TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Love it when you get proven right
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Pakistan in Australia 2016/17
- Thread starter smash84
- Start date
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't see why. Flintoff is easily better than Vettori, and almost as good as Watson. Some would even put him and Watson on the same tier.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Watson is like the anti-Flintoff. Probably reasonably similar stats (can't be bothered checking) but Flintoff with a heap of Test match defining performances, and I can't think of too many by Watson off the top of my head.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I was just thinking this tbh.
Flintoff made the most of his talent, performed very well when it mattered in memorable moments and as a result rated very highly in general. probably overrated.
Watson immensely talented, but largely squandered. Rarely performed when it mattered, or when he did people tend not to remember it as he's remembered more for his meme-ness. Massively underrated by most.
ftr their stats are very similar. Almost identical bowling averages, Watson's batting average about 4 runs higher IIRC.
Vettori should be on par with Flintoff, solely for the fact that, for so much of his Test career, he was it. Needed runs because the batsmen sucked? Vettori. Needed overs because the bowlers sucked? Vettori. Needed a captain because nobody else had a clue? Vettori. Selection dilemma to be solved? Another job for DV.
In 2008 I'm pretty sure NZC would have got him to drive the team bus if the regular called in sick. He was that versatile and that used to wearing a stack of different hats.
And he'd always find a way to contribute to the team, no matter what role he was playing. For a bloke with his technique to average 30 overall, 39 under his own leadership (the 'Vettori is it' period) and 40 from #8, is pretty bloody remarkable. As is taking 360 Test poles without a functioning back, at a pretty decent career average considering the workload he carried and that he was bowling finger spin in NZ. And even when he wasn't taking wickets, he was containing -- remove the single game in Pakistan in 2002, and there isn't a single country in which he went for >3rpo (Aus the highest at 2.87, where his 37 @ 40 puts him pretty close to elite company in terms of visiting spinners).
He's a significantly better Test cricketer than Shane bloody Watson, that's for damn sure.
In 2008 I'm pretty sure NZC would have got him to drive the team bus if the regular called in sick. He was that versatile and that used to wearing a stack of different hats.
And he'd always find a way to contribute to the team, no matter what role he was playing. For a bloke with his technique to average 30 overall, 39 under his own leadership (the 'Vettori is it' period) and 40 from #8, is pretty bloody remarkable. As is taking 360 Test poles without a functioning back, at a pretty decent career average considering the workload he carried and that he was bowling finger spin in NZ. And even when he wasn't taking wickets, he was containing -- remove the single game in Pakistan in 2002, and there isn't a single country in which he went for >3rpo (Aus the highest at 2.87, where his 37 @ 40 puts him pretty close to elite company in terms of visiting spinners).
He's a significantly better Test cricketer than Shane bloody Watson, that's for damn sure.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It could take years for the irrational Shane Watson hate to die down it seems
Don't get me wrong, he's one of the most frustrating cricketers in history. Just because of how good he was and how little he did with his talent.
Don't get me wrong, he's one of the most frustrating cricketers in history. Just because of how good he was and how little he did with his talent.
Yeah, Watson during his run as an opener he was genuinely world class. No argument from me there. Watson is a far better batsman, because he's far more talented with a far better technique.
But if we narrow the scope to tough runs -- the 123/5 recoveries -- I'd honestly probably take Vettori. Bloke knew how to dig a team out of a hole and graft, in a way Watson never seemed to get.
But if we narrow the scope to tough runs -- the 123/5 recoveries -- I'd honestly probably take Vettori. Bloke knew how to dig a team out of a hole and graft, in a way Watson never seemed to get.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, I don't think there's a lot of debate that Watson was a worse Test cricketer than Vettori and Flintoff (ODI's a different story), but the batting is the main question here.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
can't really argue with that tbh.
But it's easy to under-appreciate what he actually did in Tests, just because he should have done so much better. In Limited-overs cricket he's potentially an ATG player.
Just objectively-speaking, for an all-rounder to have a higher batting average than bowling average is a decent sign of success. It doesn't happen as often as you think. Neither Flintoff or Vettori could manage it.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Paul Reiffel had a Test bowling average of under 27
never knew that. Would have played against some strong opposition as well.
never knew that. Would have played against some strong opposition as well.
But what did he actually do in Tests with the bat? The ton in India was a genuinely good knock, but when beyond that your career highlights are a string of 50s, a ton remembered more for the dropped catch on 99, and two downhill skiing tons vs England, it isn't saying much for your legacy as a top order batsman.
Admittedly Watson really was two different players under Ponting and Clarke. Watson under Ponting is a perfectly Test standard bat with a conversion problem and a very handy change seamer (41/31 split). Watson under Clarke is basically a no-rounder (31/36).
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
The perfect example of a guy who had a period of awesome form but wasted it with 50s - guy should have had a few years averaging 60+ the way he was hitting the ball, but didn't. Ended up costing him big time.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Rating players purely on their memorable performances isn't always the most sensible thing to do, especially when you assume that memorable and meaningful are the exact same thing.
His personality probably plays a bigger factor in how he's thought of than people admit too. Whiny, cumbersome, reviewing everything, always getting injured, always looks like he's in pain and life is so hard for him. All make people dislike him.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Compare that to Flintoff who always gave everything and is seen as a guy who would bowl 30 overs in a day in 40 degree heat with a broken leg for his country.
Watson gets a bit of sweat in his eye on a 26 degree day and has to go off for treatment and miss a month of cricket
Watson gets a bit of sweat in his eye on a 26 degree day and has to go off for treatment and miss a month of cricket
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
his batting average of just under 27 is arguably more surprising when you think about it
Flem274*
123/5
no he wasn't, because he never did anything of note with said bat
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You can say it as many times as you want, it's not going to make it true