Should Vettori switch & play ODIs/IT20s again instead of Tests?

[Zinzan]

I'm sure there's others like me who find Vettori's decision to play tests at the expense of ODI's & T20's both ironic & frustrating considering he's a genuinely world-class performer in the shorter-forms, yet appears more & more unsuited to Test cricket at as time goes on.

Whilst he's arguably been the best no. 8 test batsman in history, I don't believe his technique is good enough to play at no.6. I know he's averaged 40 or so in the last few years, but for me there's a big difference in terms of expectation & approach when you bat at 7 or 8 as opposed to 6 where you're genuinely expected to score runs, and I think we saw signs of that in this latest series against SA.

The problem is then exacerbated since his bowling has declined to the degree to which he doesn't look like doing anything more than restricting the scoring & hence can't really be relied on as part of a 4 pronged attack.

Therefore.....Should Vettori do a 180 degree turn and pull out of Tests to play the shorter forms that actually brings his key strength of bowling economically into play ?

 

[Flem274*]

I think he should continue to play test matches, but as a batting allrounder in the top six.

He has test centuries against top eight sides at number six, so he is capable, despite failing against a very good South African attack.

I don't buy the argument in Vettori's case that he gets away with a lesser technique at number eight. Every side knows he is a key component of the batting, and they would be insane not to formulate plans to get rid of him.

Vettori needs to move up the order and become a fifth bowler.

 

[Zinzan]

I think he should continue to play test matches, but as a batting allrounder in the top six.

He has test centuries against top eight sides at number six, so he is capable, despite failing against a very good South African attack.

I don't buy the argument in Vettori's case that he gets away with a lesser technique at number eight. Every side knows he is a key component of the batting, and they would be insane not to formulate plans to get rid of him.

Vettori needs to move up the order and become a fifth bowler.

So you believe he provides the NZ team more value playing Test cricket than if he played the shorter forms? Because that was effectively the question.

 

[Flem274*]

He is a world class ODI spinner but his short form batting is as effective as his long form bowling.

Do you want a batting allrounder in the test side, or a world class ODI spinner in the ODI side? Since we have no shortage of economical spinners who can bat (Nathan McCullum, Ronnie Hira, Bruce Martin et al), I'd prefer the batting allrounder since test standard allrounders are a scarce resource in New Zealand at present, though a few players are showing promise in the Shield.

If Vettori switched, we would need to replace him in the test side. That means the options are;

-Finding another allrounder (Ellis and Wells seem to be popular with the selectors at present)
-Promoting Bracewell to eight and bringing in the extra bowler (likely another spinner, who would be Nethula)

 

[Zinzan]

I think he should continue to play test matches, but as a batting allrounder in the top six.

He has test centuries against top eight sides at number six, so he is capable, despite failing against a very good South African attack.

By 'centuries' at 6 you mean 1 century right?

Here is his record by batting order Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo which clearly demonstrates to me when he's batting way down at 8 and little is expected of him he averages near on 40, however once he's up the order either at 6 or 7 his average drops below 30.

Oh and also, here is his bowling record against non-minnows in the last 3 years. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;spanval2=span;template=results;type=allround

 

[Flem274*]

Little is expected of him? Players, commentators fans - everyone - know Vettori is the second most valuable wicket in the New Zealand side after Taylor. Some would argue he is the most valuable wicket.

Every time he comes to the crease at 180/6, everyone breathes a sigh of relief that Vettori is finally in.

Also, you've included as far back as 1997 in his statistics at number six, when he had the batting prowess of a duck. Hardly a representative sample of the batsman he is today.

 

[Zinzan]

Also, you've included as far back as 1997 in his statistics at number six, when he had the batting prowess of a duck. Hardly a representative sample of the batsman he is today.

Lol Flem, there were only 2 innings out of 17 when he batted 6 prior to 2008, so hardly much of an impact.

 

[Flem274*]

I still think, given a longer opportunity, he will have consistent success at six.

Your expectation argument is not convincing for me. Everyone expects Vettori to be the most annoying player in the world when he strolls in at number eight.

 

[Zinzan]

Little is expected of him? Players, commentators fans - everyone - know Vettori is the second most valuable wicket in the New Zealand side after Taylor. Some would argue he is the most valuable wicket.

Lol, what a load of rubbish. So you think teams breathe a bigger sigh of relief when Vettori falls as opposed to McCullum, Ryder, Brownlie & Guptill then? righto.

It's possible this may have been the case back in 2009 when Vettori was at the peak of his powers, but certainly not these days.

 

[Zinzan]

Your expectation argument is not convincing for me.

Yet the statistics clearly suggest otherwise......his average drops by 10 when he bats at 6 or 7 as opposed to 8.

 

[Flem274*]

Lol, what a load of rubbish. So you think teams breathe a bigger sigh of relief when Vettori falls as opposed to McCullum, Ryder, Brownlie & Guptill then? righto.

Yes, I think they do. It will be interesting to hear what posters from other countries have to say.

Vettori is an infinitely better batsman than McCullum 2003-2009 and Guptill.

 

[Flem274*]

Yet the statistics clearly suggest otherwise......his average drops by 10 when he bats at 6 or 7 as opposed to 8.

Number 8: 48 tests
Number 6: 13 tests

Might have something to do with it.

 

[Zinzan]

Anyway Flem, my main contention that he provides far more benefit to the team in the shorter forms as opposed to me simply calling for his head in Tests. This is based on the assumption he doesn't want to play all forms.

 

[Zinzan]

Number 8: 48 tests
Number 6: 13 tests

Might have something to do with it.

Or.... 24 Tests (29 innings) if you combine his performances at 6 & 7 in which he averages under 30 as opposed to 39 batting at 8. that's quite telling to me.

 

[Flem274*]

The hard part for me about your main contention is he is a completely different player in the two formats (I think we agree there), so it depends on what you want in the team.

I think he is of more use in test matches, but not by a huge margin, because he is a genuine and our only test standard batting allrounder. On the other hand, we have a couple of good limited overs spinners who can bat. Nathan McCullum is no Vettori, but he is a solid bowler, and a better ODI batsman than Vettori.

 

[Zinzan]

Yes, I think they do. It will be interesting to hear what posters from other countries have to say.

Vettori is an infinitely better batsman than McCullum 2003-2009 and Guptill.

Ahhh Flem, it's 2012 now (not 2009), hence why I said it may have been different in 2009.

 

[Flem274*]

Ahhh Flem, it's 2012 now (not 2009), hence why I said it may have been different in 2009.

McCullum and Vettori are still pretty equal for me, and I know who is more likely to throw it all away on 40 with an idiotic shot.

 

[Bahnz]

Losing Vettori's bowling is huge for the ODI side. NcCullum and Hira just aren't anyywhere near the same league as him, and I think his absence was a big factor in our getting poleaxed in the recent ODI series v SA.

I'm not sure whether Vettori is as important to the test side. He's probably still the best test spinner in the country by a mile, but he's just looked so ineffective of late. That's probably partly due to playing South Africa, who've always bossed him around, and I think when he plays against WI and SL later this year we'll see him having a bit more of a presence. But his frailty at number 6 has so far left the side badly unbalanced, especially when we also have Martin, Gillespie and undeveloped Doug in the tail. I still think he has a contribution to make to the test side with the ball, but he needs to do it fast.

I like ODI cricket almost as much as I love test cricket, and I think he probably has a greater contribution to make to the ODI side, so I'd rather see him there...but that doesn't mean that I don't want him in the test side as well.

 

[Mike5181]

I still think Vettori is an important part of the test side.

If a time came where a fit Jesse Ryder was looking for a spot in the team and Vettori was still in his current form then sure I wouldn't have any problem dropping him. He's a quality batsman there's no doubt about that but I wouldn't take his nearly 40 average at number 7/8 as an indication of how he'd go in the top six. He's struggled there in the past. Maybe against Sri Lanka, India etc but certainly not against sides like South Africa, England and Australia.

 

[Zinzan]

Losing Vettori's bowling is huge for the ODI side. NcCullum and Hira just aren't anyywhere near the same league as him, and I think his absence was a big factor in our getting poleaxed in the recent ODI series v SA.

I'm not sure whether Vettori is as important to the test side. He's probably still the best test spinner in the country by a mile, but he's just looked so ineffective of late. That's probably partly due to playing South Africa, who've always bossed him around, and I think when he plays against WI and SL later this year we'll see him having a bit more of a presence. But his frailty at number 6 has so far left the side badly unbalanced, especially when we also have Martin, Gillespie and undeveloped Doug in the tail. I still think he has a contribution to make to the test side with the ball, but he needs to do it fast.

I like ODI cricket almost as much as I love test cricket, and I think he probably has a greater contribution to make to the ODI side, so I'd rather see him there...but that doesn't mean that I don't want him in the test side as well.

Lol Bahnz, well vote that way then