Who would other countries choose, Scott Styris or Lou Vincent?

[thierry henry]

He has the face of a grafter, and he bowls in a grafting way so he sends out the general "grafting" vibes but essentially I agree, he is a strokeplayer. Under-rated in general, particularly in one day cricket.

You could make a case for selecting Vincent in front of him in a test match if Vincent was in good form, but that is somewhat of a rarity anyway. Styris is by far the better player overall.

lol "face of a grafter". Essentially, Styris bowls medium pace and is butt ugly, somehow this has seemingly made him the poster boy for the "talentless hardworking New Zealand cricketer".

Really, Styris is an extremely talented bat, I would argue more talented than Vincent (not that debating "talent" is really even worthwhile.) He's a big hitting matchwinner against even world class bowlers.

 

[Matt52]

Im a firm believer that Vincent could have been a good player if he had been given all the opportunities that Styris has had. Styris batted 4 for a long time for NZ and Vincent is a natural no4 as well. But Vincent was chucked up to open and his talent and confidence in international cricket wasted to persevere with Styris who IS a grafter, and a cross batted slogger, and the source of all evil. Styris' shots are agricultural at best and he still seems like the lower order player he originally was.

Here is a comparison against the best..Aus

Styris: ODI : batting : 16.8. ( if you take out the 100 against Aussies second rate bowling attack it goes down to 11.2. Bowling 46.

TESTS: batting: 17.5.

Vincent: ODI: 18.5.(Pretty bad as well and had a good 70 odd against that same second rate attack.
TESTS: 39.5. Tests tend to sort out who is the better batsman, and some of this was as an opener, not his preffered position.

Styris is found out against the best, and so is Vincent in one dayers but in tests Vincent shows that he can at least compete against Aus whereas Styris is cannon fodder.