So what?

So what? Had you actually bothered to check these FACT's you'd see that Vettori bowled -

On Day two -

Overs 14, 16, 18, 20 in a 4 over spell. Then overs 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, in a 7 over spell. Then overs 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, and 58 an 8 over spell.

That's 19 overs total in Englands first innings on day two. Hardly excessive eh?

On Day three -

In Englands 1st innings - overs 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82 in a 12 over spell.

We then had NZ's fairly short innings and then bowled in Englands second innings -

Overs 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 in a 10 over spell.

So the total number of overs bowled by Vettori on Day three, spaced inbetween NZ's own innings were 12 in the morning and 10 in the afternoon - 22 overs in one day.

On day four Vettori bowled 25 overs without much success. So -

Day two - 19 overs
Day three - 22 overs
Day four - 25 overs

Are you honestly and truly, trying to convince me that 19 overs on day 2, 22 overs on day three is sufficient to 'knacker out' a spin bowler?

You're the advocate for a four bowler setup, how many overs do you think those 4 bowlers would have to bowl in a typical days Test Cricket of 90 overs? 90/4 = 22.5 overs each per day. How is that different from what Vettori bowled in that second test?

In my own opinion, a spin bowler of international standard at correct fitness should be capable of bowling anything up to 30-35 overs per day in Test Cricket with the standard breaks. If he cannot sustain that number of overs then he's not match fit and shouldn't be playing. For seamers, I'd say 20-25 would be optimum, 30 maximum per day.

Your views and opinions have more holes in them than a swiss cheese.

Why don't you actually LOOK at how many overs Vettori bowled each day in that Test yourself? Or are you incapable of doing that?

I certainly don't dispute any of that and conventional wisdom has it that to be considered a 'true' cricketing allrounder, your batting average needs to be higher than your bowling average. In that sense Vettori isn't quite there but almost -

Vettori bowling ave 34.27, batting average 27.09
Oram bowling ave 30.55, batting average 37.25

Why don't you actually analyse precisely how many overs Vettori bowled in one day? If you did, you'd see that his work load was not sufficient to 'knacker him out' and was actually no different to that expected of any spinner in International Cricket.

Yes they were, so find better bowlers instead of playing bowlers who can bat a bit and perhaps the situation will improve.

I find it difficult to understand how you can come to this conclusion based on your 'swiss cheese' logic and opinions.

It's perfectly true that I am a big exponent of the 4 specialist bowlers + 1 allrounder system, but I don't really see how that is a 'conspiracy theory'.

Well it's certainly nice of you to grudgingly acknowledge that there were other 'factors' contributing to New Zealands failure over and above your ludicrous claim that Vettori was 'too knackered' to bowl properly in Englands second innings.

If you actually look at the FACT's of the situation, it's not that difficult to see what the reasons were - exactly as I described to you in my previous post.

Only in your own strange imagination.

Do you actually believe this as a rule or are there limitations? Therefore many of the great batsmen like Hammond, Greg Chappell, Frank Worrell and, even Tendulkar, Steve Waugh, Dougie Walters, Sehwag and many more part time bowlers (like Dexter) would qualify.

I would say this is the case for bowling all rounders, but not for batting all rounders. I agree with your assessment of Vettori on this basis, but it should be tempered.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that Milo. As a 'general guide' I think it's fairly sound, but like all 'generalisms' there's always exceptions as well.

Nothings definitive.

For 'most' allrounders to be considered 'true' allrounders, their bowling average needs to be lower than their batting average. The median in my opinion is around 35 for both.

So, a bowling average of 35 or less and a batting average of 35+ should be the aim of most allrounders..

Why not? Batting allrounders would simply have a higher bowling average and a higher batting average than a bowling allrounder - the principal remains the same.

I wouldn't consider any of the players I mentioned to be true cricketing all rounders, Scott. Many of these hardly bowled in most of their test matches, and some average about one wicket a test match. Over 35 with the bat, and under 35 with the ball is a much better measure (as you mention). It would eliminate Hammond, Tendulkar (who averages over 50 with the ball), Chappell, Sewhag, Miandad, Waugh, Border, Worrell and Bobby Simpson - probably half of the pool of players to average more with the bat than ball.

I find that this is not a 'general guide' if it is hard to accept half the players as anything other than batsmen who can bowl a bit.

Milo, we have to apply a little bit of common sense here do we not? Would you play a batsman with a bowling average in the 50's in a Test side as an allrounder? Of course not if you've got any sense and neither would I. The same criteria applies to allrounders as it does to any other player selected to play - their historical figures have to be considered 'good enough'.

When I say their bowling average has to be less than their batting average, I mean that within the context of what those figures actually are. Most 'true' allrounders will have a batting average of not much more than 40, which means their bowling average will be in the 30's which is about right for most allrounders.

To remove all those batsmen who 'bowl a bit' you just need to apply a minimum number of wickets and runs to qualify.

Pretty rare event in cricket to see a bowler bowl 66 overs over 3 consecutive days.

There was only another 15 overs in the match that Vettori could have legally bowled to take him up from 77% of the possible overs he could bowl to 100%


I seperated these comments you made, I dont mind responding to most of your comments.

But do you honestly want a response to the rubbish above ?