Daniel Vettori

[marc71178]

If it happened for a long time I'd say otherwise.
It is perfectly within the realms of possibility to be unlucky in a game or two, as I've told you (and one or two others) many times.

Yet when people have said that in the past, you've denied it - now it suits you for someone to be unlucky so you've decided it does happen.

 

[Richard]

Rubbish, I've never denied it's possible.
I have, however, said I don't think it's happened when some people have said it has.

 

[Richard]

Mark Waugh wasn't that bad a bowler actually. 59 Tests wickets at 41.16 and 85 ODI wickets at 34.56. Then there were his 208 FC wickets at 40.98 and 173 List-A wickets (same number as his highest score ironically) at 33.44.

Yes, First-Class and Test averages of over 40 really suggest a good bowler, don't they?!?!?!
He was above net-bowler standard, I'm not saying otherwise, but he was not a bowler who could really be expected to make a difference to a match at the top level.
Yes, he did occasionally (such as the Eng-Aus game at Nevill Road in 2001 ), but all bowlers will do occasionally.
That Mark Waugh was not expected to have an influence on a pitch doesn't say that it wasn't a turner.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yes, First-Class and Test averages of over 40 really suggest a good bowler, don't they?!?!?!
He was above net-bowler standard, I'm not saying otherwise, but he was not a bowler who could really be expected to make a difference to a match at the top level.
Yes, he did occasionally (such as the Eng-Aus game at Nevill Road in 2001 ), but all bowlers will do occasionally.
That Mark Waugh was not expected to have an influence on a pitch doesn't say that it wasn't a turner.

I'm not arguing the point re: the pitch, but rather just stating that Mark Waugh was not a rubbish bowler. For a man who was such a wonderful batsman, he didn't do a half-bad job with the ball when he got it.

 

[Richard]

Mark Waugh needed little practice with the bat - most of it just came. He was one of those players Graham Gooch would have got mad with if he'd been playing much when Waugh was at Essex. Same way he always did with David Gower.
If Waugh had used the lots of time he had, maybe he'd have been a better bowler.
Either way (and no, he wasn't a totally rubbish bowler) it doesn't change the fact that his not bowling did not really say much about the wicket.

 

[shaka]

Mark Waugh IMO was underused as a spin bowler for Australia when he was playing.

 

[Richard]

Yet his figures suggest he really wasn't that good.

 

[Nate]

id hardly call him a rubbish bowler, in fact in one of his last games for NSW he was playing at Telstra Stadium and bowled 2/30-odd off his 10. i was there, and he turned a few on a paceman`s wicket.

 

[Richard]

Even the worst bowlers bowl well sometimes.
And he bowled a few more good spells in one-dayers than in the First-Class game, too.

 

[tooextracool]

Well, except the identification of patterns in Vettori's career.

and if we identify the patterns in ramprakash's career we can say he was distinctly rubbish throughout his career too. but you yourself will tell me that he had the odd year or 2 where he was absolutely brilliant.
of course the fact that vettori had had several series before that where he had taken wickets on non turners, most notably both of his first 2 series would probably mean nothing to you. and even if he hadnt done it before, it makes it absolutely impossible for him to ever succeed on a non turner doesnt it?

 

[tooextracool]

Because they're both pretty rubbish bowlers, and it wouldn't really matter who bowled?
I really have no wish to go through this match again, I've done it so many times before, but I watched it too and I saw, beyond all question, Warne and Vettori turning plenty of deliveries.

amazing isnt it, now when we have another person backing up my theory you again decide to think that this person wasnt watching closely enough and apprently so was everyone else in the world who happened to watch that game except you. apparently you can never make a mistake and that is despite the fact and im pretty certain about this, that you didnt watch the game, you're just making assumptions from your theory that finger spinners cant get wickets on non turners.

 

[Richard]

and if we identify the patterns in ramprakash's career we can say he was distinctly rubbish throughout his career too. but you yourself will tell me that he had the odd year or 2 where he was absolutely brilliant.
of course the fact that vettori had had several series before that where he had taken wickets on non turners, most notably both of his first 2 series would probably mean nothing to you. and even if he hadnt done it before, it makes it absolutely impossible for him to ever succeed on a non turner doesnt it?

I've not mentioned Vettori's career before that Australia series. In fact I've never really examined it.
All I was talking about was that particular period.
I'm not going to do the Ramprakash thing again, you know how it works.

 

[Richard]

amazing isnt it, now when we have another person backing up my theory you again decide to think that this person wasnt watching closely enough and apprently so was everyone else in the world who happened to watch that game except you. apparently you can never make a mistake and that is despite the fact and im pretty certain about this, that you didnt watch the game, you're just making assumptions from your theory that finger spinners cant get wickets on non turners.

I watched the game, let me assure you. There would be no point whatsoever in saying I did if I didn't.
Of course I can make mistakes, and maybe I have here, but it's not like The WACA doesn't produce turning pitches every now and then.
I am in little doubt as to what I saw in that match.

 

[anzac]

he may not be taking hatfuls of wickets, but I'm prepared to do an about face on my position prior to the ENG series & say that Vettori is back.............

and I'm prepared to base this upon his series v AUS in AUS...........
in the Tests he did not allow the AUS batsmen to get to him & had them in trouble with his variations in flight & speed.........
in the ODIs he was the common denominator in the AUS middle order collapses, had AUS talking of looking to bat out his overs (something you just don't hear from them), and he got MOTS...............

I just hope he has some wickets in NZL to keep in the groove, and does not get injured again..............

 

[Richard]

he may not be taking hatfuls of wickets, but I'm prepared to do an about face on my position prior to the ENG series & say that Vettori is back.............

I certainly hope so, it's always nice to see a good player who's endured a long lean trot come back.
Hoping to see a similar thing with Reon King.

 

[Richard]

I just hope he has some wickets in NZL to keep in the groove, and does not get injured again..............

IMO (for the Aus home series, if not the SL) one, New Zealand's best chance is to prepare turners, because Vettori is their best weapon against Australia.
Against Sri Lanka, the best chance would be to repeat India a couple of years ago - pitches like that would probably make Martin into a good bowler and almost certainly would with Oram and Franklin... it might mean Vettori doesn't bowl all series again, but that's better than bowling on nothing pitches (such as the Pakistan and South Africa games last winter) and getting 0-100 from 40 overs.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Mark Waugh IMO was underused as a spin bowler for Australia when he was playing.

Possibly, but his average doesn't exactly jump up and bite you in the backside.

 

[Tim]

Why does Vettori have a poor average?
Because he's always having to bowl defensively because the strike bowlers get smashed or don't take wickets...he's been extremely unlucky IMO. Had he played more tests with a decent bowling attack..maybe Tuffey & Bond..his stats would be much better.

 

[Richard]

Good bowlers are capable of attacking and defending at the same time, remember.
Too often he's had to try and attack on unfavourable pitches, though, yes. Or attempt to be a "stock-up-one-end" option on unfavourable ones.
Sadly, he hasn't cashed-in on favourable wickets as often as he might like.

 

[tooextracool]

I've not mentioned Vettori's career before that Australia series. In fact I've never really examined it.
All I was talking about was that particular period.
I'm not going to do the Ramprakash thing again, you know how it works.

no im simply pointing out how looking at patterns doesnt really say anything, just like it doesnt in ramprakash's case.
as far as that particular period is concened, its fairly obvious that vettori has never been anywhere near as effective after that back injury. so theres really no point in looking at what he did after that.