That's the point I'm making - his overall batting average (20) in no way reflects how well he plays right now (average 40). That's like judging Richardson by his bowling efforts and saying he's one of (if not the) best bowlers in the team!
What I'm pointing out is that his batting average over the last ten matches is over 40 and about 43 for the last five matches. For the last ten matches, he quite literally has been a batter who can bowl if needed... and he seems to only be improving. It does make me scratch my head, though... where do you draw the line? Do you always have to go by career-length form or do you go by the last 10-20 matches? If you do go by the last ten matches, he quite blatantly is NOT a bowler and IS a batsman, with averages of around 70 and 40 respectively. Not bad for a lower order batsman, I might add, and a lot of middle order batsmen in the world wouldn't mind an average of 40 either!
Sidenote: I'm actually a big critic of Vettori, but I noticed how our all rounders tend to start as bowlers and finish as batsmen, investigated and found this. I thought it was pretty interesting. I looked into Cairns, Oram, Styris and Vettori. I found that in over 90% of the interval changes I checked, the batting average and the bowling average both went up, showing NZ all rounders are consistently improving their batting at the expense of their bowling. I think it totalled 13 up, 1 down. ODI's was something like 12 up, 6 down... (when an UP is the batting average / bowling average increasing and DOWN is decreasing - don't know if this makes sense without pulling the long list of stats down)
