have coming in at 100/5

Unfortunately he comes in at that score or worse a lot.

I almost detect jealousy *pokes bagapaths nerves*. I agree he's not an all time great by any stretch, but he's an extremely valuable allrounder and is the key to getting through NZs batting, along with not falling for his tempting bowling.

 

[Athlai]

Vettori has to bowl so many overs for New Zealand without any pressure coming from the other end and his batting only picked up at the end of his career, so his stats get skewed a fair bit. Absouletely love watching him play, such an immense character. The lynch pin of New Zealand cricket, tesicles the size of beach balls.

 

[Prince EWS]

You are joking, right?

Dan Vettori 95 3591 140 30.17 4 305 7/87 33.50 18 48 0

After 95 tests....

Ian Botham 95 5103 208 34.95 14 374 8/34 27.98 27 111 0

Kapil Dev 95 3996 163 31.96 6 329 9/83 29.44 19 52 0

I dont know how you could have one all-time great all rounder (Beefy), one world class all-rounder (Kapil) and a bits pieces cricketer (Dan) in the same category.




when you remove minnows from the equation vettori's batting average drops to 28 and bowling average goes up to 37. in other words, he is a below par test batsman and a mediocre bowler.

While I agree with you that Social vastly over-rates Vettori, I do think I should point out that those career batting statistics do not do him justice at all. While his Test career as a bowler started way back in 1997, his Test career as an allrounder didn't really start until late 2003 - that's when his batting came on. It's unfair to punish him as a batsman merely because his bowling developed at a faster rate and saw him selected earlier than his batting would have dictated.

Since that time he averages in the 40s with the bat (and 36 or so when you remove the minnows) which is a much better reflection. Now, this doesn't make him the best spin-bowling allrounder of all time (not by a long shot) but it does cement his place as a very good allrounder of his time, IMO.