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

[Jono]

Vettori being overrated and underrated in the same thread. Kind of funny

 

[Uppercut]

I think he's overrated as a bowler and underrated as a batsman. For all his guile, use of flight and cunning variations it's easy to forget that he takes about as many wickets as the much-maligned Ashley Giles. The bottom line isn't there with Vettori, it's all style no substance. Although he's bloody good in ODIs with the ball, so maybe that's what affects people's judgment.

It's all moot for New Zealand, because he's as good a spinner as they've got, but when people start comparing him to Shaun Pollock or Chris Cairns it's slipping into the realm of ridiculous I reckon.

 

[Athlai]

Vettori would probably average better with some good support at the other end, so often the opposition is allowed to see him off and score their runs against the other end. Wonder what his average is with the likes of Bond in the team? I reckon it'd be better.

Okay so it looks like he has bowled in 14 matches with Bond (against the top 8 teams) and he has taken 43 @ 27.79 (inc. minnows and its 24 odd).

14 matches isn't a whole heap but thats still a decent effort.

 

[DingDong]

Vettori would probably average better with some good support at the other end, so often the opposition is allowed to see him off and score their runs against the other end. Wonder what his average is with the likes of Bond in the team? I reckon it'd be better.

this is where patel could come in.

 

[Uppercut]

Maybe he would have. It's all speculation though. Whether he'd have taken any wickets in a decent side is something we don't know, but that he takes FA wickets in a poor side is a fact.

 

[Athlai]

Maybe he would have. It's all speculation though. Whether he'd have taken any wickets in a decent side is something we don't know, but that he takes FA wickets in a poor side is a fact.

**** all is an overstatement considering the amount of overs he bowls. He takes a reasonable amount of wickets relatively expensively.

 

[Uppercut]

And very, very slowly. Less than one wicket every 14 overs.

 

[Athlai]

this is where patel could come in.

Haha oh DingDong you are a card. You do have a bit of a point though, when they bowl in tandem runs tend to have dried up in their limited matches together. Will give that one a looksies.

Though from memory Jeets tends to only play on flat tracks like Napier for some reason. And yeah Dans figures go up to 40 in that scenario, Jeets goes better than that I think.

 

[Athlai]

And very, very slowly. Less than one wicket every 14 overs.

Same as Benaud.

 

[Uppercut]

True, but you can make allowances for Benaud's era if you're so inclined. Or, if you're not, you have to question why Vettori is bleeding runs at a horrendous rate like 2.7 per over.

Benaud has a better strike rate by a fair bit anyway.

 

[social]

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

This is getting sad.

Just to jog your memories, Vettori has taken 300 wickets and scored 4 centuries

[*]Mushtaq Mohammad - [batsman who only bowled very occasionally
[*]Shahid Afridi - underrated but without the longevity of Vettori and wont match his record because he's "retired" as tests are too hard
[*]John Bracewell - worse bowler and got lucky with the bat ONCE (ave 20)
[*]Greg Matthews - better bat but got dropped because his bowling was not up to scratch (bowling ave of 48 ffs!)
[*]Ray Illingworth - slightly better version of Bracewell but his s/r of 2 wickets per test must really have had the opposition ****ting themselves


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

• Samaraweera - 14 wickets in 55 matches (on course to catch Dan if he plays 1100 tests)
• Shoaib Malik - a batsman who throws badly (17 wickets @ 68)

And then there are the batsmen who can bowl:

• Warwick Armstrong
• Gayle
• Hooper
• Jayasuriya
• Polly Umrigar
  
  Your point? Let's include Clarke and about 1000 others if the criteria is test 100 and bowls slow junk
  
  Once more, this is about a world-class all-rounder that bowls spin

 

[zaremba]

This is getting sad.

Just to jog your memories, Vettori has taken 300 wickets and scored 4 centuries
[*]Mushtaq Mohammad - [batsman who only bowled very occasionally
[*]Shahid Afridi - underrated but without the longevity of Vettori and wont match his record because he's "retired" as tests are too hard
[*]John Bracewell - worse bowler and got lucky with the bat ONCE (ave 20)
[*]Greg Matthews - better bat but got dropped because his bowling was not up to scratch (bowling ave of 48 ffs!)
[*]Ray Illingworth - slightly better version of Bracewell but his s/r of 2 wickets per test must really have had the opposition ****ting themselves



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

• Samaraweera - 14 wickets in 55 matches (on course to catch Dan if he plays 1100 tests)
• Shoaib Malik - a batsman who throws badly (17 wickets @ 68)

And then there are the batsmen who can bowl:

• Warwick Armstrong
• Gayle
• Hooper
• Jayasuriya
• Polly Umrigar
  
  Your point? Let's include Clarke and about 1000 others if the criteria is test 100 and bowls slow junk
  
  Once more, this is about a world-class all-rounder that bowls spin

• 
  
  Sorry sunshine but all I was doing was to expose the complete ridiculousness of the following assertion made by, er, you:
  
  

  How many spin bowlers were capable of scoring test centuries at 6?
  Oh, that's right NONE

  At that point you weren't talking about quality, you weren't talking about numbers of wickets, you weren't talking about longevity, you weren't talking about whether the bowler was a chucker, you weren't talking about strike rates. What you were doing was shooting your mouth off, and you've been picked up on it by about a number of us, and now you're just forlornly trying to move the goalposts.
  
  As for Mushtaq Mohammad only bowling "very occasionally", that will explain how he took almost 1,000 first class wickets... Better bowler than Vettori, better batsman, end of story.

 

[social]

Sorry sunshine but all I was doing was to expose the complete ridiculousness of the following assertion made by, er, you:



At that point you weren't talking about quality, you weren't talking about numbers of wickets, you weren't talking about longevity, you weren't talking about whether the bowler was a chucker, you weren't talking about strike rates. What you were doing was shooting your mouth off, and you've been picked up on it by about a number of us, and now you're just forlornly trying to move the goalposts.

As for Mushtaq Mohammad only bowling "very occasionally", that will explain how he took almost 1,000 first class wickets... Better bowler than Vettori, better batsman, end of story.

How many were good enough to be picked at 6?

2 guys that played a relative handful of matches (Afridi and Matthews) and have spent more times out of the team than in it - not good enough I think you'll find as the reason for their exclusion

Other than them, you've named tailenders who got the odd score or batsman who cant bowl

Sorry if I dont quite think that meets the criteria

As for Mushtaq Mohammed, he took 79 test wickets in 50 odd tests. How the **** does that remotly compare to a guy with 300 test wickets

In fact, it hardly qualifies him as a regular bowler and if you'd been around at the time you'd know that, in the main, he was used as little more than a part-time partnership breaker

 

[zaremba]

How many were good enough to be picked at 6?

Moving the goalposts again

2 guys that played a relative handful of matches (Afridi and Matthews) and have spent more times out of the team than in it

Moving the goalposts again.

(And unless you have 26 or 33 fingers on your hand I don't think your description of either Afridi or Matthews is all that accurate)

As for Mushtaq Mohammed, he took 79 test wickets in 50 odd tests. How the **** does that remotly compare to a guy with 300 test wickets

He "remotly compares" in that he has a better Test average (even if you include minnows in Vettori's otherwise ugly statistics), a better Test strike rate, an identical Test economy rate, a better FC average, a better FC strike rate, more FC 5 wicket hauls and twice the number of FC wickets.

 

[fredfertang]

Mushtaq was a decent bowler and his record clearly demonstrates that - he'd doubtless have bowled more overs if Pakistan hadn't had two other leggies during his time, Intikhab Alam and Wasim Raja, both of whom, and for that matter Abdul Qadir who immediately followed him, have an inferior test average to his

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Vettori isn't an all time great right now but he is certainly getting there. If getting 300+ wickets and scoring 3000+ runs doesn't deserve recognition, then I don't know what does. By the time he hangs his boots, he may have 500 wickets and 5000 runs!!!

He can certainly bat.In the ongoing test against Pakistan, he scored a brilliant 99 with his team in trouble against a pretty good attack in bowling friendly conditions. As for his bowling average increasing if you remove minnows; they do for most players. For example :If you remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, I think Murali's numbers look significantly less attractive.

In any case, you cannot depend on stats alone. At the moment, the guy is New Zealand's best batsman, bowler, coach and captain. I would like to see how many players can do that.

 

[social]

Moving the goalposts again



Moving the goalposts again.

(And unless you have 26 or 33 fingers on your hand I don't think your description of either Afridi or Matthews is all that accurate)



He "remotly compares" in that he has a better Test average (even if you include minnows in Vettori's otherwise ugly statistics), a better Test strike rate, an identical Test economy rate, a better FC average, a better FC strike rate, more FC 5 wicket hauls and twice the number of FC wickets.

Why dont we just agree to disagree because when it comes to arguing that player A is better than player B because he's taken wickets relatively cheaply at a much lower standard whilst doing comparatively sweet ****-all at the highest level, then there is no point continuing

 

[social]

Mushtaq was a decent bowler and his record clearly demonstrates that - he'd doubtless have bowled more overs if Pakistan hadn't had two other leggies during his time, Intikhab Alam and Wasim Raja, both of whom, and for that matter Abdul Qadir who immediately followed him, have an inferior test average to his

Useful in small doses sums it up - he was a part-timer that couldnt be trusted with the primary role because he simply wasnt that good despite limited competition

Btw, Qadir came later and was an infinitely better bowler than all three

 

[zaremba]

Why dont we just agree to disagree because when it comes to arguing that player A is better than player B because he's taken wickets relatively cheaply at a much lower standard whilst doing comparatively sweet ****-all at the highest level, then there is no point continuing

The point is, the comparison between them is not ridiculous. Even if you want to disregard all other FC cricket, as you seem to want to do, MM's Test batting average is 10 points higher than his bowling average. Vettori's (average-flattering minnows included) is 4 points lower than his bowling average. Yes, Vettori has bowled a lot more, and consequently picked up more wickets and leaked vastly more runs in the process.

And let's not forget what we're talking about here. You claimed, ridiculously, that there is no other spinner capable of scoring 100s from 6. And Mushtaq Mohammad fits that bill. I don't know why you find it such a struggle to admit that you're wrong.

 

[zaremba]

Useful in small doses sums it up - he was a part-timer that couldnt be trusted with the primary role because he simply wasnt that good despite limited competition

This is precisely the reason why I turned to FC statistics - to suggest that someone who took over 900 FC wickets in that era is a "part timer" is frankly absurd