Utility players (or less-glorified all-rounders)

[Dissector]

Let's not forget Vettori's wicket tally, which is a lot more than that of your average utility player.

Well, I don't think Vettori is an average utility player; he is probably the best of the lot at the moment and one of the best ever. And since he plays for a weak team he obviously gets picked a lot.

My point is that he still falls short of being a genuine all-rounder because he isn't good enough to hold his place for his bowling (or batting) alone in the majority of the test-quality sides. I think that is pretty much a requirement to be an all rounder.

 

[Richard]

IMO of that list only Bravo would make his respective team if he woke up tomorrow and forgot how to either bat or bowl. In reality, is there any allrounder who would make his Test side both as a pure batsman and a pure bowler... I don't think so.

Not that many thoughout history have done, though. Only all-rounders from the very top of the tree (Hirst, Rhodes, Miller, Sobers for a time, Imran Khan, Botham for a time) would have done.

 

[Richard]

Well, I don't think Vettori is an average utility player; he is probably the best of the lot at the moment and one of the best ever. And since he plays for a weak team he obviously gets picked a lot.

My point is that he still falls short of being a genuine all-rounder because he isn't good enough to hold his place for his bowling (or batting) alone in the majority of the test-quality sides. I think that is pretty much a requirement to be an all rounder.

If you won't allow someone to be a genuine all-rounder until he can hold his place in a team with bat and ball you won't have many all-rounders.

As I said above - at Test level you could count the number of people who could do that on your hands.

 

[Nutter]

A player of Shane Watson's caliber would have easily made the New Zealand side and become one of our better players (perhaps even leading!) in time.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Not that many thoughout history have done, though. Only all-rounders from the very top of the tree (Hirst, Rhodes, Miller, Sobers for a time, Imran Khan, Botham for a time) would have done.

Yeah I thought about that afterwards. It's much more conceivable in the ODI game than in Tests and shows just how good those listed above were. We talk of Kallis and Flintoff as big name allrounders but Kallis is still (even at the peak of his bowling) a batsman who could bowl, and Flintoff a bowler who batted.

 

[Leslie1]

Daniel Vettori

Interesting thread, taking particular notice of the Vettori phenomenon.

The title says less-glorified all-rounders. Vettori would be top of the OVER-glorified and over-rated all rounder going around in tests.

He's deservedly the top ODI bowler, and his batting is the most ugly-yet-effective style around the world. Scores most of his runs exposing his stumps and dabbing to third man. The recent tests the English figured this out and just put a strong back to off side field to him. The guy can't drive the ball straight even if he tried to.

I suspect the reason why he's so highly rated is because he shines like a beacon in most of the NZ lineup over the years while he's playing.

A moment I won't forget...

Vettori - current New Zealand capt. - Shows no faith in Southee's batting prior to him getting 77* fastest 50 ever by a Kiwi in tests - gets out exposing his stumps telegraphing the exact same shot previously - "brain explosion moment" - Prove below...

 

[Langeveldt]

Grant Elliot

Even I've got him out

 

[Smudge]

Yep, Leslie, I'm sure Vettori knows a lot less about Southee's batting ability than you, and simply had no idea how Southee would bat so went down swinging. Let's face it, Southee's innings - bar one or two shots - was an unadulterated slog. A successful slog, but a slog nonetheless. After seeing Southee in the first innings, and being in Vettori's shoes, I'd have done the same thing. Although obviously I wouldn't have feathered it to the keeper.

 

[roseboy64]

Yeah would have gotten clean bowled.

 

[Flem274*]

I don't get you Leslie, you fawn over anyone from ND yet you hate Vettori, one of NDs greats? You're a strange one.

 

[Flem274*]

I don't see how Bravo, Watson and Styris are bits and pieces players. Watson and Bravo are genuine allrounders and Styris is a number 4/5 specialist batsman that bowls a bit.

 

[Dissector]

If you won't allow someone to be a genuine all-rounder until he can hold his place in a team with bat and ball you won't have many all-rounders.

As I said above - at Test level you could count the number of people who could do that on your hands.

You misunderstand; I think a genuine all-rounder should be able to hold his place in a good test side with either his batting alone or (more commonly) his bowling alone. Practically every major all-rounder I can think of satisfies this condition. For example the four 80's all-rounders could walk into almost any test side on their bowling alone. Batting all-rounders like Sobers and Kallis were/are easily good enough to be picked for their batting alone.

By contrast a utility player is someone who is useful in both categories but not good enough in either to be picked for that alone in a good test side. That's where I would put Vettori.

 

[haroon510]

Bravo... Bravo ... and bravo to Bravo for his sensational performance in his recent time..

 

[bond21]

no offense but Vettori being a good batsman for NZ is like Asafa Powell being the best runner in the special olympics....

 

[Prince EWS]

no offense but Vettori being a good batsman for NZ is like Asafa Powell being the best runner in the special olympics....

Not unlike being bond21's best post, eh?

 

[Smudge]

Possibly the worst and most idiotic analogy ever. But I wouldn't expect anything less from bond21.

 

[bond21]

lol.

they bit.

 

[Smudge]

lol.

they bit.

Only after I had reported it.

 

[bond21]

taddel tail.

or however u spell it lol

 

[Smudge]

taddel tail.

or however u spell it lol

lol, lol, lol. Gotta love a flamebaiter who laughs at his own jokes.