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

[Uppercut]

Not really, wickets aren't particularly more valuable just because they're in the fourth innings, and I never said they were. All I said was that Vettori never bowls New Zealand to victory in the fourth innings of games.

It's not exactly tabloidesque, it's no different from me saying "ah I'm not confident, we never win at Anfield" ahead of a football match. And you popping up to point out that we have in fact won at Anfield once in the last 95 games and therefore my statement is technically incorrect. Only you would say it in a much more condescending way.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Not really, wickets aren't particularly more valuable just because they're in the fourth innings, and I never said they were. All I said was that Vettori never bowls New Zealand to victory in the fourth innings of games.

It's not exactly tabloidesque, it's no different from me saying "ah I'm not confident, we never win at Anfield" ahead of a football match. And you popping up to point out that we have in fact won at Anfield once in the last 95 games and therefore my statement is technically incorrect. Only you would say it in a much more condescending way.

But in those 95 games at Anfield, each one starts 0-0. Saying that Vettori hasn't bowled his team to victory more than once in 95 games assumes he's had the opportunity in each of those 95 games. Which is very different. You calling me condescending doesn't change that.

I have no idea how many of those games he had the opportunity, or even what would constitute an opportunity to bowl his side to victory, but it certainly wouldn't be 1/95 games.

 

[Anil]

This is the exact reason why it's harder now to be up to the level of the other test nations who have had all these things for so long, back when India started cricket was obviously not as professional.

no it's exactly the opposite, the modern amenities help you to get up to speed much faster even in extremely competitive environments, there are enough examples in and out of cricket to prove that...bangladesh is obviously an exception....

Also I'm going to continue to irritate you because time is so important. It can take a generation or two in many cases before a country starts winning more often, this has happened to a few countries.

again there is no rule that says it takes a couple of generations to build a good test team...it depends mainly on infrastructure, passion for the game, talent & opportunity...bangladesh were in the 2nd tier of teams for a fairly long time before they were promoted...to this date, after many, many more chances than other teams got on entry, far from vindicating that promotion, they have just shown that they don't belong..

Bangladesh have beaten the West Indies and would have beaten New Zealand if Daniel Vettori didn't produce one of his best Test performances.

beating a 3rd tier club side in the west indies is not beating a top-level team...as weak as the windies are, their full-strength team wouldn't lose to the current bangladeshi side...and they obviously play better at home and have had a couple of close games with nz, aus, pak etc, so? after almost 10 years and over 50 tests, that's all they have to show...and this is definitely my last post on the subject in this thread...

 

[Uppercut]

Where exactly DID I say that it was his fault? To quote myself, "the fact is he never gets the job done in situations like that." And he doesn't. He's only ever done it once. It could be down to him, down to his team, down to the pitches he played on or a combination of all three. But all I said was that Vettori bowling New Zealand to victory in the fourth innings of a match is an exceptionally rare occurance. Why so angry?

 

[Uppercut]

You say there are no positives with Bangladesh, they haven't even being losing for as long as the proud and talented cricketing nation of India.

This ties in nicely with Vettori vs Bangladesh, because if Daniel didn't perform well and Bangladesh won you might actually start counting Bangladesh's performances.

"Would have won had X, Y and Z happened" is not the same as winning. It's not even close.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Where exactly DID I say that it was his fault? To quote myself, "the fact is he never gets the job done in situations like that." And he doesn't. He's only ever done it once. It could be down to him, down to his team, down to the pitches he played on or a combination of all three. But all I said was that Vettori bowling New Zealand to victory in the fourth innings of a match is an exceptionally rare occurance. Why so angry?

Its a case of semantics.

You say he doesn't get the job done, which implies to me that he often gets the opportunity, and fails to perform. Your use of the statistic "never" or "once" in 95 games implies that in 95 opportunities, Vettori has failed to produce the goods.

If this is your assertion, then it spurious. I'm not angry, I've just found your arguments in this thread extremely 'colourful' in their use of language; and have continued to employ emotive language throughout the thread which Vettori doesn't warrant. Words like 'Donkey', 'FA wickets' and 'never' bowling his team to victory.

Anyway, I don't think its necessary to continue this debate. Its pretty ugly, and I'm clearly not getting any buy in from you on this one, so there's no need to keep this going back and forth.

If only I could put a thread on my 'ignore list'

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, indeed.

I've nothing against Vettori at all, so the language isn't intended to be emotive. As a test batsman, ODI bowler and even as an ODI batsman I think that if anything, he's underrated in those departments. It's only as a test bowler that I think his value's heavily oversold, and I don't really mince my words when I don't rate someone. Maybe I should.

 

[JBH001]

No, think you are spot on in that regard, Uppercut. It was on show again in the last test match. Vettori comes on in the afternoon with the game in the balance and has men back at deep point, deep mid on and deep mid off. IIRC as his spell continued he had 5 men back - at a time when overs and run rate was not the issue. He then takes himself off and brings on Elliott. Hence my earlier comment that SJS might be right about Vettori.

Dont take it too much to heart though, NZ posters tend to be a little sensitive where NZ players are concerned.

 

[Uppercut]

Dont take it too much to heart though, NZ posters tend to be a little sensitive where NZ players are concerned.

Haha, careful, it was actually a comment from me similar to this one that sparked the whole thing off.

 

[zaremba]

NI posters tend to be a little sensitive

fixed

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

No, think you are spot on in that regard, Uppercut. It was on show again in the last test match. Vettori comes on in the afternoon with the game in the balance and has men back at deep point, deep mid on and deep mid off. IIRC as his spell continued he had 5 men back - at a time when overs and run rate was not the issue. He then takes himself off and brings on Elliott. Hence my earlier comment that SJS might be right about Vettori.

I suspect he was attempting to dry up runs at one end and have the pacers take the wickets from the other; whilst also attempting to give his three pacers a bit of a rest. It wasn't a great tactic to give the two batsmen free singles, granted, but on that wicket it was always going to be the pacemen who would cause the damage.

 

[Top_Cat]

I suspect he was attempting to dry up runs at one end and have the pacers take the wickets from the other; whilst also attempting to give his three pacers a bit of a rest. It wasn't a great tactic to give the two batsmen free singles, granted, but on that wicket it was always going to be the pacemen who would cause the damage.

Evidence in and of itself of a decline in his bowling though surely? A few years ago, the suitability of the pitch to his bowling didn't make much of a difference. Distinctly remember him taking a couple of 5-fers against OZ at home and away whilst they busily beat the living piss out of the rest of the attack on pretty flat decks.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Evidence in and of itself of a decline in his bowling though surely? A few years ago, the suitability of the pitch to his bowling didn't make much of a difference. Distinctly remember him taking a couple of 5-fers against OZ at home and away whilst they busily beat the living piss out of the rest of the attack on pretty flat decks.

But on this occasion, the deck was clearly seaming and wickets were being taken by the seamers in the attack. I certainly think it was poor captaincy to allow them easy singles, when he should have been tieing up an end and helping the seamers to rotate, but I would think the tactic was to allow his (injury prone) seamers to have a break for a little longer than would be possible with having seamers going from each end.

Let's not forget that Ajmal did nothing with the ball, whilst Asif and Aamir in particular exploited the movement available and were followed with Bond, and to a lesser extent Martin and O'Brien. This match (in particular) was always going to be won with seam and not spin.

 

[NUFAN]

"Would have won had X, Y and Z happened" is not the same as winning. It's not even close.

Of course it can be close. If Vettori didn't play and someone else performed as good as the second best player for NZ, Bangladesh would have won.

Vettori was the difference in these matches.

I am just being slightly anal though, I don't think you are that far off the mark with Vettori, I just feel you are not giving him enough credit for his performances against Bangladesh.

 

[Uppercut]

Of course it can be close. If Vettori didn't play and someone else performed as good as the second best player for NZ, Bangladesh would have won.

Vettori was the difference in these matches.

I am just being slightly anal though, I don't think you are that far off the mark with Vettori, I just feel you are not giving him enough credit for his performances against Bangladesh.

Yeah, they were important wickets, you obviously have to give him something for them. My thoughts were summed up earlier:

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.

 

[Flem274*]

Didn't SLAs start to get very uneffective once covered pitches came in or something? (I'm not into this whole fingerspinner is lesse than a wristspinner but his beaten by Freds dog sort of thing)

Pity really. Took a whole type of bowling out of the game is so.

 

[Migara]

Interesting stat.

Vettori against non-minnows: Batting - 28.0, Bowling - 37.4
Paul Strang: Batting 27.1 Bowling - 36.0 (all against proper sides, while being in a minnow side)

Make out what it says about so called "slow bowling" all rounder

 

[Migara]

Ha no way man.

Obviously I see you did not like seeing Aussies get in to a tangle against Ajmal.

 

[Flem274*]

Interesting stat.

Vettori against non-minnows: Batting - 28.0, Bowling - 37.4
Paul Strang: Batting 27.1 Bowling - 36.0 (all against proper sides, while being in a minnow side)

Make out what it says about so called "slow bowling" all rounder

It shows you're very selective with your stats.

 

[Migara]

It shows you're very selective with your stats.

So, performance against minnows count? and BTW, if Strang did not get his shoulder injury, his average would have come down as he was very young when he retired.