• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Is Daniel Vettori the best 'all-rounder' at the moment?

Furball

Evil Scotsman
One 5-fer in the whole series. That's a fact.

Seriously, as well as he bowled, I've seen far more lethal series from many other bowlers. From my perspective, even that series was a metaphor for why he wasn't a great Test match wicket-taker; a couple of decent bursts when he actually threw the ball up surrounded by long periods of back-of-a-length seam which, whilst hard to score from, didn't exactly run through the Aussies. Simon Jones was by far the more threatening bowler.

Averaging 25 with the ball as a peak is pretty average as far as Test bowlers go too. A bloke like Glenn McGrath averaged a few runs less for his whole career. What made Flintoff brilliant for that period was his batting coupled with that bowling (which was a monumental effort to do both that well). The bowling alone was good, solid Test stuff.
Exactly, Flintoff was a solid back of a length bowler who was very difficult to get away and caused all sorts of top batsmen problems, however his bowling wasn't good enough to consistently get wickets. Even his 5 wicket haul at the Oval was on the back of a 17 over spell unchanged.

Flintoff is every bit as much the classic 5th bowler as Kallis is. Except Kallis has been a world class batsman for over 10 years. Flintoff hasn't.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Exactly, Flintoff was a solid back of a length bowler who was very difficult to get away and caused all sorts of top batsmen problems, however his bowling wasn't good enough to consistently get wickets. Even his 5 wicket haul at the Oval was on the back of a 17 over spell unchanged.

Flintoff is every bit as much the classic 5th bowler as Kallis is. Except Kallis has been a world class batsman for over 10 years. Flintoff hasn't.
Reasonably accurate assessment that. Also, wasn't Flintoff's recent 5-fer against Aust the last 5 batsmen in the batting lineup?
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
LOL. Like I said. He took out the openers and set us on our way to victory. But hey, why not ignore facts
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Exactly, Flintoff was a solid back of a length bowler who was very difficult to get away and caused all sorts of top batsmen problems, however his bowling wasn't good enough to consistently get wickets. Even his 5 wicket haul at the Oval was on the back of a 17 over spell unchanged.

Flintoff is every bit as much the classic 5th bowler as Kallis is. Except Kallis has been a world class batsman for over 10 years. Flintoff hasn't.
They're quite comparable as bowlers. Completely different in style but similar in end result.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
As I've seen you do with some batsmen, you're concentrating too much on aesthetics over results.
I dont know which batsmen are these. But there is nothing wrong with looking at aesthetics overr stats - since stats never tell the whole truth in cricket. If Victor Trmuper can be recognised as a great batsmen despite an average of 39, despite common knowledge via stats spoon feeding us that great batsmen have to average at minimum 45. The same thing applies with Flintoff's bowling to a degree.



Top_Cat said:
One 5-fer in the whole series. That's a fact.
Bowled better than, was unlucky not have taken 5 for in Edgbaston & OT. Which does happen to bowlers in test cricket.


Top_Cat said:
Seriously, as well as he bowled, I've seen far more lethal series from many other bowlers.
So have i technically. But i would say his over to Ponting in Birmingham is argubably the best first over a batsman has ever had since Holding to Boycott - Barbados 1980..

Top_Cat said:
From my perspective, even that series was a metaphor for why he wasn't a great Test match wicket-taker; a couple of decent bursts when he actually threw the ball up surrounded by long periods of back-of-a-length seam which, whilst hard to score from, didn't exactly run through the Aussies.
All this is irrelevant since i am not basing the argument about what he did solely in the 05 Ashes. I addressed why his back-of-a-lenght bowling after the Ashes prevented him from taking his bowling to the next gear in the quote just below the same posted you quoted:

me said:
What prevented from taking it to next gear (which in my opinion he certainly had another gear to go as a bowler after Ashes 05 to IND 05/06) was his injuries.

Since between SRI 06 to Ashes 09 as you should have remembered although his bowling (unlike his batting which took a while to find form, which is why he basically turned into a bowling all-rounder during this period) was on the mark from ball one, regardless of how long he was absent for & remainded test quality. It defiantely was level below his Ashes 05heroics.
The Ashes was the beginning of his Zenith as a bowler, he never got to complete it.


Top_Cat said:
Simon Jones was by far the more threatening bowler.
Disagree IMO they where even.

Top_Cat said:
Averaging 25 with the ball as a peak is pretty average as far as Test bowlers go too. A bloke like Glenn McGrath averaged a few runs less for his whole career. What made Flintoff brilliant for that period was his batting coupled with that bowling (which was a monumental effort to do both that well). The bowling alone was good, solid Test stuff.
Interesting you bring up McGrath here in this talk of Flintoff's "lack of 5-wicket hauls". Since that 2 year peak in mentioned which ender in IND 06. Flintoff bowled superbly that series but he never took a 5 wicket haul. If my memory is correct McGrath despite his superb record in India never took a 5 wicket haul in IND either.


Exactly, Flintoff was a solid back of a length bowler who was very difficult to get away and caused all sorts of top batsmen problems, however his bowling wasn't good enough to consistently get wickets.
The sooner you get this mischaracterisation of Master Fred's career out of your head & clearly understand the dynamics of the high & lows of his test career - the better it will be for you IMHO.


Even his 5 wicket haul at the Oval was on the back of a 17 over spell unchanged.
Ha why is the lenght of the spell important?. Of course it wasn't Ambrose 7-1 Perth 93 stuff. But the pitch was flat ATT & he swung the course of AUS innings with that spell (although the place got a bit overcast during that spell). Warne bowled 30+ overs in day 1 his 5 wicket haul, is the less significant because he didn't rip through ENG in 15 overs??

Flintoff is every bit as much the classic 5th bowler as Kallis is.
WTF haha this is madness. So you are telling me currently ENG now that Flintoff has retired, we have just lost a "classic 5th bowler"??? Really try again..

Except Kallis has been a world class batsman for over 10 years. Flintoff hasn't.
Correction Kallis has not be WC batsman for OVER 10 years - nobody was calling him WC in 99 or 2000. Kallis started to peak as batsman this era around 2003/04 i think when he scored like 5/6 consective test centuries or something.

But again all this irrelevant, as i keep asking give me a series this decade where Kallis had a better series as an "all-rounder" than Flintoff in Ashes 05 & IND 06??. No one apparantley knows...

How can you be classified as a true "all-rounder" in the case of Kallis when you have not done the double of scoring a hundred & taken a 5-wicket haul againts quality test opposition in 6 1/2 years??
 
Last edited:

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Who cares about Flintoff? This is for Vettori. :p
It still is & has the thread title goes, Vettori clearly does deserved to accolade as the best "all-rounder" in tests ATM. Since he is only one likely to give you an equal combination of test quality top 6/7 batting & take a 5 wicket haul with some degree of consistency IMO.

But at the same time you can't compare him to the other fast bowling all-rounders like Bravo & Watson (once they continue to develop) since its unfair to compare the two types of all-rounders.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
aussie, nobody loved Freddie more than I do. But the reason I regard him so highly was because at his peak he was able to both bat and bowl so well. Either or and he wouldn't rate so highly even to me, that being said I do believe in 2005 he was second in the world in terms of wickets taken so he was obviously bowling a little better than some might be suggesting.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bowled better than, was unlucky not have taken 5 for in Edgbaston & OT. Which does happen to bowlers in test cricket.
Edgbaston is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Freddie comes out and rips out Langer and Ponting during the course of one of the greatest overs in Test history, OZ are absolutely on the ropes by day's end with the tail at the crease and plenty still to get.
Warne and Lee, both vulnerable to full straight swinging deliveries, barely received a ball in their half all morning. With the match so thoroughly in the bag and Freddie so clearly in form, it was utterly brainless bowling and nearly cost England the match.

Freddie, when he threw the ball up, was awesome. Unfortunately, it rarely happened on a consistent basis. This does and should count against him.

Correction Kallis has not be WC batsman for OVER 10 years - nobody was calling him WC in 99 or 2000. Kallis started to peak as batsman this era around 2003/04 i think when he scored like 5/6 consective test centuries or something.
Love how you can be so definite yet so vague in the same post about the same thing.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Not that it should matter as to how he's rated, but how much of Freddie bowling the short stuff do you think was down to his own choice, and how much do you reckon he was asked to do it?

The reason I ask is because I know Stuart Broad was asked to bowl short during the first of the Ashes this year, then with the game gone at Edgbaston was just told to go and find his own line. Look at his bowling from the second innings of that test onwards and compare it to the first. We like the short stuff a bit too much I reckon, over here.

It's a hard life being a bowler :ph34r:
 

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
I think Vettori's a much better batsman actually. Vettori has been awesome in the last couple of years. Since Shakib's debut he's averaged over 40 against teams other than Bangladesh. Shakib will quite likely improve as a batsman, but as of right now, Vettori's much better for mine.

Ftr, Shakib against teams other than West Indies C: 26.47 batting.
I believe Shakib is a better batsman than Vettori and his average will improve. However, he might disappoint me aswell.
But his bowling, in tests especially in the last 2 years has definitely been better than Vettori's. He has 5 wicket hauls against Sri Lanka and South Africa. Ofcourse what needs to be considered is he plays in conditions conducive to spin bowling at home whereas Vettori does not always get that at home.
 
Last edited:

Top