Worst Player to Play 100 Tests?

[Pratters]

No that's not the point. Point is to ponder who is the worst among them..or least, say. This is not a morality issue ffs. It is nice to argue and ponder relative worth of players.

 

[stephen]

No way he was hopeless at the end. His last "ok" innings was 50* against SA chasing 100-odd and it was all play-and-misses and edges. In 2001 Aus briefly had Gilchrist/Waugh/Hayden rotating through the opening spot but it became obvious pretty quickly that Waugh was done.

His tour to England in 2001 yielded two scores in the 40s, a duck and one in the 30s, which was perfectly fine for an opener.

The 2002 tri series against SA and NZ was a bit worse. Had he been a younger man at the time they would have persisted with him. He arguably had a couple of years left in him at that point but the pressure from Hayden on his spot was too intense with a World Cup up for grabs in 2003. Steve Waugh was axed from the ODI team at the same time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

His tour to England in 2001 yielded two scores in the 40s, a duck and one in the 30s, which was perfectly fine for an opener.

The 2002 tri series against SA and NZ was a bit worse. Had he been a younger man at the time they would have persisted with him. He arguably had a couple of years left in him at that point but the pressure from Hayden on his spot was too intense with a World Cup up for grabs in 2003. Steve Waugh was axed from the ODI team at the same time.

There's no way Waugh should have kept his spot though, or that he was dropped too early. The Aus ODI team took a huge step forward with the dropping of the old Waughs.

 

[marc71178]

Vettori at the end of his career was possibly a better batsman than some of the blokes with 100 caps that were specialists. Severe underrating of the value of an allrounder.

Was he really that good though? If he was then you'd assume that when he batted further up the order his record would get a lot better if he was as good as was made out?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

His tour to England in 2001 yielded two scores in the 40s, a duck and one in the 30s, which was perfectly fine for an opener.

The 2002 tri series against SA and NZ was a bit worse. Had he been a younger man at the time they would have persisted with him. He arguably had a couple of years left in him at that point but the pressure from Hayden on his spot was too intense with a World Cup up for grabs in 2003. Steve Waugh was axed from the ODI team at the same time.

TBF Shane Bond owned all the Aussie batsmen except Bevan in that triseries. It wasn't just Junior

 

[Pratters]

Was he really that good though? If he was then you'd assume that when he batted further up the order his record would get a lot better if he was as good as was made out?

That is such a stupid argument. He made runs for a sustained period. Surely that's a good enough argument for being good enough, no?

 

[Bolo]

Ntini was pretty damn good.

Close to ATG at home. Horrible away. Averages 37.

 

[Hicheal Michael]

Vettori is a better shout for this "honour". He wouldn't have made most sides around the world when he played and he never set the world on fire but was good enough to hold his spot for a very long time. Still, as I said earlier, he was a special player. You don't get 100 tests if you don't have something going for you.

He would have walked into the Australia team from 2007-11, the South African team during the Harris years, and the England team during the Giles years. Vettori just about perfected the art of the defensive spinner/top 8 batsmen.

not sure I'd go that far, but he was definitely a classy Test bat for a few years there. Easily better than a lot of the top/middle-order batsmen that NZ had during the time.

Batting Average from 2008 - 2011

Vettori - 39.66

Ponting - 39.79

 

[Fuller Pilch]

He would have walked into the Australia team from 2007-11, the South African team during the Harris years, and the England team during the Giles years. Vettori just about perfected the art of the defensive spinner/top 8 batsmen.





Batting Average from 2008 - 2011

Vettori - 39.66

Ponting - 39.79

He was the no 2 allrounder in the world for several years behind Jacques Kallis (ahead of Flintoff and young Shakib)

 

[Flem274*]

Was he really that good though? If he was then you'd assume that when he batted further up the order his record would get a lot better if he was as good as was made out?

he should have, even with big Jake being the main #6 during Vettori's peak batting years. 2008 onwards we mixed 6 specialist 'batsmen' with the james franklin allrounder experiment. all along 4-7 should have been Taylor-Ryder-Vettori-McCullum

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Vettori was not far behind Harhabjan with the ball and clearly ahead with bat and in field. Interestingly in tests where Bond was playing, Vettori averaged mid-20s. Having a strike bowler in the side would've made a huge difference as Vettori wouldn't have been so much of a stock bowler and could've bowled at the tail more.

 

[Flem274*]

well yeah goes without saying miserly spinners take more wickets when they're surrounded by good pacers. it forces batsmen to chase them rather than waiting for chris martin to reappear. put vettori in with boult-southee-wagner and his average everywhere would plummet, but still be ineffective in conditions where he should dominate.

he and wagner would have made an interesting partnership on dead pitches.

 

[trundler]

Wait, how did we go 4 entire pages without Harbhajan being nominated? End thread now.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If Vettori was in the side now instead of the other ND spinners, he'd do well bowling with the ND seamers.

 

[Spark]

I get the arguments re: Boucher but if you think leadership, team cohesion and on-field mentality are important in this sport (and how could you not) then surely Boucher is waaaay better than raw numbers suggest.

 

[Flem274*]

(and how could you not)

you must be new here

 

[Spark]

you must be new here

i'm my own man

 

[Howe_zat]

I get the arguments re: Boucher but if you think leadership, team cohesion and on-field mentality are important in this sport (and how could you not) then surely Boucher is waaaay better than raw numbers suggest.

What if you think Boucher doesn't contribute to those things?

It's an easy area to just make stuff up, or just hear other fans say it and believe it about certain players. It's not much of a stretch to disregard that approach.

 

[marc71178]

That is such a stupid argument. He made runs for a sustained period. Surely that's a good enough argument for being good enough, no?

My argument is that he didn’t actually make runs when put up the order so he can’t be classed as good as other specialist bats who did.

 

[Bahnz]

he should have, even with big Jake being the main #6 during Vettori's peak batting years. 2008 onwards we mixed 6 specialist 'batsmen' with the james franklin allrounder experiment. all along 4-7 should have been Taylor-Ryder-Vettori-McCullum

I think to some extent Vettori struggled with the burden of being captain, coach, workhorse bowler and a middle order bat too, and this probably hurt his numbers a bit when he tried to fill that roll. I remember him being interviewed after one of the first times he was pushed up to 6 and made runs, and I recall him sounding incredibly resigned when he said, "Well, I guess I'm a number 6 now." He still did alright though - averaged 33 batting at number 6 in the 09-12 period playing predominantly against strong bowling attacks.