Is Vettori's ineffectiveness a problem for NZ?

[Blocky]

Let me start firstly by saying two things.

1. Vettori is without doubt one of the top five ODI bowlers of this generation and a guy who has the right mixture of speed, flight and variation to tie down batsmen.

2. Vettori is without doubt one of the top six batsmen currently available in the longer form of the game for NZ Cricket.


But....

His inability to turn the ball consistently in test cricket, combined with his mentality which seems to be tying down batsmen rather than attacking them is what kills the NZ side in the test environment.

Vettori bowls the most overs, takes the most wickets and goes for the lowest run rate of any NZ bowler, all good qualities - until you realise that he's taking each wicket at about 40-45 and that his strike rate is up near 100 per wicket.

This means for all that time Vettori is restricting someone to 2.5 to 3 an over, he's not really regularly taking wickets or threatening the batsmen, meaning pressure is on at the other end to do so.

My view is that because of this, NZ has regressed as a test playing nation because at least before the day of Vettori (or more importantly, with Vettori before his back problems that curtailed the spin he used to generate), we had more bowlers averaging sub 30 with the ball (Nash, Cairns, Doull, Tuffey in his pomp) than we do now, potentially because they had to bowl more overs because they didn't have Dan the workhorse clogging up an end with efficient yet unattacking bowling.

It's a harsh comment on Vettori, some might say he's shouldering the full burden of the fact that NZ don't have good bowlers at the moment but my view is that it's because he bowls so many thrifty overs that the pressure is put on at the other end and that's where they score runs.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm more inclined to believe Vettori is bowling so many mediocre overs because the rest of New Zealand's attack isn't very good than I am to believe that the rest of New Zealand's attack isn't very good because Vettori is bowling a lot of mediocre overs.

 

[Blocky]

I'm more inclined to believe Vettori is bowling so many mediocre overs because the rest of New Zealand's attack isn't very good than I am to believe that the rest of New Zealand's attack isn't very good because Vettori is bowling a lot of mediocre overs.

I can see that point of view, but argue that the same conditions that existed with Gavin Larsen exist with Daniel Vettori.

Gavin Larsen was great for getting through ten overs for 35 runs, maybe taking one wicket in the process - but it meant that a guy who was constantly bowling ten overs meant there were 9 to 10 wickets left to face the other 40 at which stage NZ was getting pounded all over the park.

With Vettori, he'll put himself on and he's there as a bowler who can "do a job" but he's never really attacking, he gets his wickets through mistakes, you very rarely see him rip a ball that takes the top of off in the way Monty Panesar used to and you very rarely see him get the droop and spin that Swann gets.

It basically means if you're content to score 2-3 an over from Vettori, you've got an end that will only take wickets through your mistakes. Against sides like India on flat wickets, mistakes aren't often made which means you're seeing 25-30 overs a day go for 90 runs, for 1 to 2 wickets.

It just isn't good enough if you're wanting to clean sides out and take twenty wickets in test matches to win.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Fair enough, lets give the ball to ... Patel.

 

[Blocky]

Fair enough, lets give the ball to ... Patel.

Who says you absolutely need to have a fulltime spinner? Vettori makes the side as a batsman and can play a part as a part time spinner. Promote him into the top 6 and make room for another bowler or all rounder.

Nathan McCullum for test cricket comes to mind.

 

[Flem274*]

Vettori is fine as a fifth bowler, the problem is thus:

Southee, Arnel and McKay at this stage are reliant in there being something for the bowlers.

Martin, despite his gun spell in the first test, has declined in the past couple of years

Most of the genuine bowling hopes (Tim Southee, Trent Boult, Neil Wagner, Adam Milne, Ben Wheeler, Hamish Bennett, Nick Beard etc) in New Zealand are young blokes and might not be very good yet, so we'll have to wait until they're more experienced and better players.

Andy McKay was plucked out of domestic cricket on potential and Bennett only just started firing two seasons ago and even then he's only averaged around 28 since then, so it's a case of bowlers being elevated faster than we would have liked. Thank the early retirements/declines of Franklin, O'Brien, Martin and Tuffey.

 

[Flem274*]

Who says you absolutely need to have a fulltime spinner? Vettori makes the side as a batsman and can play a part as a part time spinner. Promote him into the top 6 and make room for another bowler or all rounder.

Nathan McCullum for test cricket comes to mind.

You do realise he is possibly the worst spinner in first class cricket right?

 

[vic_orthdox]

The two other players that I've seen (Patel and McCullum) are so far inferior to Vettori its almost embarrassing. New Zealand's quicks aren't that great that you would say that any of them are clearly better bowlers than Vettori, which they'd want to be to push him out to fifth bowler status, plus the fact that their keeper these days will not be good enough to bat at 6 or maybe even at 7.

Vettori's action has had to change, and no he doesn't get the spin that he used to. But you can't just make up statistics about "realising that he goes for 40 at a SR of 100", because if you look at this series he's still taken the most wickets at an average of 36, better than every other bowler for NZ (including Chris Martin, who had that super spell). Vettori has to build pressure, because in the main your quicks can't - even looking at this series, every other bowler aside from him is going at 3 an over.

So if the batsmen are defending Vettori, and attacking the other guys, it should be a case that they other guys can produce more wickets, because the batsmen aren't shutting up shop to them like they are to Dan. But they're not; and there's the inherent problem.

 

[Flem274*]

Spinners better than Jeetan Patel and Nathan McCullum

Todd Astle
Nick Beard
Bhuphinder Singh
Bruce Martin

annnnnnd

George Worker!

 

[SilentOne]

Isn't Vettori's average substantially better when Bond was bowling at the other end?

One of my gripes with Vettori lately is his ridiculously defensive field settings, him pushing himself up the order when he feels like it or not having confidence in Southee.

 

[thierry henry]

The first post in this thread is a thing of beauty. There are various points I want to make but I kinda can't be bothered as I know the futility of me arguing against Vettori.

 

[straw man]

A bit of a moot point. We'd all like it if Vettori could spin the ball a bit more and bowl in a more attacking style, but he doesn't or can't. As Vic_orthodox pointed out, Vettori still has the best bowling average this series (admittedly two of those wickets were lbws that shouldn't have been given) and the primary problem is that our seam stocks are at their weakest (or most unproven) for years.

I think this discussion would become very interesting if a good or very good spinner appeared in the NZ domestic comp who could command a place in the NZ bowling lineup in most conditions. Then we'd see acknowledgement that Vettori is as much in the team for batting as bowling, and he'd have to move back to batting at six to make room.

Until that fanciful day arrives*, he's still the best we have.


* Fingers, toes and nose hairs crossed. I'm not greedy. I'm not asking for a Shane Warne. A Stuart MacGill would be nice enough.

 

[Athlai]

As ineffective as he might be he is still probably better than any of our fast bowling options.

 

[Flem274*]

As ineffective as he might be he is still probably better than any of our fast bowling options.

?? As inconsistent as our seamers are, they're still more likely to explode with a huge haul than Vettori.

Vettori is the banker. He's good for 2-4 wickets an innings while one of our inconsistent blokes goes boom at the other end and gets a haul.

But our seamers die a lot on flat wickets, though tbf until this innings they had done all right against India.

Lol at how we (NZ in general) are pointing the finger at the bowling again though when the batsmen capitulated. Not the bowlers fault they have nothing to defend on a flat pitch against the best batting the world.

Pretty sure once Pakistan offer up Imran Farhat and co. the bowlers will improve their performances. Not even Indian quicks bar Zaheer can bowl in their own conditions, and no one has really done well this series.

 

[Athlai]

So our seamers who aren't good for 2-4 wickets an innings are better than Vettori.

I see.

 

[thierry henry]

It's kinda interesting to contemplate how Vettori will be regarded in the future. If he hangs around for a few more years he is going to rack up a serious number of wickets and basically become a statistical anomaly in test cricket history- by far the worst bowler (at least statistically) to take so many wickets.

Actually, Harbhajan will be right there with him tbh....we're seeing quite a special thing in this series, the crappest bowlers to ever take 300/400/500 test wickets.

 

[Flem274*]

So our seamers who aren't good for 2-4 wickets an innings are better than Vettori.

I see.

They are tbh, at a better strike rate. They're also more likely to run through a side.

In any case, I reckon people are overreacting at the bowling after the hiding we're getting this innings. These pitches aren't 200-300 run decks. It's the batsmens fault for not setting our guys something to defend against the best batting line up in the world on flat pitches.

Lol, as I type Vettori gets one to turn a fair way. Was rank wide though.

 

[straw man]

Flem I think you are seriously overrating our pacemens' abilities.

With the very rare exception (Martin in the first test...) they do not run through sides - they are not a group of wayward but potentially dangerous loose cannons a la the young Shoaib Akhtar or even a Jimmy Franklin back when he could bowl and swing the ball.

I tend to be of the view that Vettori bowls lots of overs because our seamers aren't very good and possibly aren't fit enough for long spells without losing it - looking at you Southee.

That and, as none of our seam-bowlers can bat and we have the Hopkins factor to worry about, we cannot consider a five-man bowling attack at the moment.

 

[Flem274*]

Southee is a loose cannon though. Condition reliant, but still destructive on his day. Martin in his pomp was the same, and *hopefully* he's started getting back to that sort of thing. McKay strikes me as a potentially dangerous but inconsistent bowler, but I conceed I have a lot less evidence to back that assertion up with.

EDIT: I'm not saying our seamers are good, but they are more likely to take a cheap five wicket haul than Vettori these days, which is what I've been saying throughout this thread.

 

[Howsie]

Isn't Vettori's average substantially better when Bond was bowling at the other end?

One of my gripes with Vettori lately is his ridiculously defensive field settings, him pushing himself up the order when he feels like it or not having confidence in Southee.

Heh, I thought I was the only one who had picked up on that.