Vincent gone. NZ cricket to be gone in approx. 2 years

[Somerset]

Its a shame to see Lou go, IMO he would've strengthened our side and been able to play his natural game replacing Fulton in the ODI side batting at six. Better suited to the role than most around at the moment anyway.

 

[Days of Grace]

One of the most useless players ever, so glad I won't have to see him again

An early nomination for the most dire post of the year?

I think he was joking though...

 

[NZTailender]

One of the most useless players ever, so glad I won't have to see him again

You have to be joking, surely.

 

[thierry henry]

eh?

Vincent is useless.

 

[Flem274*]

Vincent always had ability, he just wasted it. He always looked his best when he played shots along the ground, when he goes in the air its a matter of time before he's out. How many times have he drove in the air straight to cover or cut in the air to point? Alot.

 

[NZTailender]

eh?

Vincent is useless.

Worst person. Gun bat, gun fielder.

 

[Loony BoB]

Mr. henry has always had this viewing of Vincent. He's just got this weird thing against Vincent. No point in trying to change his opinion, he's set in his ways.

 

[Richard]

Look, I really don't see why so many people should be ranged against Martin on the Vincent issue, just makes no sense. He's one of the worst batsmen ever to play such a large number of ODIs. Sure, he's better than Ricardo Powell and Shahid Afridi, but that's about it.

He's not completely hopeless and has played the odd decent innings here and there. But not many have failed as often as he and continued to receive the number of chances he has.

All right, the likes of Fulton, Taylor etc. haven't been around all his career, but now they are, I just don't see how anyone could possibly prefer Vincent to them. And TBH, much as I've never really rated Mathew Sinclair, unless Vincent was opening (which was never the flashest idea either), it doesn't really make much sense to pick Vincent over Sinclair for Tests either. Sinclair is clearly the better player.

 

[sledger]

tbh imo he was the worst international batsman on the international circuit who didnt play for the west indies, zimbabwe or bangladesh, he wouldnt have got into any other of the major teams sides, so I agree that this critisism of him is fair.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Basically, he batted his whole career like a guy who wasn't sure of his role, and being constantly moved everywhere in both forms wouldn't have helped this. He did everything including keep during his tenure in the side, and was always two bad innings away from the sack. When you combine this with the personal issues, I think it's clear that he wasn't handled the right way.

 

[Richard]

He was shuffled a bit, but he was hardly Alec Stewart. Vincent had 6 or 7 - sometimes 10 or 15 - innings in the same position. And mostly he was only moved because he'd failed in the most recent position they'd tried him in. Not like his domestic record was compelling, so I don't see that you can say he was specifically messed-around by New Zealand's think-tank.

And IIRR he only kept for, what, 3 or 4 ODIs?

 

[Loony BoB]

Something like that.

In his last two years, he averaged 32.45, which is actually pretty good for a New Zealand opener in any form of the game, let alone ODI's.

This includes consecutive innings of 66, 76, 90 and 31 in the series against Australia and England, followed up immediately by 73* against Australia in New Zealand. There were also centuries against the West Indies and Canada.

Many people will argue that this is poor. But you have to consider the other openers that have featured over the past ten years and compare him against them, particularly in ODIs, before you see his true talent. All of this while batting outside of his preferred position.

At his preferred position at #3-4 in tests, he managed 13 innings in 8 tests, scoring 616 runs at an average of 47.38 including a double century (224) against Sri Lanka and five further half centuries against England, England, Pakistan and Australia.

Despite the 224 in his most recent test innings, he was immediately dropped when the next test series came about. He was stated recently as "dropped again after a poor series against South Africa" - in reality, he scored 33 runs in this series at #3 - that 33 was his only innings played in his preferred position since that double century in Wellington.

Anyone who thinks that he was not treated poorly and played poorly during his test clearly does not know exactly how his cricket career has played out.#

Overall, his ODI average is 27.11 and his test average is 34.15. Craig Cumming, meanwhile, averages 25.94 in tests and 14.63 in ODIs. God knows how he was considered better than Vincent. Vincent also out-performed How and Fulton in tests, yet oddly was always considered to be an ODI player (where he was admittedly out-performed by How and Fulton, although they did get to play in their preferred positions whereas Vincent often did not).

 

[chris.hinton]

Good Luck to the Bloke

 

[Richard]

Something like that.

In his last two years, he averaged 32.45, which is actually pretty good for a New Zealand opener in any form of the game, let alone ODI's.

This includes consecutive innings of 66, 76, 90 and 31 in the series against Australia and England, followed up immediately by 73* against Australia in New Zealand. There were also centuries against the West Indies and Canada.

Many people will argue that this is poor. But you have to consider the other openers that have featured over the past ten years and compare him against them, particularly in ODIs, before you see his true talent. All of this while batting outside of his preferred position.

At his preferred position at #3-4 in tests, he managed 13 innings in 8 tests, scoring 616 runs at an average of 47.38 including a double century (224) against Sri Lanka and five further half centuries against England, England, Pakistan and Australia.

Despite the 224 in his most recent test innings, he was immediately dropped when the next test series came about. He was stated recently as "dropped again after a poor series against South Africa" - in reality, he scored 33 runs in this series at #3 - that 33 was his only innings played in his preferred position since that double century in Wellington.

Anyone who thinks that he was not treated poorly and played poorly during his test clearly does not know exactly how his cricket career has played out.#

Overall, his ODI average is 27.11 and his test average is 34.15. Craig Cumming, meanwhile, averages 25.94 in tests and 14.63 in ODIs. God knows how he was considered better than Vincent. Vincent also out-performed How and Fulton in tests, yet oddly was always considered to be an ODI player (where he was admittedly out-performed by How and Fulton, although they did get to play in their preferred positions whereas Vincent often did not).

For all the one or two bits of unfair treatment, there was lots and lots of paucity. Recently (ie, VB Series 2006\07 onwards, and no time before) in ODIs he's been OK, but no more than that. Before this most recent spell, he was abysmal, nothing more, nothing less.

Cumming and How, meanwhile, weren't competing with Vincent, if you were to argue that Vincent should never have opened (which you appear to be doing, and fair enough). So really, the fact that neither of them are any great shakes isn't terribly important.

 

[Loony BoB]

They were competing with Vincent for the opening position because that's the only place Bracewell seemed to have any inkling of desire to play him. So he was better than the other openers being played despite it not being his best position, which really only goes to show just how good he could have been. Play him at #4? Double century!

I think one of the things you seem to be doing is comparing him to openers or upper middle order batsmen around the world. You'd be right in saying he wasn't that great if you were to go down that route. But we can't play Ponting in our national team for very obvious reasons - he plays for Australia. Vincent, however, plays for New Zealand and by our relatively poor standards, losing Vincent is a big blow.

 

[Richard]

Meh, reckon the likes of Fleming, Astle, McMillan (YES!) and even Sinclair were better. And certainly very firmly believe the likes of Fulton, Ryder and even Taylor can end-up better than him. And maybe the next lot like Greg Hay et al too.

And certainly think the likes of Cumming, Bell and How, even, never mind Horne, were better openers.

 

[NZTailender]

Meh, reckon the likes of Fleming, Astle, McMillan (YES!) and even Sinclair were better. And certainly very firmly believe the likes of Fulton, Ryder and even Taylor can end-up better than him. And maybe the next lot like Greg Hay et al too.

Astle underachieved greatly at test level despite having one of the most solid opportunities of all the batsman, something Vincent never enjoyed. McMillan was/is probably more talented but we all know what happened with him. I think Sinclair and Vincent fall into the same boat - and if you look at their records, you'll see it's rather similar.
I'm sure if Fulton, Ryder and Taylor will end up better than him if they aren't jerked about by national selectors too. We're starting to see it happen with Fulton, how long before they do it to Taylor and Ryder? Hopefully they've learnt from past mistakes (with Vincent) and won't go down the same route.

And certainly think the likes of Cumming, Bell and How, even, never mind Horne, were better openers.

They are specialist openers, and so you would hope they'd be better than a middle order batsman asked to open.