For me, this stat says it all about his ineptitude as a spin bowler in test cricket
In the third innings of games, he averages 35.29 at a strike rate of 81.1
In the fourth innings of games, he averages 38.46 at a srike rate of 86.8
On the days that you expect your spin bowler to be participating and bowling you to victory, he's rarely done it and whats more, has bowling figures that are complete tosh - he's bowling near 15 overs per wicket in the 4th innings.
Yep, Vettori's never bowled New Zealand to a victory in the last innings of a test match, its one of the great black marks on his career as a bowler
Take Bangladesh and Zimbabwe out of Vettori's stats and they're even worse reading.
You can say that about pretty much anyone, you realise...
This notion that we absolutely need a spin bowler bowling 25 overs a day isn't right, I've no problem if we say Vettori is there to tie an end down and will bowl 10-15 overs a day but when he's our main bowler, bowling the most overs and that's the production we get from him? It won't matter if our batting is good or bad - in this series, we've seen good batting performances go to waste because we couldn't remove Harbhajan Singh.
Vettori's hardly alone when it comes to aportioning blame for Habhajan's runfest in this series. However, his captaincy, particularly at Hyderabad was probably more responsible for Harby gettting away than his bowling was.
And Vettori doesn't usually bowl 25+ overs a day. The only times he does is when we're on a deck so placid that our mediocre quicks have virtually no chance of penetrating the opposition batting lineup. In these cases Vettori pretty much has to bowl, as the only alternative is Tim Southee or Daryl Tuffey going at 4 an over without looking remotely like taking a wicket. You could probably make a fairly good argument that Vettori's figures have been hurt by this, as he's had to spend a huge chunk of his career bowling in unhelpful conditions because either the batsmen got skittled on day one and he was forced to bowl in the best batting conditions or the other bowlers have been leaking runs so rapidly that Vettori needed to be brought on to apply the breaks. Or both, in the case of this match.
As for "What would NZ cricket have been like without Vettori?" - in ODI? Dire. In Tests? I believe Bruce Martin would have established himself as a better spin bowler (while fit) than Dan Vettori. Bruce Martin when in form and still motivated to try and make the black caps was taking wickets at Sub 30 on NZ Greentops while Vettori wasn't.
OK, now you're just being silly. You realise you're referring to a guy who has been comfortably out bowled by Kane Williamson over the last couple of seasons. Martin might've been a promisingish talent once upon a time, but he hasn't been any thing close to a success in domestic cricket for the better part of 8 or 9 years.
My theory is that due to our belief that Vettori is our best bowler and the fact that he bowls the most overs, we're very rarely, if ever truly in a test match despite what our batsmen do.
At least with Ashley Giles, he was never seen as a match winner and solely used in spells while the true wicket takers rested.
Yeah well, you're entitled to your opinions, but I can't really say I agree. Vettori isn't holding the entire side back. The idea that our bowlers are packed with raw wicket-taking ability, and that Vettori bowling 20+ overs and going for 2.5 an over whilst picking up a couple of wickets is holding them back seems a little far fetched to me.
New Zealand doesn't have a battery of quality quicks, like we did in the 90's. With Bond absent through most of Vettori's career, and other quality quicks like O'Brien and Franklin only briefly available due to reason's beyond his control, Vettori's generally had to bowl with very mediocre partners operating from the other end. He's not a match winner, and he never will be. But he's also not the reason for the side struggling as they have. The other players have that one covered.
