What have we really achieved?

[hhm]

Boundary, you're not disagreeing with me. You are reaffirming a lot of what I said.

But, the top order wasn't in a mess. Taylor said he prefers to open, I wonder who or what changed that. In the absence of the injured Duffin, Hamilton has been opening with him in the past, so that was settled from that standpoint. Vusi should not be opening. The only concern was a middle order batsman to replace Williams. Only Mutizwa, Ewing & Waller were the options.

If Taibu was unavailable then Taylor should have kept wicket once he recovered. Again he said his preferred fielding position is to keep wicket.

Seamers were ok. Mpofu, the injured Rainsford, Meth by virtue of his domestic performances plus he ws in the frame anyway, Jarvis was always going to be included whatever his form(judging from the fact that this squad was selected days ago when his results were substandard) and finally Chatara who was untried. Ervine was never a concern. He created the concern during his poor form during the series, after the WC where he was great.

Only Price, the injured Cremer and Utseya should be in the frame if two are injured go with one. Someone here said there's daylight between that trio and the rest. I agree. Common sense. So ignore the others. There are no spinning allrounders in world cricket so stop kidding yourselves people! The only allrounders inTest cricket are seamers. Besides Elton we have no one, so he would have been in regardless.

This is not like a new amateur soccer club which opens up trials for players. This is a national cricket team, selected by employed professionals who work ss selected. They should know their XI or XIV. I could have selected a competent team without all this madness, and so could you. And that team would have gelled during this time instaed of monkeying around! If this team was selected based on results, Mawyoyo & Regis shouldn't be there!

[brmtaylor.com admin]

Only Price, the injured Cremer and Utseya should be in the frame if two are injured go with one. Someone here said there's daylight between that trio and the rest. I agree. Common sense. So ignore the others. There are no spinning allrounders in world cricket so stop kidding yourselves people! The only allrounders inTest cricket are seamers. Besides Elton we have no one, so he would have been in regardless.

I disagree with that. Two of the best allrounders are spinners... Daniel Vettori and Shakib al Hasan.

[andybligz93]

brm is right , vettori is the worlds best slow arm and also over the last few years new zealands best bat, shakib al hasan is also a quality cricketer.even young steven smith is a decent all rounder

[hhm]

Only Price, the injured Cremer and Utseya should be in the frame if two are injured go with one. Someone here said there's daylight between that trio and the rest. I agree. Common sense. So ignore the others. There are no spinning allrounders in world cricket so stop kidding yourselves people! The only allrounders inTest cricket are seamers. Besides Elton we have no one, so he would have been in regardless.

I disagree with that. Two of the best allrounders are spinners... Daniel Vettori and Shakib al Hasan.

This is Test cricket, and there is no single TOP TEST SIDE who hinge the balance of their team on a so-called spinning allrounder. They base that on seaming-allrounder. You've confirmed my thoughts. I figured someone would mention those as the options and I deliberately left then out. But Vettori himself has said he is a bowler not a batsman, and Shakib said the same. They are bowlers who bat. Afridi said the same recently. If you tell me you trust their batting then you scare me. Shane Warne was just as good as them, but he was hardly regarded as an all-rounder, and that's not because he was part of such a famed batting order.

Think Imran, Dev, Sobers, Kallis, Beefy & Hadlee(Cairns not Vettori for NZ) then you will understand.

[andybligz93]

Only Price, the injured Cremer and Utseya should be in the frame if two are injured go with one. Someone here said there's daylight between that trio and the rest. I agree. Common sense. So ignore the others. There are no spinning allrounders in world cricket so stop kidding yourselves people! The only allrounders inTest cricket are seamers. Besides Elton we have no one, so he would have been in regardless.

I disagree with that. Two of the best allrounders are spinners... Daniel Vettori and Shakib al Hasan.

This is Test cricket, and there is no single TOP TEST SIDE who hinge the balance of their team on a so-called spinning allrounder. They base that on seaming-allrounder. You've confirmed my thoughts. I figured someone would mention those as the options and I deliberately left then out. But Vettori himself has said he is a bowler not a batsman, and Shakib said the same. They are bowlers who bat. Afridi said the same recently. If you tell me you trust their batting then you scare me. Shane Warne was just as good as them, but he was hardly regarded as an all-rounder, and that's not because he was part of such a famed batting order.

Think Imran, Dev, Sobers, Kallis, Beefy & Hadlee(Cairns not Vettori for NZ) then you will understand.

warne never made a ton vettori has a few same as shakib . they are allrounders and shakib is a batter more than a bolwer , vettori is a bowler yet he bats 7 0r 6 in the all rounders position ? they are all rounders and are based in the team as a spinning all rounder.its like saying watson is a batter who bowls its called a allrounder if yu can do both at pretty much the same level then thats a all round performance ( alll rounder ) what if utseya comes in and gtes 4 wickets a game and bats 7 and avergaes round 30 with the blade ? you would call him one of our most important players and base the team around him because if he is not making runs he is taking wickets also like vettori and shakib . point proven

[brmtaylor.com admin]

This is Test cricket, and there is no single TOP TEST SIDE who hinge the balance of their team on a so-called spinning allrounder. They base that on seaming-allrounder. You've confirmed my thoughts. I figured someone would mention those as the options and I deliberately left then out. But Vettori himself has said he is a bowler not a batsman, and Shakib said the same. They are bowlers who bat. Afridi said the same recently. If you tell me you trust their batting then you scare me. Shane Warne was just as good as them, but he was hardly regarded as an all-rounder, and that's not because he was part of such a famed batting order.

Think Imran, Dev, Sobers, Kallis, Beefy & Hadlee(Cairns not Vettori for NZ) then you will understand.

I didn't realise you were only talking about the top Test teams. I should have realised an all encompassing statement like "there are no spinning allrounders in world cricket" had conditions attached to it

It's undeniable that Vettori is an allrounder. Vettori has 6 Test hundreds at an average of over 30... and of course he's said he's a bowler, he's taken nearly 350 Test wickets. I can't believe I even have to mount this argument... 4000 runs and 300 odd wickets says it all.

[eugene]

Anyone who says Vettori isn't an allrounder clearly doesn't follow New Zealand cricket all that much. Vettori has been one of New Zealand's best performing batsmen in the last 5 years. Chris Cairns has not been on the scene for a long time now. Vettori may not say he is an allrounder but he is. He has often batted as high as five or six - that makes him an allrounder. Vettori is infact one of the most trustworthy batsmen and has rescued NZ's middle order from collapse countless times. If he was playing for Zimbabwe he would make the side solely for his batting. New Zealand now have the advantage of being able to select an extra bowler due to Vettori's ability with the bat.

In the last 5 season Vettori's batting stats in tests are as follows:
Matches: 34
Runs: 2031
HS: 140
Average: 39.05
100s: 4
50s: 11

If those aren't the batting stats of an allrounder I don't know what are. Imran Khan didn't even average 39 with the bat.

[hhm]

How did my topic degenerate into an argument about Daniel Vettori! If there's one thing that's true about most sports forums it's that posters really like making a mountain out of a molehill. If not to prove an unsolicited point, it's a display of one's acumen. My statement was, I admit, casually open-ended BRM, but you know better and mounted an argument simply because you choose to, not have to. What I said about spinning all-rounders in Test cricket is a fact. They are really not regarded in Test cricket and the balance of a Test side will never hinge on them. Selectors would rather find a seaming all-rounder and select a specialist seamer. If he can bat it's a bonus, if not no big deal.

In a way Vettori is an all-rounder, just one that I and most people I think, will never remember as a true all-rounder who can hold his spot in the team if his other discipline is lacking, and the same goes for supposedly (seam) bowling all-rounders Polly, Wasim etc. Otherwise we might as well throw Paul Strang into the mix! Don't get me wrong, he is a terrific captain, and from a distance he seems to me to be a wonderful human being that I respect as an individual. However, I don't rate his batting, and rather consider him to be a containing, defensive bowler who plucks loads of wickets from nowhere, and a batsman who makes runs unremarkably. I doubt that either of his disciplines strike fear in any of the majority of top bowlers and batsmen right now. If they were to be asked to create a top-20 list of feared opposition in each category, where do you think he would feature, IF they mention him? Somewhere near the bottom I presume.

In the context of his article of course, and amidst a lot of positives, this in part is what Roebuck had to say about him once and I'm sure you will get my point if you read between the lines:
"Besides the batting and pace bowling, New Zealand had another prized asset, Vettori himself. At first sight he is not much of a player. After all he does not turn the ball nearly as sharply as numerous contemporaries, and plays a correct stroke about once a week. As a spinner he cannot upset a batsman's calculations with a bemusing ball that seems bound to go in one direction only to head off in another, leaving the willow-wielder feeling as foolish as the passenger who caught the wrong train. Limited practitioners are not supposed to survive in this age of heavy bats, tamed pitches, short boundaries and audacious batting. Mystery balls are supposed to be their only recourse. Vettori has nothing in his repertoire except the traditional weapons used by slow bowlers from previous generations. As a batsman he is ungainly, relying almost entirely on carts, biffs, clouts, tucks, clatters, heaves and slaps, not at all the sort of words that find their way into the lexicons of our more sensitive poets. And this is New Zealand's pride and joy? Of course Vettori is a far more substantial player than he seems.

With Vettori it's not the delivery itself that takes the wicket, it's the company it keeps. He resembles a spider weaving a web. Opponents are not so much destroyed as trapped. Assisted by an innocent look, he sends down apparently innocent deliveries that possess the capacity to mislead. His changes of pace continue to elude experienced players. Steve Waugh could not make head nor tail of him. Repeatedly opponents find themselves playing back to deliveries fuller than they seemed, or else groping at balls that curve unexpectedly. A village-greener might smack him into kingdom come, trained batsmen find him hard to collar. Here is a bowler from the old school, using his wits, disguising his intentions, relying on method not magic.

......until the captain walked to the crease at fourth wicket down. Anyone watching Vettori in the nets might be hard pressed to put him as high in a club side. The sole discernible merit in his batting is that he scores runs. Oh yes, and he watches the ball, knows his game, hits the ball to unusual places, has the heart of an ox, and manages to remain rational in the heat of battle. Otherwise he is hopeless."

In one interview, this is how he responded to a question posed to him:
Daniel Vettori is certainly not that gangly guy who can only bowl. You have got two Test centuries and recently completed the double of 200 wickets and 2000 runs. Do you consider yourself an all-rounder?
“Yeah, I think so. In the last four to five years, my average in Test cricket has been really pleasing for me. I have put together consistent scores. It's something that I really worked hard on. I am disappointed about my inability to bat for longer periods in the early part of my career - something that I had to rectify. I have managed to do that in the last few years and get to a stage to be considered an all-rounder and get chances to bat higher in the order. But I am pretty comfortable at No. 8 at the moment.”
Seeing as he is such a highly rated all-rounder by you and many others, I wonder why, from the interviewer's perspective, such a question was ever relevant, or why he didn't feel offended it was even posed to him to begin with! This interview is obviously older, but what is clear is that after over 60% of his career, he was not entirely certain about and most importanly, it shows that he grew into being an all-rounder and wasn't a genuine one to begin with.

NB: I follow New Zealand cricket Eugene, and I’m well aware Cairns retired ages ago. That was meant to highlight that Hadlee, and even Cairns, are classed as more relevant all-rounders than him.

[Kriterion_BD]

Its true that spinning all-rounders are less rare than pace bowling all rounders. However to say they aren't useful is ridiculous. Vettori and Shakib are both their team's best players and could get in on quite a few Test sides on both batting and bowling alone. The reason pacer-allrounders are more important is only because all countries outside of the subcontinent - and too an extent WI - are seam-friendly nations. But the idea that a spinner is less valuable than a pacer is supremely ignorant.

[eugene]

Its true that spinning all-rounders are less rare than pace bowling all rounders. However to say they aren't useful is ridiculous. Vettori and Shakib are both their team's best players and could get in on quite a few Test sides on both batting and bowling alone. The reason pacer-allrounders are more important is only because all countries outside of the subcontinent - and too an extent WI - are seam-friendly nations. But the idea that a spinner is less valuable than a pacer is supremely ignorant.

Exactly.