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

[zaremba]

Mushtaq was a decent bowler and his record clearly demonstrates that - he'd doubtless have bowled more overs if Pakistan hadn't had two other leggies during his time, Intikhab Alam and Wasim Raja, both of whom, and for that matter Abdul Qadir who immediately followed him, have an inferior test average to his

Intikhab Alam and Wasim Raja were two more spinners with Test centuries to their names as it happens - Inty's from number 7 though so doesn't strictly meet the criteria

 

[social]

The point is, the comparison between them is not ridiculous. Even if you want to disregard all other FC cricket, as you seem to want to do, MM's Test batting average is 10 points higher than his bowling average. Vettori's (average-flattering minnows included) is 4 points lower than his bowling average. Yes, Vettori has bowled a lot more, and consequently picked up more wickets and leaked vastly more runs in the process.

And let's not forget what we're talking about here. You claimed, ridiculously, that there is no other spinner capable of scoring 100s from 6. And Mushtaq Mohammad fits that bill. I don't know why you find it such a struggle to admit that you're wrong.

Because Mushtaq was not a front-line bowler and 79 wickets/1.5 wickets per test/2nd or 3rd choice in every spin attack is simply irrelevant when comparing him to a No. 1 bowler with 300 test wickets over 95 tests

 

[vic_orthdox]

There isn't a spinner in the world who would want to trade places with Daniel Vettori. Throughout his career, he's had to play on pretty unresponsive pitches at home, and in my opinion more importantly, has probably had the least penetrative opening bowlers in front of him of any Test nation, aside from when Bond has been playing. Even Warne during the 2005 Ashes was made to look mortal when coming on and bowling to opening batsmen.

He's obviously a vastly different bowler now to the one who debuted, and the ability to reinvent himself despite/as a consequence of back problems and be a threat to a side without really turning the ball that much anymore is a huge credit to him. Most sides would probably mention Vettori more than anyone else when discussing plans for NZ, and right now could possibly be the most valuable player in international cricket.

 

[andyc]

There isn't a spinner in the world who would want to trade places with Daniel Vettori. Throughout his career, he's had to play on pretty unresponsive pitches at home, and in my opinion more importantly, has probably had the least penetrative opening bowlers in front of him of any Test nation, aside from when Bond has been playing. Even Warne during the 2005 Ashes was made to look mortal when coming on and bowling to opening batsmen.

He's obviously a vastly different bowler now to the one who debuted, and the ability to reinvent himself despite/as a consequence of back problems and be a threat to a side without really turning the ball that much anymore is a huge credit to him. Most sides would probably mention Vettori more than anyone else when discussing plans for NZ, and right now could possibly be the most valuable player in international cricket.

Agree with most of this, though would have Shakib as the most valuable player. Arguably the best batsman and bowler in his team, while Vettori has Ryder, Taylor and Bond to compete with.

 

[social]

Intikhab Alam and Wasim Raja were two more spinners with Test centuries to their names as it happens - Inty's from number 7 though so doesn't strictly meet the criteria

Inty is a very good example of why Vettori is such a rare commodity - very reasonable spinner, handy lower order bat but pales in comparison

As I said in post 1, Vettori doesnt rank with the Imran's of this world but as an all-rounder who bowls spin, he is arguably the best ever

Does it mean that he is an all-time great? No

However, he is incredibly valuable and would walk into any team today

 

[social]

There isn't a spinner in the world who would want to trade places with Daniel Vettori. Throughout his career, he's had to play on pretty unresponsive pitches at home, and in my opinion more importantly, has probably had the least penetrative opening bowlers in front of him of any Test nation, aside from when Bond has been playing. Even Warne during the 2005 Ashes was made to look mortal when coming on and bowling to opening batsmen.

He's obviously a vastly different bowler now to the one who debuted, and the ability to reinvent himself despite/as a consequence of back problems and be a threat to a side without really turning the ball that much anymore is a huge credit to him. Most sides would probably mention Vettori more than anyone else when discussing plans for NZ, and right now could possibly be the most valuable player in international cricket.

You only have to look at how restricted he is in his body rotation to see how his back has affected him over the years

 

[aussie]

Not to mention that Woolley was little more than a part-time bowler (80 wickets in 60 tests - he has more in common with Steve Waugh than Vettori) whilst Faulkner and Noble have as much relevance to modern cricket as tennis players do

Mankad is the only comparable player and even he played a lot on matting wickets

. Criminally underating a cricketening great here, even if you may have slight reservations about players of the WW1 era.

 

[Goughy]

Intikhab Alam and Wasim Raja were two more spinners with Test centuries to their names as it happens - Inty's from number 7 though so doesn't strictly meet the criteria

Anyone mentioned that Ravi Shastri has 5 tons at number 6 and over 150 Test wickets and over 500 FC wickets?

 

[social]

. Criminally underating a cricketening great here, even if you may have slight reservations about players of the WW1 era.

When someone provides evidence of keepers standing more than 10 yards back to "quick" bowlers in this period (check all the early film/photos), I'll start rating it as moderately relevant

 

[social]

Anyone mentioned that Ravi Shastri has 5 tons at number 6 and over 150 Test wickets and over 500 FC wickets?

Good call!

Criminally underrated (by me as well, it seems!)

Quality bat who should've achieved more and very good bowler for a time

Probably even money due to Vettori's wickets

 

[Goughy]

When someone provides evidence of keepers standing more than 10 yards back to "quick" bowlers in this period (check all the early film/photos), I'll start rating it as moderately relevant

Not a great way of judging as keepers used to stand closer to similar paced bowlers than those today. They wanted to take the ball on the way up.

Fashion has changed so it is hard to compare from 2-D still images.

 

[aussie]

When someone provides evidence of keepers standing more than 10 yards back to "quick" bowlers in this period (check all the early film/photos), I'll start rating it as moderately relevant

I have not seen photos but i have read & seen documentary videos (Cricket the Great Bowlers DVD for eg) that they where 90 mph in those days. Namely:

- Charles Kortwright from England
- JJ Kottze from SA
- Tom Richardson from ENG
- Tibby Cotter from AUS (once bowled a ball that left a dent in a batsmans back or somethin)

 

[Uppercut]

There isn't a spinner in the world who would want to trade places with Daniel Vettori. Throughout his career, he's had to play on pretty unresponsive pitches at home, and in my opinion more importantly, has probably had the least penetrative opening bowlers in front of him of any Test nation, aside from when Bond has been playing. Even Warne during the 2005 Ashes was made to look mortal when coming on and bowling to opening batsmen.

He's obviously a vastly different bowler now to the one who debuted, and the ability to reinvent himself despite/as a consequence of back problems and be a threat to a side without really turning the ball that much anymore is a huge credit to him. Most sides would probably mention Vettori more than anyone else when discussing plans for NZ, and right now could possibly be the most valuable player in international cricket.

The time he took 40 wickets in 5 tests? He didn't look too mortal to me tbh

You haven't said anything I disagree with but the fact is that he's taken a shockingly low amount of wickets. However much qualification you give to his role in the side, the pitches he plays on or the players he plays with, one wicket every 14 overs is never good enough. You can speculate that he might have done well playing on more responsive pitches (although his record on responsive pitches suggests not), or had he not had his back problems, or had he played in a better attack as part of a better team. But it's all just speculation, like Richard speculating on how Hayden would have gone in the 90s. We don't know if any of it's true- all we can look at is the reality, and the reality is that Vettori just doesn't take enough wickets.

The spin fraternity absolutely love him though, so I thought you might make an appearance .

 

[aussie]

Vettori is very good bowler when batsman want to attacking him, this is shown by his very good record vs AUS (in tests) & ODIs vs all nations. But when batsmen are a defensive like on the last day of a test or something, i dont think he has ever shown the ability to be able to run through a side those circumstances.

 

[zaremba]

Anyone mentioned that Ravi Shastri has 5 tons at number 6 and over 150 Test wickets and over 500 FC wickets?

yeah Bagapath pointed this out in one of the first responses to social's post

ravi shastri, who started at no.10, finished at the top of the order after scoring centuries against some of the best attacks in history at various postions in the top and middle. a far better batsman and a slightly inferior bowler to vettori.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

There's some incredible tripe in this thread. If people give Phlegm **** about slagging off players and then getting called on it by their real life counterparts, I hope Danny V comes in here and shows a couple of people the error of their ways.

He's New Zealand's fifth highest run scorer and second highest wicket taker and then he's assessed by one myopic individual as a "bits and pieces player"? Well, seriously get ****ed. He's not bloody Derek [or Chris] Pringle for crying out loud.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, the NZ CW contingent can be so precious sometimes.

 

[bagapath]

....... he's assessed by one myopic individual as a "bits and pieces player"? Well, seriously get ****ed. .....

hi. thats me. and i will take that rant as a compliment.

when social calls vettori the greatest spin bowling allrounder ever, it is my duty to call him a bits and pieces cricketer and set the balance right. his preposterous claim cannot go unchallenged.

and social ! you call my statement stupid. what you dont understand is that your original claim is absolutely ridiculous. anyone who averages 8 runs more with the ball while averaging sub 30 with the bat against quality test teams is a bits and pieces player. a quality all rounder should be able to play either as batsman or a bowler alone. vettori is good at neither discipline. watch out! calling him the greatest spin bowling all rounder of all time is punishable under law in certain countries. and you think you could rank him on par with botham and kapil and get away with it!! you cant be serious dude!

 

[bagapath]

He's New Zealand's fifth highest run scorer and second highest wicket taker

that is new zealand's problem. not mine.

 

[bagapath]

Those stats suggest to me there's a similar gap between Botham & Kapil as there is between Kapil & Vettori, so wouldn't it be a slightly more accurate representation to say something like;

Botham - One of the all-time great all-rounder's
Kapil - A world-class all-rounder, slightly below all-time great status
Vettori - A good test all-rounder

Well... both kapil and botham average more with the bat than the ball. that puts them in a different league. they are the great all rounders. botham happens to be a rung above kapil. who else has scored 10+ hundreds (14) and taken 10+ fivefers (27) in the history of the game? so botham above kapil is perfectly fine by me.

then there are the ray lindwalls, wasim akrams and richie benauds who averaged under 30 with bat and had slightly higher bowling averages. they were all called bowling all rounders.

you also have the vinoo mankad, andrew flintoff category who averaged 30+ with the bat and a fraction above that with the ball. they are the good test all rounders you are trying to define.

then you also have the vettoris and pathans of this world who score under 30 with the with bat and concede 7-8 runs more per wicket. they are called the bits and pieces all rounders