Daniel Vettori retires from International Cricket

[Carbine Chaos]

Would Warne and Vettori in tandem have been better than Warne and MacGill?

Either way, Vettori vs MacGill is probably the better comparison.

 

[krisholio14]

Warne averaged about 8 less with the ball, and 15 less with the bat. Since he took about 4 wickets a match, maybe more, he easily would've been selected over Vettori anytime, anywhere.

Ok hold up here, not suggesting Vettori was better than Warne. There isn't a universe you'd pick Vettori over Warne in a team. MacGill on the other hand....

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

The were leggies, and could they bat?

Vettori's batting didn't take off until about 2004-ish, and Warne averaged a very solid 22-23 from that point onwards.

 

[Borisdog]

I'd have Vettori in a flash over MacGill. There was a lot of poo mixed in with Stewie's odd Jaffa. And his bats had "This end up" stencilled on them.

My point was Vettori would comfortably have been a better option than the Aussie 5th bowler/6th Batsman on most occasions. Fantastic player for a long time.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

I'd have Vettori in a flash over MacGill. There was a lot of poo mixed in with Stewie's odd Jaffa. And his bats had "This end up" stencilled on them.

My point was Vettori would comfortably have been a better option than the Aussie 5th bowler/6th Batsman on most occasions. Fantastic player for a long time.

Bowling sure, but not batting. He would've been competing with Steve Waugh, Michael Clarke, Darren Lehmann, Mike Hussey, Simon Katich and Andrew Symonds for a spot. Maybe in the last 5 years when we were fielding Khawaja, Marsh, etc.

 

[Sanguinarius]

My Favourite player since I was 10. I even took up spin bowling just because of him. Though we didnt see that much of NZ I always enjoyed sitting down and watching him bowl against the Aussies. Great player and an even better bloke by all reports. I hope he isnt lost to the game and is instead able to help NZ with their youngsters.

I always hoped he'd get the last 30 odd wickets he needed for the 4000 run, 400 wicket double, but his body didnt hold out.

I'd never be able to say from an unbiased point of view that he'd command a certain spot in the Aussie side, not in an era of Warne, but he'd push close.
While cricket is a game of averages, I do think that his suffered from being a spinner from New Zealand (possibly the least friendly wicket for him) and from being their only world class bowler for much of his career.
Often in a one day match sides would happily take no risk against him and he'd end up 0/30 from his ten, knowing they could punish the others.
You often hear people like Warne and McGrath talk about bowling in partnerships, which simply wasnt possibly for Dan - other than a brief 18 test stint where Shane Bond was fit and firing.

 

[Hellgood]

He certainly led the attack for the majority of his career, but I don't think NZ's attack was ever as terrible as it's being made out to be in this thread.

 

[Smeg Head]

I hope he isnt lost to the game and is instead able to help NZ with their youngsters..

He certainly isn't. Will be coaching the Brisbane Heat as well as continuing to coach Bangalore I think it is in the IPL.

 

[The Passenger]

He certainly led the attack for the majority of his career, but I don't think NZ's attack was ever as terrible as it's being made out to be in this thread.

From 2002 to 2010 Only he (213) and Chris Martin (159) took more than 80 wickets. It was like a revolving door of bowlers.

And Bond was the only one with a world class average but he suffered from terrible injuries so hardly played.

They're bowling attack sucked big time for a long time. With some support Vettori could definitely have got his average below 30.

As a comparison Australia had 7 blokes take more than 80 wickets in that period. 5 of those with an average under 30.

A few posts back someone said Warne and McGrath talked about bowling in partnerships. Just couldn't happen for Vettori.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...n;team=2;team=5;template=results;type=bowling

 

[Borisdog]

Bowling sure, but not batting. He would've been competing with Steve Waugh, Michael Clarke, Darren Lehmann, Mike Hussey, Simon Katich and Andrew Symonds for a spot. Maybe in the last 5 years when we were fielding Khawaja, Marsh, etc.

Watson is the first name that leaps out at me. But I take your point. I still contend that in at least 80% of the sides fielded by Australia during Dan's career he would have got the nod, maybe even more than that.

 

[the_interloper]

Would Warne and Vettori in tandem have been better than Warne and MacGill?

Either way, Vettori vs MacGill is probably the better comparison.

I think Warne and MacGill better, but for some reason you can't have two leggies in the same team (absolute bullshit imo).

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I think Warne and MacGill better, but for some reason you can't have two leggies in the same team (absolute bullshit imo).

I think Vettori may have gotten a gig over MacGill purely because he was a better all-round cricketer. MacGill was a damn good bowler though.

 

[ioppolo]

Anyone remember when he batted at 6 and was easily NZ's best batsman a few years ago (around 09/10)?

Respect

 

[Hellgood]

Anyone remember when he batted at 6 and was easily NZ's best batsman a few years ago (around 09/10)?

Respect

He certainly has never been 'easily' their best batsman. Love the guy, but you're being hyperbolic to suggest he's a better batsman than McCullum, Taylor or Ryder

 

[ioppolo]

He certainly has never been 'easily' their best batsman. Love the guy, but you're being hyperbolic to suggest he's a better batsman than McCullum, Taylor or Ryder

He was performing better than 2 of those 3 at the time (Ryder was going alright from memory).

 

[Hellgood]

Disagree. Looking at that period from 2008-2010 where his batting was at it's peak, he was certainly putting in very reliable performances which were comparable to Taylor, McCullum and Ryder but to say he was easily their best batsman is just based on the 'surprise factor' of a guy contributing more than he was expected to (similar in a way to how people's respect for Siddle's gutsy performances with the bat in our really dark period in 2010/11 went a bit over the top with claims he should bat up the order because he had more guts than the actual batsmen).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...al2=span;team=5;template=results;type=batting

 

[krisholio14]

Disagree. Looking at that period from 2008-2010 where his batting was at it's peak, he was certainly putting in very reliable performances which were comparable to Taylor, McCullum and Ryder but to say he was easily their best batsman is just based on the 'surprise factor' of a guy contributing more than he was expected to (similar in a way to how people's respect for Siddle's gutsy performances with the bat in our really dark period in 2010/11 went a bit over the top with claims he should bat up the order because he had more guts than the actual batsmen).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...al2=span;team=5;template=results;type=batting

What's impressive about that performance regardless of where he rated among the Kiwi bats is that he bowled more than twice as many overs as any other bowler bar Chris Martin during that period. And * me there's some absolute poop among that list lol.

 

[Scotland]

He certainly has never been 'easily' their best batsman. Love the guy, but you're being hyperbolic to suggest he's a better batsman than McCullum, Taylor or Ryder

2009: 8 test matches, 779 runs @ 59.92. Significantly outperformed all 3 mentioned.

3 centuries, 3 half centuries, regularly the top scorer coming in at 6-8.

Took 27 wickets too.

Still, if only NZ had the potential of Shane Watson instead.

 

[Hellgood]

In 2009 he had an almost identical average to Taylor. I don't want it to sound as though I'm trying to denigrate him, because he's had a brilliant career and one of my favourite cricketers but he's never been the number one batsman for New Zealand.

 

[corbies]

2009: 8 test matches, 779 runs @ 59.92. Significantly outperformed all 3 mentioned.

3 centuries, 3 half centuries, regularly the top scorer coming in at 6-8.

Took 27 wickets too.

Still, if only NZ had the potential of Shane Watson instead.

Shane Watson would probably be a great of NZ cricket. Well that may be stretching it a bit, but he would have been one of their best players over the last 7-8 years. Taking your year (2009) as an example, he played 7 test matches, 716 runs @ 65.09. Fair to say NZ really could use the potential of Shane Watson (obviously not in the place of Vettori).

 

[Scotland]

The key difference being that Vettori did things in years other than 2009.