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

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No no. Dont confuse this thing uncle. Kallis has a set role as 5th bowler not because he is forced into that role by Smith or the coach & they are preventing him from reaching another gear or something. But rather thats only the role where is effective

Is that what Graeme and Mickey told you?

 

[aussie]

You were comparing Kallis' effectiveness in that Test to other performances. It's implicit that you were referencing other Tests and other pitches.

Well for one the Barbados pitch was flat. So the pitch technically isn't really relevant.

I was comparing the difference between Kallis in WI 2001 to in ENG 08. TTBoy was suggesting he stepped up in 'effectiveness" in absense of Steyn, which is hardly true. He took on extra bowling load, which he had to.

Vs WI 2001 rather. On a flat pitch with Donald injured during the match. Kallis step up in effectiveness superbly by taking the second new ball & basically was the reason why WIs score was kept in check, easily his best test bowling performance IMO. Kallis of 2009 cant do that anymore.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well for one the Barbados pitch was flat..

It most certainly was not.

 

[aussie]

Is that what Graeme and Mickey told you?

Haa, no sir they didn't have to tell me that, its quite obvious thats the case just by watching Kallis bowl over the 5/6 years in tests.

Its not the same as saying when Dravid or Laxman opened the batting for IND in the past in tests. They clearly where forced into doing that since IND lacked a proper opening option for that set period. But those those clearly where not suited to role, but where forced into that role for the teams sake.

It most certainly was not.

AFAIC it certainly was for the majority of that test. Like most Barbados pitches around that time like ENG 98 & AUS 99, PAK 2000 for eg. It had early movement & help for the bowlers & SA lost early wickets in the first session.

But then if flattened out considerbaly in SA & WI first innings (when Kallis was bowling which is the main point here). Later down in the match it began to turn alot & Ramnarine/Hooper/Boje/Klusener utilized the conditons. But WI still collapsed a bit foolishly in that 2nd innings.

 

[Flem274*]

Geez the page is so much easier to read when Aussie is on ignore, now stop replying to him and it'll be even better.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Haa, no sir they didn't have to tell me that, its quite obvious thats the case just by watching Kallis bowl over the 5/6 years in tests.

Obviously not obvious to everyone, so I wouldn't call it obvious or state it like fact.

AFAIC it certainly was for the majority of that test. Like most Barbados pitches around that time like ENG 98 & AUS 99, PAK 2000 for eg. It had early movement & help for the bowlers & SA lost early wickets in the first session.

But then if flattened out considerbaly in SA & WI first innings (when Kallis was bowling which is the main point here). Later down in the match it began to turn alot & Ramnarine/Hooper/Boje/Klusener utilized the conditons. But WI still collapsed a bit foolishly in that 2nd innings.

Does that mean Walsh wasn't applying himself on it? Because obviously Kallis' 6 wickets is a reflection of the effort he put in as the world class allrounder that he no longer is. Certainly it wasn't because the pitch was balanced and he was bowling against West Indian batsmen.

 

[Furball]

Flintoff had a set role of being ENG main defensive bowler instead of being the main attacking bowler, since with the lack of support around him. He was the only bowler ENG could depend on to keep things under control. BIG difference.

No, Flintoff was England's main defensive bowler because he wasn't good enough to be an attacking option who consistently took wickets.

Of quicks that have taken as many Test wickets as Flintoff has, Flintoff has the fewest 5 wicket hauls and the 3rd worst career strike rate.

edit: he's also got the worst bowling average.

 

[Mister Wright]

Hmm... nah, Kallis is properly important for South Africa too.

No doubt Kallis important to South Africa. What I was saying is that Vettori's use of both disciplines is more important to New Zealand. As in he's their most used bowler and is now a top 6 batsman (who scores centruies at 6). Whereas Kallis, who is definitely important with his batting, probably isn't used in the same was as Vettori with his bowling.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Vettori's use of both disciplines is more important to South Africa.

He's not THAT bad.

 

[Mister Wright]

Vettori with the ball in tests gets more and more disappointing as the years go on.

That can often happen with allrounders as their careers develop. Steve Waugh comes to mind. When he started his career he was a regularly used bowler, but the batting well and truly took over later in his career. We may infact see Vettori being selected as a batsman (who bowls a bit) in a few years instead of the allrounder he's being selected as at the moment.

 

[Mister Wright]

He's not THAT bad.

LOL|

 

[straw man]

That can often happen with allrounders as their careers develop. Steve Waugh comes to mind. When he started his career he was a regularly used bowler, but the batting well and truly took over later in his career. We may infact see Vettori being selected as a batsman (who bowls a bit) in a few years instead of the allrounder he's being selected as at the moment.

Agree with this.

Wouldn't be surprised if Vettori starts to struggle a little with injuries that restrict his bowling further. He's bowling a lot of overs, is getting older, has a lot on his plate and currently has a shoulder problem. There's also the hypothetical (pretty damn unlikely but I'm being very hopeful here) that a spinner might emerge for NZ who would be notably better than Vettori with the ball and would demand selection in most conditions. In either case, Vettori would continue to bat 6 and would command his place in the side primarily as a batsman.

 

[aussie]

No, Flintoff was England's main defensive bowler because he wasn't good enough to be an attacking option who consistently took wickets.

To avoid repeating myself:

The 2 big reason why Fred has taken more 5 wicket hauls since he became test quality in Bridgetown 04 are:

- Outside Ashes 05, Flintoff has regularly had to act not only as England main attacking option. But as the main defensive bowler, when the situation gets out of hand. Since the balance of ENGs bowling attack due to injuries & lack of quality support, hasn't allowed Freddie to be used in short sharp bursts like a Akhtar, Steyn or Lee.

- Secondly, as Ian Chappell rightlfully highlighted in Ashes 06/07. His whole career is a bit like Ambrose in AUS 92/93 before the Perth performance. Freddie natural lenght was back of lenght & just outside off, he doesn't bowl full which at times affects his ability to take big hauls in test matches.

Of quicks that have taken as many Test wickets as Flintoff has, Flintoff has the fewest 5 wicket hauls and the 3rd worst career strike rate.

edit: he's also got the worst bowling average.

Why are you judging Flintoff's bowling based on his entire career?. Clearly he had a peak
from Bridgetown 2004 to Mumbai 2006. Which i already explainted to PEWS just now in reference to his back of the lenght style bowling preventing him from not getting more 5 wicket hauls:

It wasn't a technical fault though. It was more of mental/tactical thing. As aforementioned:

"Flintoff had a set role of being ENG main defensive bowler instead of being the main attacking bowler, since with the lack of support around him. He was the only bowler ENG could depend on to keep things under control."

He had bowl like that for ENGs sake. In the Ashes 05 when he allowed to really be strike bowler we all know how fantastic he was.

Another factor that prevented Freddie from improving on his back of a length style bowling after Ashes 05, was obviously his injuries. Flintoff's bowling definately had another gear to go to IMO, but he had to keep stop starting & although his bowling reamined ENGs only test quality option it wasn't able to reach that next level.

 

[Furball]

I'm well aware of his peak. I watched it for Christ's sake.

Your defence of Flintoff is like me defending a batsman on the basis that his defensive technique is rock solid but he lacks the shots to score big runs.

In the same way, at Test level Flintoff lacked the tools to be a potent wicket taking force.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not just that, the peak wasn't awesome as far as peaks go. Good contributor, though.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In the same way, at Test level Flintoff lacked the tools to be a potent wicket taking force.

I really think the only tool he lacked was fitness. That was a big absence though, given the type of bowler he was.

 

[aussie]

I'm well aware of his peak. I watched it for Christ's sake.

Well i encourage you to watch back (via DVDs) or read back about it since you are criminally mischaracterising his peak IMO.

Your defence of Flintoff is like me defending a batsman on the basis that his defensive technique is rock solid but he lacks the shots to score big runs.


In the same way, at Test level Flintoff lacked the tools to be a potent wicket taking force.

Rubbish. Flintoff clearly had the tools to be a consistent wicket taking force in tests (being able to take more 5 wicket hauls). As i say again in the Ashes 2005 when he allowed to be strike bowler & bowl in short sharp spells he was as lethal as anything you ever likely to see.

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.

Not just that, the peak wasn't awesome as far as peaks go. Good contributor, though.

How was his Ashes 05 performance not awesome?. At his peak although short where he played non stop without test cricket (although he missed a few ODIs) between Bridgetown 04 & Mumbai 06, he averaged 41 with the bat & 25 with the ball. A fair bit better than just a "good contributor". The enitre ENG team currently balanced wise i messed up because he has retired.

But anyway as the argument is as the moment about him vs Kallis. As i keep asking give me a series this decade where Kallis had a better series as an "all-rounder" than Freddie in Ashes 05 & IND 05/06?.

 

[Furball]

I don't need reminding of Flintoff's fantastic bowling in the Ashes. Or batting.

If Flintoff had the tools and didn't use them, then that doesn't make him a great bowler. 3 5 fors in 30 Tests (I've excluded the Bangladesh Tests and the SuperTest) isn't that great a record, and that's his peak.

As I've seen you do with some batsmen, you're concentrating too much on aesthetics over results.

 

[Top_Cat]

Rubbish. Flintoff clearly had the tools to be a consistent wicket taking force in tests (being able to take more 5 wicket hauls). As i say again in the Ashes 2005 when he allowed to be strike bowler & bowl in short sharp spells he was as lethal as anything you ever likely to see.

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.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Simon Jones

I hope I don't lose a man card for this.