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

[Zinzan]

Indeed

And of course Imran hasn't done enough with either bat or ball to rank along side me

 

[Zinzan]

1.65

And Cairns 2.10
Pollock 2.08

Man ...Flintoff's is damn low

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, come on man, it's fairly obvious that Harbhajan;s record would be slightly inferior & Vettori's slightly better if Harby had played for NZ & vice versa, for the same reasons that for most Indian seamers in would be the opposite case , I think most knowledgeable cricket fans would be comfortable making that assumption, hypothetically or not.

Personally I don't think you can rank a player based on what you think they would have done had lots of things been different. Not to any great extent anyway. Real wickets are worth so much more than theoretical wickets.

I think it's accepted just as widely that Mike Procter would have been an all-time great all-rounder were it not for South Africa's exclusion. But you still don't rank him alongside Imran, because you don't know.

 

[Athlai]

Man ...Flintoff's is damn low

Yeah found it pretty surprising myself.

 

[Zinzan]

I think it's accepted just as widely that Mike Procter would have been an all-time great all-rounder were it not for South Africa's exclusion. But you still don't rank him alongside Imran, because you don't know.

No we don't, but you've just said it yourself right there that in a hypothetically sense it's not unreasonable to suggest he would've been right up there. Incidentally, could say the same of Clive Rice too

 

[marc71178]

Yeah found it pretty surprising myself.

Think it's a product of how little he's bowled in many occasions, partly injury related, and partly as he's mainly been in a 5 man attack.

In terms of Vettori, my regret is that he was injured the season when he came to Warwickshire - would've been interesting to see how his figures in county cricket stacked up against those of Ashley Giles, who I actually think was on a par as a bowler with him if truth be told.

That said, Vettori's clearly a better batsman, and although for me I wouldn't place him amongst the top all rounders of all time, he's certainly no mug and by the time his career ends, he could sit in the 2nd tier.

 

[Zinzan]

That said, Vettori's clearly a better batsman, and although for me I wouldn't place him amongst the top all rounders of all time, he's certainly no mug and by the time his career ends, he could sit in the 2nd tier.

Yup agree with that, both Vettori & Flintoff are a quite a distance between behind the top allrounders, mainly due to their lack of consistency as strikers with the ball, both have rubbish strike-rates & averages truth be-known

 

[Uppercut]

I'd agree with that. Both are better than you'd think by looking at their average but not as good as you'd think from watching them bowl.

 

[Zinzan]

I'd agree with that. Both are better than you'd think by looking at their average but not as good as you'd think from watching them bowl.

Yup & I also reckon if it's fine to put Vettori's record in context by excluding Bangladesh. I'd like to provide the following context to Flintoff's career record...

Whilst Flintoff barely played against minnows Bang & Zim, it possibly provides some perspective if you exclude the 20 tests he played against remarkably weak NZ & WI's sides.

59 Games 2704 runs @ 28.46 with 2 centuries & 142 wickets @ 35.17 with 2 fivers

 

[NUFAN]

Well, if you post absolute ****ing bat ****, then expect to get called out on it.

You have incredibly scurrilous regarding Daniel Vettori. NZ would have been up the ****ter on many occasions without him and yet you dismiss comparisons with Pollock by calling Vettori a "donkey". You ignore the fact that he's taken over 300 wickets by calling him a "batting all-rounder"

You clearly don't know the first thing about New Zealand. Seriously, the comparisons between yourself and Prince EWS are so far off the mark that he makes you look like a donkey in comparison.

Now, that's being precious.

Personally, I don't rate him as an "Ian Botham" or "Kapil Dev", but he clearly deserves comparison with Richie Benaud, Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh and any other spinner who's batted between 6 and 9 and saved his team's arse on several occasions. Whether you think Vettori is better than the above is neither here nor there, he deserves comparison.

And I love all the statisticians that come out of the woodwork for looking at Vettori. He plays (for the most part) on green New Zealand pitches and when he gets to play on a spinning deck, such as India or Sri Lanka, he gets to bowl to people who can play spin. He doesn't get to play against England, for example, on a spinning wicket very often at all. You should take out all of Kumble and Murali's home wickets against England in the 90s as they couldn't play spin for **** back then. Blah blah blah. You can prove whatever you like with stats if you try hard enough, but the fact is that Vettori has taken more than 300 wickets; mostly on wickets that don't suit his game and YOU have the cheek to call this "FA". Maybe I'll be less emotive when you can come up with a balanced view.

Nice post.

I think performances against Bangladesh in Bangladesh count. I'm not dismissing Vettori's fantastic performance against them.

 

[Athlai]

Love Heaths cranky posts.

 

[The Sean]

Love Heaths cranky posts.

The word "cranky" is redundant in that sentence TBH.

 

[Athlai]

The word "cranky" is redundant in that sentence TBH.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The word "cranky" is redundant in that sentence TBH.

I'll take this as meaning you love all my posts regardless of what mood I'm in

 

[Uppercut]

Yup & I also reckon if it's fine to put Vettori's record in context by excluding Bangladesh. I'd like to provide the following context to Flintoff's career record...

Whilst Flintoff barely played against minnows Bang & Zim, it possibly provides some perspective if you exclude the 20 tests he played against remarkably weak NZ & WI's sides.

59 Games 2704 runs @ 28.46 with 2 centuries & 142 wickets @ 35.17 with 2 fivers

Hmm.

I think it's a given that most players will have better records against worse teams than against others. A wicket for Flintoff against New Zealand is arguably worth more than a wicket against Australia in 2006/07 because it helped his side win the series. Against Australia in 06/07, it probably didn't matter how well he bowled, England were always going to lose the series.

The reason that I don't include Bangladesh/Zimbabwe stats is because Bangladesh and Zimbabwe always lose, so you're not helping your team by taking wickets against them (because it's reasonable to assume that they would have won whether you took those wickets or not). In Vettori's case, this is obviously a bit unfair because there's one example where he essentially dragged his team to victory single-handedly. But you can't really do it to everyone else and not do it to Vettori.

Vettori's runs and wickets against Bangladesh have to count for something, because unlike pretty much anyone else's, they stopped his side from losing a match. Still, when you average 33 with Bangladesh included and 37 without them, it's fair to say that the average of 33 is a bit inflated.

 

[Zinzan]

I would attempt a comparison of a player Uppercut likes, but he'd just say "he's not English" and there's certainly no Irish players that warrant comparison.

Haha, he does get free-ticket in that respect

 

[aussie]

Yup & I also reckon if it's fine to put Vettori's record in context by excluding Bangladesh. I'd like to provide the following context to Flintoff's career record...

Whilst Flintoff barely played against minnows Bang & Zim, it possibly provides some perspective if you exclude the 20 tests he played against remarkably weak NZ & WI's sides.

59 Games 2704 runs @ 28.46 with 2 centuries & 142 wickets @ 35.17 with 2 fivers

Haa no way man. Regardless of how weak as a team WI & NZ have been in recent years you can't compare them to BANG.

WIs batting that Freddie bowled generally was strong as well. NZ where probably only weak in the last 2 series. In 2002 & 2004 NZs team was very good.

 

[Zinzan]

Hmm.

I think it's a given that most players will have better records against worse teams than against others. A wicket for Flintoff against New Zealand is arguably worth more than a wicket against Australia in 2006/07 because it helped his side win the series. Against Australia in 06/07, it probably didn't matter how well he bowled, England were always going to lose the series.

The reason that I don't include Bangladesh/Zimbabwe stats is because Bangladesh and Zimbabwe always lose, so you're not helping your team by taking wickets against them (because it's reasonable to assume that they would have won whether you took those wickets or not). In Vettori's case, this is obviously a bit unfair because there's one example where he essentially dragged his team to victory single-handedly. But you can't really do it to everyone else and not do it to Vettori.

Vettori's runs and wickets against Bangladesh have to count for something, because unlike pretty much anyone else's, they stopped his side from losing a match. Still, when you average 33 with Bangladesh included and 37 without them, it's fair to say that the average of 33 is a bit inflated.

Look, absolutely no argument from me to say Vettori's record isn't inflated more than most due to his results against minnow's. As I said earlier, I just find it gets tiresome that the excluding of minnow's is so often the only thing ever considered when assessing a player.

 

[Zinzan]

Haa no way man. Regardless of how weak as a team WI & NZ have been in recent years you can't compare them to BANG.

WIs batting that Freddie bowled generally was strong as well. NZ where probably only weak in the last 2 series. In 2002 & 2004 NZs team was very good.

That's all good & well, but would the Bangladeshi's side against NZ in 08, still be considered minnows?

 

[Uppercut]

You think?

I try to just skim over it quickly. I think sometimes players are even subconsciously penalised for scoring runs against minnows (Hayden's 380 is sometimes treated as some kind of crime). All you can really do is take those games out when you look at the figures.