Vettori is clearly not a very penetrative bowler
The problem is there are few bowlers that can attack from the other end, so batting sides can remain patient against Vettori, as indeed they do, and gather runs from the other end, fairly risk free batting.
You wonder, as someone alluded to earlier, if he was surrounded by bowlers such as Bond, to what degree his figures would inevitably improve by.
These quotes sum up what really frustrates me about the contradictory nature of the arguments used to defend Vettori.
For starters, you're admitting Vettori isn't penetrative, but then saying his figures would inevitably improve if surrounded by good bowlers. Since when did non-penetrative bowlers suddenly become wicket takers because they have good bowlers around them? Name me one non-penetrative bowler in cricket history who has been a prolific wicket taker on the basis of having other good bowlers in his team? It's a total myth.
It reminds me of Nathan Hauritz last season. He had a good record last summer because he was seen as a soft option and teams tried to go after him. It was always going to be too good to last. International batsmen don't keep on gifting wickets to innocuous spinners because there are other good bowlers in the side. It's perfectly conceivable that it might happen for short periods of time or occasionally (as with Hauritz last year, and Vettori when playing with Bond) but it's not something that lasts. Give international batsmen some credit.
The real point is, if Vettori was surrounded by good bowlers, would he even get a bowl?
Vettori is INCREDIBLY LUCKY to have been given the opportunities he has with the ball throughout his career. He isn't hiding any tricks, he isn't concealing an amazing talent to make the ball turn square or bowl a ripping doosra. Surround him with all the bowling talent in the universe, he still won't bowl any differently- he doesn't have anything else to offer!
He is lucky that for so long he has been able to bowl marathon spells and grind batsmen in to submission. Look how he takes wickets. He bowls 14 or 15 overs on the trot and finally someone holes out or misses a straight break (usually for about 150). If he wasn't given the opportunity to bowl so many long spells, how would he ever take wickets?
And the comment about how batsmen can "remain patient" against Vettori- what does that even mean? How else would they play him? Vettori bowls accurately and unthreateningly. OF COURSE batsmen are going to play his bowling on its merits. Of course they are going to score slowly and not get out. That's just a reflection of the way he bowls.
On one hand people say Vettori isn't threatening, on the other they insinuate that opposing batsmen "play him out" because they see him as a threat. For one, that's obviously totally contradictory. Secondly, why on earth would any test batsmen see Vettori as a threat?
And finally (for now)... people keep saying Vettori has to bowl tightly because the bowlers at the other end are both expensive and unthreatening.
I fully agree that e.g. with our current pace attack in Indian conditions, they are expensive and unthreatening. But why would that lead Vettori to bowl defensively at the other end?
Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics could work out that, on the spectrum from "sacrificing economy for wickets" to "sacrificing wickets for economy", when the bowlers at the other end are leaking runs and not taking wickets, the former is the more logical response. Fairly basic stuff, but do a few sums if you don't believe me. Vettori, when confronted with poor seam bowling from his teammates, routinely adopts a style of bowling that preserves the respectability of his own figures while doing the absolute least possible for the team's cause.
. Injuries will visit a few, others won't improve, some won't get picked for their domestic sides in favour of ****house projects or because there is a long queue of good domestic bowlers in front of them, and this being NZ only 1-2 will filter through to play for NZ on a consistent basis.