Unusual result in Aus v NZ test

[Tim]

I think you'd find that Vaas & even Jayasuriya are more likely to take wickets & support Murali than our current bowlers are doing with Vettori.

 

[chaminda_00]

I think you'd find that Vaas & even Jayasuriya are more likely to take wickets & support Murali than our current bowlers are doing with Vettori.

That funny Jayasuriya a better bowler then the Kiwi bowlers, if that the case then the Test Series aganist NZ should be pretty easy then. I think ur a bit harsh on the Kiwi bowlers, there not bad and Jayasuriya is pretty useless in Test Cricket outside Asia.

 

[Macka]

Never rated Vettori. I don't think he his world-class personally, although he is our best fit bowler. While he has been impressive against Australia, considering their batting line-up, he hasn't won a game like McGrath or Warne. And there's that whole 2 year span where he did basically nothing, apart from pulling an a lot of money.

However, I don't agree that finger-spinners cannot be world-class.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

how long is it going to take for you to realise that his poor bowling was largely down to his injury?

 

[Tim]

I can't understand how some NZ people don't get that we would be screwed without Vettori at the moment. He was the youngest spinner to 100 test wickets which suggests he's definately got the potential to do great things. Unfortunately he suffered 2 serious injuries, lost confidence & the sad thing was it took 2 years for him to fully recover.

 

[Blaze]

I can't understand how some NZ people don't get that we would be screwed without Vettori at the moment. He was the youngest spinner to 100 test wickets which suggests he's definately got the potential to do great things. Unfortunately he suffered 2 serious injuries, lost confidence & the sad thing was it took 2 years for him to fully recover.

Yea and that spinners usually have higher averages than front line pace men.

 

[Ming]

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.

OH!

So according to Richard, no finger spinner can be world class anymore! Hear that cricket public!

H Singh, S Mustaq, Murali, Vettori aren't world class?

Fingerspin friendly pitches...

Is there such a thing as legspin-friendly pitches and flipper-friendly pitches in Richard Dickinson's vocab as well?

Marc, I guess when the pitches are absolute green-tops, and Tests finishing in 3 days can be used as an excuse for Vettori, since he basically wasn't even needed as the 3 to 4 pace bowlers were doing the job.

 

[thierry henry]

I can't understand how some NZ people don't get that we would be screwed without Vettori at the moment. He was the youngest spinner to 100 test wickets which suggests he's definately got the potential to do great things. Unfortunately he suffered 2 serious injuries, lost confidence & the sad thing was it took 2 years for him to fully recover.

When evaluating Vettori, "at the moment" is irrelevant. "At the moment" we have a second string attack.

When evaluating his entire career, you will see that when he reached his 100 wickets, his average was above 30 (can't be bothered checking, lol. But I've looked it up before). At NO POINT in Vettori's career has he been a particularly effective bowler, save for a series against Bangladesh (his real average, taking away that series, is much closer to 40). The reality is that his first 100 wickets came at over 30 each, which is surely mediocre, and from then on it was all downhill. Apart from this summer, he has rarely if ever been the dominant figure in the NZ attack. As mentioned earlier, on the way to the first 100 wickets he had Nash, Doull, Cairns and O'Connor, who all performed at least as well as, if not better than him. After his injury in 2000, he was generally damn near the WORST performed bowler in the side, with the exception of 1 series against Australia. And no, I do not believe that series against Australia count for more than the others.

 

[Craig]

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.

Will you stop with the authentic Test business?

Bangladesh are a Test playing nation, and the sooner people realise that the better, and guess what they are official Tests and count towards their records.

 

[Craig]

When evaluating Vettori, "at the moment" is irrelevant. "At the moment" we have a second string attack.

When evaluating his entire career, you will see that when he reached his 100 wickets, his average was above 30 (can't be bothered checking, lol. But I've looked it up before). At NO POINT in Vettori's career has he been a particularly effective bowler, save for a series against Bangladesh (his real average, taking away that series, is much closer to 40). The reality is that his first 100 wickets came at over 30 each, which is surely mediocre, and from then on it was all downhill. Apart from this summer, he has rarely if ever been the dominant figure in the NZ attack. As mentioned earlier, on the way to the first 100 wickets he had Nash, Doull, Cairns and O'Connor, who all performed at least as well as, if not better than him. After his injury in 2000, he was generally damn near the WORST performed bowler in the side, with the exception of 1 series against Australia. And no, I do not believe that series against Australia count for more than the others.

And have all this evidence to back your comments up?

 

[Ming]

I can't be screwed talking to Richard, the one who thinks there is no need to watch Tests, as statistics tell everything apparently according to him....

 

[Zinzan]

Vettori is not world class either.

Of course Scaly (and you certainly are a scaly creature), Your opinion is held in a much higher regard than the likes of Hayden, Ponting and you know, players that actually face Vettori and say he's world class.

Its not easy being a spinner and having no support from other bowlers.

I think even most Australian's would conceed he'd be a more successful bowler and have a better record if he played for Australia. Handy 2nd spinner to Warne as well.

 

[Zinzan]

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.

Absolutely Brilliantly Put !!!!

And whats more from a neutral Australian...

 

[Zinzan]

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?

Again you've taken the words right out of my mouth. Particularly re the TEC/Richard threads.

 

[Grubb]

Well, regardless of whether Vettori is as a "world class" bowler or not, I think the following stats (courtesy of cricinfo) tell quite an interesting story. But firstly - and this is not an apology, just a statement of fact - Vettori is an unlucky bowler.

According to "the numbers game" ("The lucky bowlers and luckless ones", S Rajesh, Cricinfo), Vettori has the fourth-highest percentage of wickets taken vs catches dropped at 17.07. Basically, that means he averages one dropped catch per 5.5 wickets taken. The figures for Warne were not given, as he didn't figure in the unluckiest ten. Number ten on that particular list was Murilitharan, whose percentage is 7.81 (about one drop for every 12 or 13 wickets, if my guestimate is correct...). But please note that this list does not take into account bowlers who have had fewer than 14 catches dropped off their bowling in that period, so it is not definitive.

Vettori also appears to have difficulty getting umpires to grant him lbw decisions. Whether that's because of the line he bowls (I haven't watched him bowl for about five years), or other reasons I don't know. Perhaps someone could fill me in there? Anyway, that's just a by the bye because we don't have stats for that.

So, here's DL Vettori vs SK Warne.

In matches won:
Vettori 73 wickets at 23.17 in 20 matches; S/R 62; Warne 418 at 21.75 in 74; S/R 51
In matches drawn:
Vettori 51 wickets at 51.76 in 20 matches; S/R 105; Warne 71 at 39.25 in 23; S/R 92
In matches lost:
Vettori 70 wickets at 34.58 in 20 matches; S/R 76; Warne 84 at 33.03 in 24; S/R 72

Won by an innings:
Vettori 32 wickets at 21.31 in 7 matches; S/R 55; Warne 146 at 17.15 in 23; S/R 42
Won def. target:
Vettori 27 wickets at 16.81 in 5 matches; S/R 47; Warne 162 at 23.5 in 31; S/R 55.
Won chas. target:
Vettori 14 wickets at 39.71 in 8 matches; S/R 110; Warne 110 at 25.28 in 20; S/R 58.
Lost by an innings:
Vettori 12 wickets at 50.16 in 5 matches; S/R 90; Warne 0 in 2 matches.
Lost def. target:
Vettor 28 wickets at 25.28 in 5 matches; S/R 60; Warne 47 at 25.97 in 9; S/R 63.
Lost chas. target:
Vettori 30 wickets at 37.03 in 10 matches; S/R 86; Warne 37 at 36.64 in 13; S/R 76.

It's surprising how close their averages are in most types of matches. What counts against Vettori is that New Zealand has a much higher percentage of draws than Australia, and Vettori has been something of a whipping boy in those matches. But, as a contributor in wins and losses, you'll notice that Vettori isn't disgraced - though he can't compare to Warne's strike rate and wickets per match ratio.

But whether that's world class or not is a matter of defining one's terms, and another story entirely.

These stats also show the influence of NZ pitches, and how Vettori is used by his captain.
He doesn't actually get a lot of bowling done in wins, but he certainly churns through the overs in draws and innings defeats!

 

[Tim]

That is a perfect example of how good Vettori is when he's actually able to attack the opposition.

 

[Richard]

how long is it going to take for you to realise that his poor bowling was largely down to his injury?

I've not said it wasn't, he was injured a lot in the period (how badly I don't know).
I hope he can now go back to where he was before 2001\02 vs us.

 

[Richard]

OH!

So according to Richard, no finger spinner can be world class anymore! Hear that cricket public!

Doubt it, and even if they did they'd not take any notice, they're too stuck in the past. It seems to have escaped the notice of most people that good fingerspinners used to average in the mid-early-20s, now they average in the mid-30s or late 20s at absolute best. Derek Underwood even summarised both - pre-1973 he averaged in the teens, post-1972 he averaged in the 30s.

H Singh, S Mustaq, Murali, Vettori aren't world class?

Murali, a fingerspinner.
No, Saqlain, Harbhajan and Vettori aren't World-class - they're terrific bowlers when the pitch helps them, but not great when it doesn't - and too few pitches these days help them to enable them to be World-class the way fingerspinners were before 1970.

Fingerspin friendly pitches...

Is there such a thing as legspin-friendly pitches and flipper-friendly pitches in Richard Dickinson's vocab as well?

No, any pitch helps a wristspinner. And a Flipper is a wristspinner's delivery.

 

[Richard]

Will you stop with the authentic Test business?

Bangladesh are a Test playing nation, and the sooner people realise that the better, and guess what they are official Tests and count towards their records.

But they shouldn't. Bangladesh don't deserve to be playing Test-cricket, never have done and people who've played them don't deserve to have been playing Test-cricket.
So to look at the proper records you have to get rid of them.

 

[Richard]

I can't be screwed talking to Richard, the one who thinks there is no need to watch Tests, as statistics tell everything apparently according to him....

Rubbish.