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

[JBH001]

What was worse was his defensive attitude when more was expected of him.

Sometimes I think SJS is right about Vettori, as batsman and especially as a bowler.

 

[Uppercut]

What was worse was his defensive attitude when more was expected of him.

Sometimes I think SJS is right about Vettori, as batsman and especially as a bowler.

What's SJS's opinion of him?

Agree regarding Vettori's failure in the match that finished yesterday- he didn't really get the job done. It would be fair to say that the pitch didn't favour spin at all throughout, but the fact is he never gets the job done in situations like that.

 

[NZTailender]

If you were to compare Vettori to other all-rounder-ish people, I'd say he's more similar to Chaminda Vaas; Vaas the better bowler (obviously), Vettori the better batsman.

 

[Uppercut]

I think that's fair. Similar too in that their importance to the team is/was much more significant than their cricketing ability.

 

[Zinzan]

What's SJS's opinion of him?

Agree regarding Vettori's failure in the match that finished yesterday- he didn't really get the job done. It would be fair to say that the pitch didn't favour spin at all throughout, but the fact is he never gets the job done in situations like that.

One thing I'd like to point out that is quite unique to Vettori's bowling and should help in explaining why he doesn't often get wickets when he's expected to (i.e 4th innings); is that the the state of the wicket doesn't seem to be much of an influence as to whether he's going to get wickets or not.

Presumably this is due to the fact he gets most of his wickets through the air by deceiving the batsman with flight & change of pace, and whether he gets wickets or not depends on how often he deceives batsmen in any innings as opposed to wickets taken due to the pitch

Whilst he may be helped by a disintegrating 4th or 5th day pitch on occasions, he's not as likely to rip through sides on such pitches nearly as often other spinners like Murali, Harbhajan & even Karneria.

 

[Zinzan]

I suppose this also explains how he seems to bowl tightly on virtually any type of wicket in ODI/T20's, again due to the fact he deceives in the air & not off the wicket

 

[Uppercut]

While that's true, it's not like he ever rips through sides and wins New Zealand matches on flat decks either. Essentially, he rarely takes a significant amount of wickets regardless of conditions. He can take poor players of spin apart on any pitch, and is very difficult to go after so is useful against players who haven't the patience to milk him. But against good players of spin who play him sensibly, he's next to useless.

 

[Zinzan]

While that's true, it's not like he ever rips through sides and wins New Zealand matches on flat decks either.

This is also true & I wasn't meaning to suggest it's a point in his favour either

But against good players of spin who play him sensibly, he's next to useless.

'Next to useless' is possibly a tad harsh , he can and has dismissed some very good test batsmen early in their innings, just not nearly as often as you'd like from a top spinner.

 

[zaremba]

I'm Australian and Benaud is no hope so it's Dan then a group of people who fought in the first world war

Classic

Your opinion that Benaud is "no hope" isn't given Gospel status just because you're Australian. I think many informed cricket followers (perhaps the
majority) would take Benaud over Vettori. And moreover in a contest between the two I can't see many agreeing with your airy assertion that Benaud was "no hope".

Anyway why are you taking this so personally?

 

[NZTailender]

I think that's fair. Similar too in that their importance to the team is/was much more significant than their cricketing ability.

Vaas also benefited from bowling alongside Murali (and vice versa IMO) throughout nearly all his test career.

What's interesting is Vettori's stats when he's played alongside Bond - just 18 times.
62 wickets @ 24.74, SR 54.5, 3 5fers and 1 10fer.

Alongside James Franklin - 83 @ 25.81

James Franklin & Shane Bond - 26 @ 17.46

Alongside Chris Martin - 124 @ 36.41

Chris Martin & James Franklin - 53 @ 32.09

Chris Martin & Shane Bond - 42 @ 23.38

Chris Martin & Iain O'Brien - 50 @ 37.64

Alongside Chris Cairns - 127 @ 36.07

Chris Cairns & Daryl Tuffey - 14 @ 56.07

Chris Cairns & Shane Bond - 19 @ 26.52

Chris Cairns & Chris Martin 14 @ 49.50

Alongside Daryl Tuffey - 49.75

Daryl Tuffey & Shane Bond - 15 @ 21.53

Daryl Tuffey & Chris Martin - 5 @ 94.20

Alongside Iain O'Brien - 74 @ 31.06

Alongside Kyle Mills - 55 @ 25.34

Kyle Mills & Chris Martin - 31 @ 31.67

Kyle Mills & Iain O'Brien - 39 @ 21.84

Kyle Mills & James Franklin - 16 @ 28.62

Alongside Simon Doull - 58 @ 32.05

Simon Doull & Chris Cairns - 51 @ 29.52

Alongside Dion Nash - 44 @ 41.95

Dion Nash & Chris Cairns - 37 @ 40.35

Dion Nash & Simon Doull - 14 @ 53.21

Alongside Shayne O'Connor 35 @ 41.54

Alongside Ian Butler - 26 @ 34.23

Alongside Jacob Oram 103 @ 32.87

Alongside Heath Davis 16 @ 24.06

And the spinners of note...

Alongside Jeetan Patel - 40 @ 31.67

Alongside Paul Wiseman - 85 @ 28.22

How the bowlers have fared alongside Vettori


Make of it what you will...

 

[Anil]

Haha I think the significance of that fact doesn't really hit home sometimes. People have a lot of sympathy for the team and its fans, a lot of love for them as an underdog and a lot of hope that they'll one day be a competitive test side- because cricket doesn't really have enough sides that can beat each other. I spoke to a bunch of their supporters during the World T20, and they were genuinely the nicest fans you could ever imagine. Really friendly, great sense of fun and they'd follow their side to the end of the world.

But I still have to say that as far as test cricket goes, there are no positives. Barring Zimbabwe and the third-choice West Indies side, their record reads: Played 55, Lost 52, Drawn 3. Of those draws, only one- against the West Indies- was not heavily rain-affected.

I can't think of a sporting precedent. Is there ANY other team in any other major sport that has gone on such a prolonged losing streak? Even San Marino's soccer team beat Liechtenstein in 2004. Relative to the level at which they (try to) compete, does this make Bangladesh the worst international sporting team of all time? Surely, in any other sport, the administrators would show mercy to the team and relegate them to a less humiliating level. I'm happy to look to give credit to the underdogs, but there has to be a limit. How bad does a team have to be before people will say, "no, there are no positives, these guys are just awful." Isn't losing every single match you EVER play enough?

And look, it's not that I want Bangladesh to be horrendously bad. They just are. If Ireland lost their first 52 games in test cricket and people were saying, "ah, but they got themselves into a good position in that one match at home New Zealand before completely throwing it away and losing by three wickets", I'd be utterly humiliated.

well said...

 

[NUFAN]

Uppercut, do you know how many years it took India before they won there first ever Test match?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

But against good players of spin who play him sensibly, he's next to useless.

but the fact is he never gets the job done in situations like that.

Not indulging in hyperbole yet again in this thread are you Uppercut?

 

[Uppercut]

'Next to useless' is possibly a tad harsh , he can and has dismissed some very good test batsmen early in their innings, just not nearly as often as you'd like from a top spinner.

Hmm, yeah, that's true. He needs them to make a mistake though, he rarely *gets* a good player of spin out. Next to useless is harsh, but the figures gwo posted showed an average of 43 against the top six test sides, so that's the kind of level you're looking at.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hmm, yeah, that's true. He needs them to make a mistake though, he rarely *gets* a good player of spin out. Next to useless is harsh, but the figures gwo posted showed an average of 43 against the top six test sides, so that's the kind of level you're looking at.

Was one of the few spinners to make Mark Waugh look average, in fairness. Mind you, that was a good 10 years ago.

 

[Uppercut]

Not indulging in hyperbole yet again in this thread are you Uppercut?

Unless you take it 100% literally, "never" isn't exactly over-the-top. How many times HAS he bowled them to victory in the fourth innings of a test?

 

[bagapath]

Was one of the few spinners to make Mark Waugh look average, in fairness.

you mean "mark waugh made to look average as an off-spinner"? mark was a pretty decent bowler to start with. doesnt have to be compared with vettori to look good.

 

[Uppercut]

Uppercut, do you know how many years it took India before they won there first ever Test match?

20?

What's your point exactly?

 

[Uppercut]

Was one of the few spinners to make Mark Waugh look average, in fairness. Mind you, that was a good 10 years ago.

It's true, yeah. Certain batsmen struggle with certain bowlers; that Vettori isn't effective against good players of spin is a general trend, but it's anything but set in stone.

 

[Top_Cat]

you mean "mark waugh made to look average as an off-spinner"? mark was a pretty decent bowler to start with. doesnt have to be compared with vettori to look good.

Nah, I meant he nailed Mark Waugh a couple of times and worked him over pretty well. Mark got his own back a couple of times, of course, but against such a good player of spin, that's to be expected.