*Official* Australia in New Zealand

[Riggins]

I am so disappointed this means that we will be stuck with marcus north at 6 for the ashes. this is exactly what happened with brett lee last time we played new zealand. he'd been in a "form slump" but then came out, rolled the **** sandwich that nz served up as a test team and then everyone started crapping on about how he was "back" and his "form troubles are finally over as he steamrolled a solid kiwi outfit".
(those arent actual quotes, just the kind of crap people write)

 

[GGG]

Was the leading wicket taker up to Christmas, and most dominate spinner in first class. Still eventually averaged 35 or so IIR (pre new year it was 27)

Sure but I think if you have played 10 season and average 40+ then frankly you will never consistently be any good at test level. "One season wonders" always get found out on the big stage.

 

[Uppercut]

Overselling? Thats exactly how he gets wickets, forces the opposition to give them up. This far far far more frequently happens when our attack is half decent when it's Vettori alone he is poor. Also I think you misunderstand my use of the word pressure cooker. Just as bad for NZ as it is for the opposition. The steam will burst out one way or another, a wicket or plenty of runs.

This is the overselling part tbh.

 

[thierry henry]

Overselling? Thats exactly how he gets wickets, forces the opposition to give them up. This far far far more frequently happens when our attack is half decent when it's Vettori alone he is poor.

Not gonna resort to stats (would be near impossible to collect tbh) but am just gonna say this is absolutely not true.

Vettori has generally shone the most and got the most praise in POOR attacks (i.e. "Vettori is so much better than these hacks" etc)

In strong-ish attacks (how often have we had those through his career?) he tends to become anonymous simply because, if we have effective seamers, he's fairly redundant (as are many spinners tbf)

All up I think statistically Vettori is very consistent in terms of performance regardless of the make-up of the team. In terms of people's perceptions of him, imo his stocks rise when our seam attack is weak and he looks like the hard-done-by toiler who would be so much better with more support...

 

[Athlai]

Not gonna resort to stats (would be near impossible to collect tbh) but am just gonna say this is absolutely not true.

Vettori has generally shone the most and got the most praise in POOR attacks (i.e. "Vettori is so much better than these hacks" etc)

In strong-ish attacks (how often have we had those through his career?) he tends to become anonymous simply because, if we have effective seamers, he's fairly redundant (as are many spinners tbf)

All up I think statistically Vettori is very consistent in terms of performance regardless of the make-up of the team. In terms of people's perceptions of him, imo his stocks rise when our seam attack is weak and he looks like the hard-done-by toiler who would be so much better with more support...

Pretty certain he has always been better with Bond/Cairns at the other end. I reckon his greatest spells probably did come without them though but one the whole I'd definitely go with him being superior with a decent attack. Think the stats back this up as well, though that could be interesting in seeing if he just gets more tail end wickets when Bond or Cairns smash through the top order.

 

[Athlai]

Stats with Bond Average of 24

Take that however you want. The figures with Cairns aren't good but I must admit I didn't watch that much Test cricket when Cairns was still around. Only significant thing I remember is when he hit the stumps and the bails didn't dislodge. Mostly remember the one dayers.

Have we had any other good Test bowlers in the last 5 years?

Franklin for a bit? Martin in patches? O'Brien? Nothing phenomenal.