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

[aussie]

If he ends up with 450 wickets at 28-29 and 5000 runs at 31-32, you still wouldn't call him an all time great ?

We would have to. But in reality that wont happen, since Vettori would have add lot to his bowling (ie bowling the left-armers doosra or sum) for his bowling average to drop down so far.

I reckon his batting will keep getting better, while his bowling will remain the same.

 

[bagapath]

I've had a similar argument with you before in one of your alltime great threads, when I mentioned if you were going to exclude the minnows for Kallis & Cairns, then similarly you should remove stats for other greats in the past like Hammond (scoring 300 against NZ ) when NZ were minnows themselves, but of course you never made this adjustment despite the fact it took NZ 26 years to win a test....

I do remember thanking you for telling me this fact since I hadnt taken that into consideration till then. Of course you were right about that. When we eventually had the all rounders thread a few months after the exchange I included all opponents in the stats I think. (If not, then it is my fault. Because I promised you I would do so. But I think I did.)

The kind of flak I am getting for calling Vettori a bits and pieces player is something I can handle. But why is no one getting as angry as me at the "greatest spin bowling all rounder of all time" claim? It is baffling, really

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

The kind of flak I am getting for calling Vettori a bits and pieces player is something I can handle. But why is no one getting as angry as me at the "greatest spin bowling all rounder of all time" claim? It is baffling, really

I don't think anyone is getting angry about the claim he's the greatest spin bowling all-rounder (though the competition for that mantel isn't great).

Calling him 'bits and pieces' is something I disagree with, and even more so with your earlier assertion that he isn't test class.

He certainly wouldn't be anywhere near the greatest spin bowler of all time - though it would be interesting to look at the competition for the greatest SLA bowler of all time (or post the advent of covered pitches, anyway). I recall a Pakistani SLA from the 80s (whose name escapes me) being pretty good.

 

[Smudge]

Bishen Bedi wasn't the worst twirler going around...

 

[bagapath]

Iqbal Qasim

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Iqbal Qasim

Yes. This is who I was thinking of.

Still, I can't think of many SLAs who would be in a class apart from Vettori.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Bishen Bedi wasn't the worst twirler going around...

Yep. Good call. Would any of his early career have been on uncovered pitches, I wonder. But still, even anecdotally a superior bowler to Vettori.

 

[The Sean]

Deadly Derek as well, though he barely qualifies for the S part of SLA.

 

[gwo]

Thats not true. Vettori record vs AUS in test is home & away.

The reason he is better againts AUS is because his strenght as a bowler is that when batsmen want to get after him which the AUS do againts spinners - Vettori is excellent. That strenght makes his a superb ODI bowler.

Harbhajan not so flash record in AUS is because when batsmen are aggressive againts him, he becomes defensive he is afraid to toss the ball up & bowls quicker.

^

 

[vic_orthdox]

It is a bit arbitrary, but I still think it helps demonstrate my point. People always talk about "the subcontinent" as if it's all one place with similar conditions throughout when in fact Sri Lanka is significantly more helpful to bowlers than India or Pakistan. I had a quick look at the average runs per wicket in each test-playing country a while back, and for the 2000s India was the best place for batting by quite a distance while Sri Lanka was the worst. I wouldn't say that Harbhajan benefits from "helpful subcontinental conditions", I'd say that he's done exceptionally well in finding a way to use particular home bowling conditions to his advantage.

Obviously those stats are skewed by who is batting on those wickets though.

 

[Uppercut]

Obviously those stats are skewed by who is batting on those wickets though.

Aye. It's a particularly imperfect analysis IMO and I acknowledged as much at the time. But even so, the disparity between the two areas is huge considering they're often thought of as one and the same in cricket. One is at the very top and one at the very bottom.

 

[Zinzan]

I do remember thanking you for telling me this fact since I hadnt taken that into consideration till then. Of course you were right about that. When we eventually had the all rounders thread a few months after the exchange I included all opponents in the stats I think. (If not, then it is my fault. Because I promised you I would do so. But I think I did.)

The kind of flak I am getting for calling Vettori a bits and pieces player is something I can handle. But why is no one getting as angry as me at the "greatest spin bowling all rounder of all time" claim? It is baffling, really

Seriously Bagapath, how many of the close to 30 posters (at a guess) who've contributed to this thread have seriously labeled Vettori in the top few all-rounders of all-time for a start. I know Athai initially put him in the same ball-park as Shaun Pollock, but I think he even acknowledges since, it was a probably a case of heart vs.head.

And in regards to the question of the 'greatest spin bowling all-rounder of all time', this is actually a tough one to define, because lets be honest, there haven't been that many great spinning allrounder's personally I'd probably say Benaud would be the one I'd select, but there not much after him except Vettori & Ravi S is there?

To me, you deserve the flak for labelling him 'bits & pieces' cricketer in the same way that those who suggest he's one of the great all-rounders of all time or those who put him in the same bracket as someone like Pollock deserve it. Both assessments far too extreme IMHO.

I've said it before & I'll say it again, Vettori definitely deserves the title as "good test cricketer' for mine, nothing more, nothing less & I'm sure most fair-minded posters who consider ALL factors when analyzing his career & not JUST once you remove the minnow's would agree with this assessment.

 

[Flem274*]

seriously bagapath, how many of the close to 30 posters (at a guess) who've contributed to this thread have seriously labeled vettori firstly in the top few all-rounders of all-time for a start. I know athai initially put him in the same ball-park as shaun pollock, but i think he even acknowledges since, it was a probably a case of heart vs. Head.

And in regards to the question of the 'greatest spin bowling all-rounder of all time', this is actually a tough one to define, because lets be honest, there haven't been many that many great spinning allrounder's personally i'd probably say benaud would be the one i'd select, but there not much after him except vettori & ravi s is there?

To me, you deserve the flak for labelling him 'bits & pieces' cricketer in the same way that those who suggest he's one of the great all-rounders of all time or those who put him in the same bracket as someone like pollock deserve it. Both assessments far too extreme imho.

I've said it before & i'll say it again, vettori definitely deserves the title as "good test cricketer' for mine, nothing more, nothing less & i'm sure most fair-minded posters who consider all factors when analyzing his career & not just once you remove the minnow's would agree with this assessment.

qft

 

[Zinzan]

qft

You've lost me that with cricketwebism?

 

[Flem274*]

You've lost me that with cricketwebism?

QFT=Quoted For Truth

 

[Zinzan]

QFT=Quoted For Truth

Aha, roger that

 

[bagapath]

And in regards to the question of the 'greatest spin bowling all-rounder of all time', this is actually a tough one to define, because lets be honest, there haven't been that many great spinning allrounder's personally I'd probably say Benaud would be the one I'd select, but there not much after him except Vettori & Ravi S is there?

I am not going to bring in sobers and tony grieg, though they bowled spin they also bowled a lot of medium pace. actually, i do want to bring in sobers and see how you would respond to that suggestion. could sobers have bowled spin alone and earned the title of "greatest spin bowling all rounder of all time"? i think so.

apart from sobers i cant look past vinoo mankad in the post ww2 era for that title. he played for a minnow team and he was capable of performing with both the bat and the ball, sometimes in the same game. he should be right up there. benaud is a great bowling all-rounder. but vettori is obviously a better batsman. just like he is a better bowler compared to shastri. but shastri was the better batsman, by a country mile. and i am not bringing in shastri and benaud coz i dont consider them full-fledged all rounders.

my other nomineees would be faulkner and rhodes. faulkner should take the cake for the all-time honors. rhodes would come a close second. dont know what noble bowled. could have been off spin or slow medium pace. he would be a contender too. vettori doesnt really stand a chance with any of these names.

I've said it before & I'll say it again, Vettori definitely deserves the title as "good test cricketer' for mine, nothing more, nothing less & I'm sure most fair-minded posters who consider ALL factors when analyzing his career & not JUST once you remove the minnow's would agree with this assessment.

but arent you happy i think differently? coz otherwise all you guys would have agreed and that would have made a boring thread. every pantomime needs a villain. i am happy to help.

 

[Zinzan]

but arent you happy i think differently? coz otherwise all you guys would have agreed and that would have made a boring thread. every pantomime needs a villain. i am happy to help.

To be honest & only at a guess, I genuinely don't believe you do think he's merely a 'bits & pieces player" & nothing more. I reckon you do genuinely think he's slightly overrated by many, so to compensate for this you've decided to play devil's advocate & go out of your way to rubbish him unreasonably.

Of course, only you know if this is true or not, but can't see you conceding whether my hunch is right or wrong either way..

 

[bagapath]

To be honest & only at a guess, I genuinely don't believe you do think he's merely a 'bits & pieces player" & nothing more. I reckon you do genuinely think he's slightly overrated by many, so to compensate for this you've decided to play devil's advocate & go out of your way to rubbish him unreasonably.

Of course, only you know if this is true or not, but can't see you conceding whether my hunch is right or wrong either way..

i am happy to concede to you that you are right, zinzan. that assessment of yours in bold is spot on. once i got upset with vettori getting praised to the sky i had to jump in with aggro. a lot of you guys crossed the boiling point too early in the debate; so i couldn't resist.

we have already got 30 pages on this thread. another 8 more, we can catch up with vettori's bowling avg

 

[Zinzan]

i am happy to concede to you that you are right, zinzan. that assessment of yours in bold is spot on. once i got upset with vettori getting praised to the sky i had to jump in with aggro. a lot of you guys crossed the boiling point too early in the debate; so i couldn't resist.

Full marks for fessing up, gobsmacked & a little lost for words tbh