Where does Vettori rank all-time as an all-rounder?

[KiWiNiNjA]

HERE is a list to help him...

 

[Athlai]

HERE is a list to help him...

More like this.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Vaas falls out too then if you exclude the Bangas? Always knew he was only good enough for First Class cricket.

Oh, no wait a minute. I actually thought he was a good test bowler who was pretty damn annoying to have coming in to bat against you at 8.

 

[bagapath]

How many spin bowlers of this era are better than Vettori do you reckon bagapath? The only ones I'd say for sure are Warne, Murali, Kumble and Mushy, these I think we can all agree are all superior to Vettori.

yes. i agree with those names. i would also say saqlain was better than him. mcgill and harbhajan were marginally better than him in my opinion. you can call them his equals or inferior to him. but i wont waste too much time on it. in short, i dont rate vettori above any spinner with 200+ wickets. he has played a lot of cricket and hence has taken all those wickets. sort of like a spin bowling zaheer khan.

in the 80s the best spinner in the world was abdul qadir. i still cant rank him among the greatest from the other eras like laker, gupta, tayfield, gibbs, bedi, chandra etc. vettori will always have his place among the accumulators for the sheer amount of workload he has done and the number of wickets he has taken but he should never be ranked with the greats.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

More like this.

Oh, I see, so Sri Lanka and New Zealand were never "minnows" at some stage in time?

 

[bagapath]

Could you please stop dodging my question then? How many cricketers that have taken 300 wickets and scored 3000 runs poor test match cricketers?

only vettori. the others are superb in one disciple for sure. some were outstanding in both. vettori is a world beater with neither bat nor ball. he is a bits and pieces cricketer who has played so many games for his country because new zealand could not field a decent XI in his time. he is definitely a poor cricketer by test standards. in no other country could he have played so many games.

 

[Athlai]

yes. i agree with those names. i would also say saqlain was better than him. mcgill and harbhajan were marginally better than him in my opinion. you can call them his equals or inferior to him. but i wont waste too much time on it. in short, i dont rate vettori above any spinner with 200+ wickets. he has played a lot of cricket and hence has taken all those wickets. sort of like a spin bowling zaheer khan.

in the 80s the best spinner in the world was abdul qadir. i still cant rank him among the greatest from the other eras like laker, gupta, tayfield, gibbs, bedi, chandra etc. vettori will always have his place among the accumulators for the sheer amount of workload he has done and the number of wickets he has taken but he should never be ranked with the greats.

I did mention Saqlain. I would disagree on MacGill (I mean hes more likely to win a Test match on a 5th day turner but also more likely to let the opponent get on top of you) and on Harby I'm kind of indifferent. They're about the same. I don't think anyone thinks he should be ranked with the great spinners merely the good Test spin bowlers, but the additional factor of his batting lifts his prestige higher.

Potentially his one day bowling may also lift that prestige, probably pushes himself up a level amongst spinners in that format.

 

[Athlai]

only vettori. the others are superb in one disciple for sure. some were outstanding in both. vettori is a world beater with neither bat nor ball. he is a bits and pieces cricketer who has played so many games for his country because new zealand could not field a decent XI in his time. he is definitely a poor cricketer by test standards. in no other country could he have played so many games.

He can bat in the last 5 years though.

 

[bagapath]

He can bat in the last 5 years though.

certainly. and i admire that guy's grit and determination. he has made his team believe in fighting till the last run is scored. he is a fighter, committed cricketer and ultimate team man; kind of like a talentless allan border.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

only vettori. the others are superb in one disciple for sure. some were outstanding in both. vettori is a world beater with neither bat nor ball. he is a bits and pieces cricketer who has played so many games for his country because new zealand could not field a decent XI in his time. he is definitely a poor cricketer by test standards. in no other country could he have played so many games.

Funnily enough, once he has played 36 more test matches he would probably have raked up more runs and wickets than Kapil Dev, in the same amount of matches.

 

[Ikki]

I did mention Saqlain. I would disagree on MacGill (I mean hes more likely to win a Test match on a 5th day turner but also more likely to let the opponent get on top of you) and on Harby I'm kind of indifferent. They're about the same. I don't think anyone thinks he should be ranked with the great spinners merely the good Test spin bowlers, but the additional factor of his batting lifts his prestige higher.

Potentially his one day bowling may also lift that prestige, probably pushes himself up a level amongst spinners in that format.

MacGill is by far superior to Vettori.

Funnily enough, once he has played 36 more test matches he would probably have raked up more runs and wickets than Kapil Dev, in the same amount of matches.

Bowling 6 overs per match more.

 

[bagapath]

Funnily enough, once he has played 36 more test matches he would probably have raked up more runs and wickets than Kapil Dev, in the same amount of matches.

by that time, i hope his bowling average comes under 30 and his batting average goes above 31 - without any help from bangladesh. then you could mention his name and kapil's in same breath. if not, you can still mention their names together. but everytime you do that you will have to wash your mouth with dettol.

 

[bagapath]

FTR MacGill is by far superior to Vettori.

hi ikki. thanks for the intervention. i am so glad vettori is not australian. if not you would also give me a hard time like the other guys. i think they are quite pissed off with me. would you like to take over the vettori bashing from here on?

 

[Ikki]

My point is that his bowling average isn't much worse (if at all) than the likes of Qadir, Saqlain, Harbhajan etc and his batting average is on the rise.Definitely on his way to become an all-time great.A very underrated cricketer.

Their strike rates are notably superior.

hi ikki. thanks for the intervention. i am so glad vettori is not australian. if not you would also give me a hard time like the other guys. i think they are quite pissed off with me. would you like to take over the vettori bashing from here on?

LOL, if Vettori was Australian the same would hold.

I, like the others, don't think Vettori was anywhere near a poor test player. On the other hand I think this thread attributed towards his efforts are exaggerating his efficacy quite a bit.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Bowling 6 overs per match more.

Yeah, never said they bowled the same amount....
Just showing that there are others in that group of players with 3000 and 300 that have got there my playing lots of cricket.


I too don't believe that of the OP, I just don't understand how you can label Vettori as a "poor test player".

 

[99*]

only vettori. the others are superb in one disciple for sure. some were outstanding in both. vettori is a world beater with neither bat nor ball. he is a bits and pieces cricketer who has played so many games for his country because new zealand could not field a decent XI in his time. he is definitely a poor cricketer by test standards. in no other country could he have played so many games.

I just don't know how to respond to this. Of all the thousands of players that have graced test cricket only 8 have ever done the 3000/300. And yet one of them just happens to not be a test class player.

I'm sorry it just doesn't pass with me. By no means is Vettori close to those other 7 players skill or ability. But his own ability deserves to be acknowledged.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, never said they bowled the same amount....
Just showing that there are others in that group of players with 3000 and 300 that have got there my playing lots of cricket.


I too don't believe that of the OP, I just don't understand how you can label Vettori as a "poor test player".

Yeah, I know, but boldening the part which tries to prove that they've accomplished the same feat at the same rate and not mentioning how much they've actually bowled per match is a bit misleading.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Their strike rates are notably superior.

Ikki, you are right. Saqlain and Harbhajan have strike rates in the high 60s. Qadir's SR is comparable to Vettori's - 73 to 76. Moreover Vettori has for the large part bowled on unresponsive tracks compared to sub continent wickets that aid spin.And my point is not that Vettori is better or as good as those names mentioned above.All I am saying is that he isn't as bad as he's being made out to be in this thread.To score 3000 runs and 300 wickets does require talent.He isn't a rubbish test cricketer by any means, and he certainly has a decent chance to go down as an all time great when he retires.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

More like this.

And wasn't Sri Lanka a minnow back then? New Zealand was also a weak team in those days.At every point in cricket history, there have been minnows and many players -great or otherwise have cashed in.Even the great Muralitharan's record becomes notably less impressive if you remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

 

[bagapath]

He isn't a rubbish test cricketer by any means

ok, fine. agreed.

and he certainly has a decent chance to go down as an all time great when he retires.

in his dreams....