• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Was Dan Vettori better than the stats suggest

thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
wellAlbidarned said:
we had 99 problems but a dan wasn't one
Click to expand...
His inability to take test match wickets in pretty much any situation where spin was a factor and we weren't playing Zimbabwe or Bangladesh was absolutely a problem.

As a PERCEIVED problem, it was exacerbated by the number of nuthuggers who were adamant our least effective bowler was also our best and tried to create a false narrative blaming our generally passable seamers.
 
wellAlbidarned

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
I can't remember what the dominant narrative was back then but surely it was more related to us struggling to find more than two batsmen averaging over 35?
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
wellAlbidarned said:
I can't remember what the dominant narrative was back then but surely it was more related to us struggling to find more than two batsmen averaging over 35?
Click to expand...
It also probably depends what era we're talking about. I think you're talking about the 2008-2011ish era where it's generally accepted we sucked and Vettori was "coach, captain, selector, and drives the team bus ayyyy lmao". I would say that during that era Vettori's bowling avoided scrutiny because he was one of our best batsmen anyway, and it seemed churlish to criticise a guy taking on so much responsibility. I would still argue that during this period he was pretty mediocre at his core role.

Prior to that (say 2002-2008) I would argue that we weren't such a poor side and Vettori's relative ineffectiveness was more consequential. There was also a false narrative imo (might have just been a CW thing) that Vettori was good and our (relatively decent) seamers sucked, which used to infuriate me.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
DRS may have seen that bowling average drop from 38.5 against good teams to something like 37.
So yes? Sorta.
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
RossTaylorsBox said:
I'm sure there were times when it was all set up for Our Dan to run through them in the 4th innings and he'd end up with 1-93 off 42 overs in a draw.
Click to expand...
Yeah Vettori's thing was that he was very good at destroying minnows, and also he was good at being the only passable bowler when the rest of our attack were being destroyed (it felt like he built up a lot of credit by doing this against Australia). In the "in between" situations where we wanted important wickets in winnable and close-fought matches, he tended to disappear.
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
Astle used to nick off for not many most of the time. Also in most of his good ODI innings he started off boshing a few through the off-side when the field was up and then crawled through the middle overs at a painfully slow strike rate cos he had no ability to manipulate the strike :D
 
NZTailender

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Athlai said:
Vettori probably would've benefitted immensely from having a Southee/Boult/Wagner quality attack to build and sustain pressure at the other end. While he was consistently very difficult to score off, after his injury, he was never a wicket taker.
Click to expand...
*Nzt opens Cricinfo stats guru*
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
Athlai said:
Vettori probably would've benefitted immensely from having a Southee/Boult/Wagner quality attack to build and sustain pressure at the other end. While he was consistently very difficult to score off, after his injury, he was never a wicket taker.
Click to expand...
For like the first decade of his career we were an ok team with a perfectly serviceable seam attack. Vettori was what he was. It wasn't like we had a superior spinner being let down by poor seamers.

This is all referring to post 2002ish Vettori cos he was definitely good early on, pre-injuries, when he was taking 100 test wickets by age 21 and all that. After that he was mostly just a canny straight-break bowler with a backstory.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
thierry henry said:
For like the first decade of his career we were an ok team with a perfectly serviceable seam attack. Vettori was what he was. It wasn't like we had a superior spinner being let down by poor seamers.

This is all referring to post 2002ish Vettori cos he was definitely good early on, pre-injuries, when he was taking 100 test wickets by age 21 and all that. After that he was mostly just a canny straight-break bowler with a backstory.
Click to expand...
Our seam attack was pretty **** imo

Our premier strike bowler was Chris Martin
 
thierry henry

thierry henry

International Coach
Athlai said:
Our seam attack was pretty **** imo

Our premier strike bowler was Chris Martin
Click to expand...
Nah you're also focusing on the post-2008 bit where we were ****. Martin was down the pecking order until the end of his career when his contemporaries had faded away. Younger guys like Franklin and Tuffey had ok careers but had promised a lot more in the early and mid 2000s before fizzling out. Earlier in Vettori's career it was Cairns, Nash, Doull.

Generally in the early and mid 2000s it was Vettori and a battery of medium fast bowlers averaging 29-32.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top