Unusual result in Aus v NZ test

[thierry henry]

Richard, what makes you say that Vettori is a good bowler?

He averages 35 in tests and 34 in ODIs over a long period of time. Surely this is poor in anyone's books? I've watched almost every game Vettori has ever played and would say his record is a fair enough reflection of his ability. He doesn't do enough with the ball to be effective.

 

[Tim]

Who can blame him with the sh*thouse support he gets from the other bowlers in the NZ team? Instead of attacking (when he's at his best) he's constantly having to bowl defensively.

He's bowling brilliantly at the moment..and thank god he is, because we'd barely take 2 wickets if he wasn't there.

You saw how he bowled when he was in tandem with Warne during that Tsunami Appeal match. He is a quality spin bowler.

 

[Jono]

LOL! People want Vettori to average under 25 when he's surrounded by absolutely appalling bowlers. How many 5-fors must this guy get in a period of 6 months to convince people that he's a good bowler? He bowls his absolute heart out, and there's a reason the Aussies see him off in the ODIs, rather than just attack all the bowlers (like they do against other teams, India especially).

 

[Jono]

Well he's a lot better than Giles.

A lot of people disagree with that for some reason, simply because of the stats. However I'd bet (yes, without any proof at all, don't even bother) that every top 6 batsman in the world would rather face Giles than Vettori.

Yes Vettori has been poor in the past few years, but he has improved immensely, and anyone that thinks he's having a 'purple patch', that's one hell of a purple patch against the best team in the world, whilst being in one of the worst teams right now (in tests, and due to injuries).

Its much easier darting balls at the legs of a bowler while having Harmison, Flintoff and Hoggard in support compared to having... ummm... Martin, Franklin, Tuffey, Mills etc. as support. You have to bowl to take wickets then, and that results in one's statisticsc telling a different story to what is actually the case.

Vettori is all class IMO.

What I love is how all those Flintoff fans (not that I'm not one, but I'm one without any bias) are allowed to cut off half of Flintoff's career ignoring his crap years, and use stats over 18 months against teams much worse than Australia. Yet Vettori has bowled brilliant against the best team in the world for months now, and these hypocrites bring back Vettori's stats from the past.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Blaze]

Richard, what makes you say that Vettori is a good bowler?

He averages 35 in tests and 34 in ODIs over a long period of time. Surely this is poor in anyone's books? I've watched almost every game Vettori has ever played and would say his record is a fair enough reflection of his ability. He doesn't do enough with the ball to be effective.

35 isn't great but it isn't bad for a spin bowler.. It will go down and down as his career goes on

 

[Tim]

Vettori will struggle to get it below 30 as he doesn't get the benefit of playing on turners in NZ like other spinners do. Plus he'll need to hope that NZ get some better quicks so he can attack the batsmen more.

 

[marc71178]

What I love is how all those Flintoff fans (not that I'm not one, but I'm one without any bias) are allowed to cut off half of Flintoff's career ignoring his crap years, and use stats over 18 months against teams much worse than Australia. Yet Vettori has bowled brilliant against the best team in the world for months now, and these hypocrites bring back Vettori's stats from the past.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Because it's an 18 month spell as supposed to a 4 Test spell?

There's also the extremely high long spell of Vettori compared with Flintoff who was always fairly constant at a much lower average in his off spell.

 

[Jono]

Because it's an 18 month spell as supposed to a 4 Test spell?

There's also the extremely high long spell of Vettori compared with Flintoff who was always fairly constant at a much lower average in his off spell.

And injuries had nothing to do with that did they? Opposed to the idea that "Flintoff just wasn't ready for international cricket". Too bad, he played tests, his games are included. And that 4 test spell (or whatever) hasn't come against the best team in the world now has it? (With the worst bowling support you could find on top of that). Flintoff has bowled brilliantly, no doubt about that, but Vettori bowling so well against Australia makes a huge statement, a huge huge statement. More so then against the WI who can be so pitiful its a disgrace, against NZ who have been shown to be shocking in tests as of late, and against SA (strong batting side, but not even close to Australia). Flintoff also had an in form Harmison on the other end, and an in form Hoggard during the SA series. On top of that Vettori had just about the worst luck you'll ever have for a bowler, so don't even bring stats in this post because I'll ignore it like a TEC/Richard filled thread.

There's a reason the Aussies see off Vettori in ODIs, and tread on careful water when playing him in tests. They don't do that with many bowlers.

I'm not for a minute claiming Vettori is a better test bowler, or is a more valuable test player than Flintoff, however you can't just remove a huge chunk of a player's career. If Vettori continues this form for another 12 months, will everyone suddenly everyone cut off half his career stats and base him on his recent stats?

 

[Blaze]

He is NZ's best cricketer at the moment IMO

 

[Jono]

Easily, he's the definition of the term 'MVP'.

 

[Craig]

Richard, what makes you say that Vettori is a good bowler?

He averages 35 in tests and 34 in ODIs over a long period of time. Surely this is poor in anyone's books? I've watched almost every game Vettori has ever played and would say his record is a fair enough reflection of his ability. He doesn't do enough with the ball to be effective.

So you don't rate Flintoff as a Test bowler then?

 

[Ming]

Vettori between England 2001\02 and England 2004
Indeed...

Watch and pay attention to what is happening in NZ cricket before pulling out outrageous statistics to back your outrageous points.

During period, Vettori had several injuries, and the pitches were mostly green-tops, and he wasn't used much as a bowler.

Vettori is a world-class spinner, and he has shown that with his countless impressive bowling displays this summer against Australia.

 

[marc71178]

And injuries had nothing to do with that did they? Opposed to the idea that "Flintoff just wasn't ready for international cricket".

The injury notion is equally valid for Flintoff - he's only been fit to bowl properly for about 2 years.

Too bad, he played tests, his games are included. And that 4 test spell (or whatever) hasn't come against the best team in the world now has it?

2 of them were against Bangladesh, so no.

 

[marc71178]

Vettori is a world-class spinner, and he has shown that with his countless impressive bowling displays this summer against Australia.

No, the likes of Murali and Warne are World Class spinners, and they don't use pitches as an excuse.

 

[tooextracool]

umm those are great spinners. theres a difference. let me hear you tell me that kumble isnt world class because he only bowls well on turners.

 

[thierry henry]

Vettori hasn't been *that* good against Australia, only good by his own standards. Taking 5/120 and 5/150 is hardly impressive, and that's all he's capable of. Perhaps if he had been outstandingly economical the "no pressure at the other end" argument would wash, but he hasn't. The Australian batsman have just played him normally.

Funnily enough, a lack of support at the other end is often used to degrade Murali's achievements, yet for some reason it does the opposite for Vettori's

 

[thierry henry]

It's also notable that Tuffey, Bond, Cairns, O'Connor, Nash, Doull etc etc all have better test bowling averages than Vettori, yet regardless of the standard of his teammates, his average has never even threatened to drop below 30. Likewise, he isn't even particularly effective at NZ first class level. AND, his stats away from home are not much better than those in NZ, so you can't use our so-called greentops as an excuse.

Please, can someone else give me a single example of a test match bowler who averaged 35 with 100+ wickets and is as highly regarded as Vettori? Surely it's a nonsense that this one bowler is somehow immune from the statistics.

 

[Richard]

Watch and pay attention to what is happening in NZ cricket before pulling out outrageous statistics to back your outrageous points.

During period, Vettori had several injuries, and the pitches were mostly green-tops, and he wasn't used much as a bowler.

Vettori is a world-class spinner, and he has shown that with his countless impressive bowling displays this summer against Australia.

Vettori, being a fingerspinner, needs favourable pitches to be a good bowler.
So, because of the decrease in fingerspin-friendly pitches in the last 35 years, fingerspinners can no longer be World-class bowlers.

 

[Richard]

What I love is how all those Flintoff fans (not that I'm not one, but I'm one without any bias) are allowed to cut off half of Flintoff's career ignoring his crap years, and use stats over 18 months against teams much worse than Australia. Yet Vettori has bowled brilliant against the best team in the world for months now, and these hypocrites bring back Vettori's stats from the past.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I am far from a Flintoff fan (in the bowling stakes especially).
But any fool can see that Flintoff has not been the same player throughout his career. Before 2003 he was a useless Test-match batsman. Since 2003 he's been a good one.
I don't absolve Flintoff of blame for being woefully substandard - but nor do I say that the fact that he used to be means he isn't now.
Vettori's stats from 2001\02-2004, meanwhile, also prove something. They prove that he bowled pretty terribly during that period.
Those in 2004\05 (even when you only take the authentic Tests - all of which were against Australia) show clearly that he's bowled better there than the previous 30 months.
What I hate especially is the notion that because someone did best against Australia that somehow excuses all his failings against other teams (which, by mentioning Flintoff's performances against lesser teams than Australia, you are inferring whether deliberately or not); and that because Flintoff hasn't had the chance to play Australia since his sea-change means something.

 

[Richard]

And injuries had nothing to do with that did they? Opposed to the idea that "Flintoff just wasn't ready for international cricket". Too bad, he played tests, his games are included. And that 4 test spell (or whatever) hasn't come against the best team in the world now has it? (With the worst bowling support you could find on top of that). Flintoff has bowled brilliantly, no doubt about that, but Vettori bowling so well against Australia makes a huge statement, a huge huge statement
...
I'm not for a minute claiming Vettori is a better test bowler, or is a more valuable test player than Flintoff, however you can't just remove a huge chunk of a player's career. If Vettori continues this form for another 12 months, will everyone suddenly everyone cut off half his career stats and base him on his recent stats?

No, but they will (if they've any sense) divide the career into the parts it fits into, just as they have with Flintoff.
This absurd notion that you have to treat a career as a whole despite the fact most careers contain all sorts of different patterns and trends, is one of the greatest evils in cricket.