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

[KiWiNiNjA]

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.

You have removed the minnows from the equation, you might as well remove his first 6yrs in Test cricket while your at it, no?

39.08 at 7-9 in Test cricket is below average?
I'm not of the opinion of social, but I can't see for the life of me how he is below average with the bat. What does a number 8 have to average to be considered average in your book?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Vettori would have been celebrated as a good batting all rounder had his career unfolded in reverse. He'd have started off with a batting average of 45, and declined to 30-34 at the end. (no prizes for guessing which great all rounder did start off with a bang and then declined into a fat and mulleted caricature of himself). Players who start off well and decline towards the end have a massive advantage in the ranking game than players who start off poorly and end up better. First impressions count, unfortunately.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Cements his place as a half-decent batsman of this era. His bowling figures are that of a more-than-useful part-timer.

 

[Sir Alex]

Vettori would have been celebrated as a good batting all rounder had his career unfolded in reverse. He'd have started off with a batting average of 45, and declined to 30-34 at the end. (no prizes for guessing which great all rounder did start off with a bang and then declined into a fat and mulleted caricature of himself). Players who start off well and decline towards the end have a massive advantage in the ranking game than players who start off poorly and end up better. First impressions count, unfortunately.

I think Flintoff does not suit that analogy but is certainly celebrated about on par with Botham. I think Vettori needs to "win" series with allround displays. Until he does that I don't think he will be counted as one among the great allrounders.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think Flintoff does not suit that analogy but is certainly celebrated about on par with Botham. I think Vettori needs to "win" series with allround displays. Until he does that I don't think he will be counted as one among the great allrounders.

yeah, Flintoff came to mind immediately, but then he's easily the far better bowler without taking any other factors into account too. I think he benefits from England winning the 2005 Ashes, while Vettori doesn't get enough credit for saving NZ's ass time and again.

 

[Zinzan]

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.

.

Those stats suggest to me there's a similar gap between Botham & Kapil as there is between Kapil & Vettori, so wouldn't it be a slightly more accurate representation to say something like;

Botham - One of the all-time great all-rounder's
Kapil - A world-class all-rounder, slightly below all-time great status
Vettori - A good test all-rounder

Just seems you've gone from 'all-time great', down to 'world class' and then this huge drop to the label of 'bits & pieces cricketer'; a term which in my mind describes player who would merely make up the numbers as opposed to a cricketer who would waltz into most current test line-ups in the world, or would you dispute that?

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.

There's no doubt Vettori's statistics are helped in a huge way by his performances against the minnows, I just hope you acknowledge the obvious point that most players records are better against minnow & weaker opposition in general, albeit not to the same extent as Vettori, (although there are a few others in this Vettori 'minnow-bashing' category, where it isn't highlighted quite as often)

 

[G.I.Joe]

What is the reasoning behind Botham being a GOAT and Kapil being merely a world class all rounder? Preposterous.

 

[Sir Alex]

What is the reasoning behind Botham being a GOAT and Kapil being merely a world class all rounder? Preposterous.

One Ashes series I think.

 

[Zinzan]

What is the reasoning behind Botham being a GOAT and Kapil being merely a world class all rounder? Preposterous.

Haha, like the GOAT acronym. Truth be told, I rate Kapil as one of the great Test all-rounder's (certainly in the top 10). I was just making the point that if Bagapath did want to make the distinction between Botham, Kapil & Vettori based on those stats he posted, he needed to be consistent with his labeling.

 

[social]

yeah, Flintoff came to mind immediately, but then he's easily the far better bowler without taking any other factors into account too. I think he benefits from England winning the 2005 Ashes, while Vettori doesn't get enough credit for saving NZ's ass time and again.

Is this the same Flintoff that only has 3 -4 test five fers to his name?

With the exception of the odd test, guy was basically a 2 year wonder with the ball and a glorified slogger with the bat

 

[marc71178]

2005 and 2009 still hurt...

 

[social]

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.

An incredibly stupid statement

 

[Zinzan]

Is this the same Flintoff that only has 3 -4 test five fers to his name?

With the exception of the odd test, guy was basically a 2 year wonder with the ball and a glorified slogger with the bat

Possibly a fair question, because although Flintoff's had some magic moment's, they were definately few & far between.

That said, I've never really analysed his career stats to see how his number's stack are when you remove the minnows' & weaker opposition in general.

 

[social]

Possibly a fair question, because although Flintoff's had some magic moment's, they were definately few & far between.

That said, I've never really analysed his career stats to see how his number's stack are when you remove the minnows' & weaker opposition in general.

While you're at it, check out Botham's stats

He had 5 decent bowling years out of 15 and had very moderate returns in both disciplines against WI, Pakistan and full-strength Oz (by far the best teams of his era) - if ever a guy made his name by bashing lesser teams, he is it

 

[Uppercut]

They're ahead of Vettori's in any case.

Flintoff was a crock, but when fit he was so, so much better than Vettori. Vettori's a misfit, a batting all-rounder who bats at 8.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=10;qualval1=wickets;spanmin1=26+Nov+1999;spanval1=span;team=5;template=results;type=bowling

 

[NUFAN]

Dan Vettori vs Chris Cairns would be a tough pick nowadays..

 

[Uppercut]

Dan Vettori vs Chris Cairns would be a tough pick nowadays..

Yeah. If by tough pick you mean Chris Cairns.

 

[Zinzan]

2005 and 2009 still hurt...

Interesting you've jumped straight onto the defensive. I stand to be corrected, but I think he's just making the point that like Vettori, Flintoff doesn't deserve to rank up there with the all-time great allrounder's, and if that is his point, I doubt many would dispute it. .

I don't think this takes anything away from some brilliant individual performances from Flintoff in his career (05& 09 ashes in particular).

 

[zaremba]

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

Oh, that's right NONE

Apart from those already mentioned,

• Mushtaq Mohammad
• Shahid Afridi
• John Bracewell
• Greg Matthews
• Ray Illingworth

TBF Illingworth may have scored his centuries from 7 or so but so what?

Then there's the former spinners who now mainly bat:

• Samaraweera
• Shoaib Malik

And then there are the batsmen who can bowl:

• Warwick Armstrong
• Gayle
• Hooper
• Jayasuriya
• Polly Umrigar

There are probably loads of others

 

[Zinzan]

Dan Vettori vs Chris Cairns would be a tough pick nowadays..

Well, In a recent poll, we established that in this forum anyway, Cairns was favoured over Flintoff as a better Test cricketer by a ratio of about 3 to 1 & I'm guessing Flintoff would be favoured in a similar poll against Vettori. So based on that, think Cairns would rate well ahead of Vettori in most peoples eyes