Vettori’s record speaks louder than Flintoff’s
Roar Guru By David Wiseman, 4 Sep 2009 David Wiseman is a Roar Guru
England's Andrew Flintoff, on his knees, is congratulated by teammates after bowling the wicket of Australia's Peter Siddle. AAP Images
Time to play Tony Barber. Who are we? Two cricket players with similar-ish records. I am good, but nowhere near as good as I am hyped up to be, while I am very good and nowhere near hyped up as I should be.
Take a pick of the board if you answered Andrew Flintoff and Daniel Vettori.
This week, Daniel Vettori became just the eighth cricketer to manage the double of 3000 runs – 300 wickets.
He did so by clouting 140 while batting at Number 8. Whose company has he joined? Try the very elite and exclusive club of Chaminda Vaas, Shane Warne, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Shaun Pollock, Sir Richard Hadlee and Ian Botham.
And it’s not like he sneaks in.
He has the fifth best batting average of the group and the fourth most Test centuries.
He does have the highest bowling average of the eight, but most likely the Kiwi pitches have something to do with that.
Vettori is not just a fantastic bowler and batsmen, but has blossomed into a good captain, which is something the likes of Botham, Pollock and Flintoff all struggled with.
Head to head, Flintoff has scored 3,845 runs to Vettori’s 3,492 at averages that are both close to 30. With the ball, Vettori has 303 wickets to Flintoff’s 226.
The Kiwi has taken 10 wickets in a match three times and five wickets in an innings 18 times, compared to the zero and three of Flintoff.
Going by the numbers, Vettori is the superior cricketer by some way.
Vettori has spent most of his career batting at 8 and 9.
He averages 24 at 9 and 42 at 8. Flintoff has batted at 6 and 7 and here he averages an identical 32.
Was Flintoff a victim of his own image in that bowlers made more of an effort to dismiss him while they relaxed when they saw Vettori stroll to the crease with them already six wickets down?
Did Flintoff deserve the Man of the Match award at Lords? Definitely not.
In the second innings, he dismissed both Australian opener, had Brad Haddin caught with his first over of the final day, and then clean-bowled Numbers 9 and 10.
This was seen to be better than Andrew Strauss’ 161.
Often perception is more powerful than reality.
Here is just another instance of what we see all the time in sport. For whatever reason, player A is given significantly more credit than player B, who flies under the radar.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Andrew Flintoff, Cricket, Daniel Vettori, International Cricket
September 4th 2009 @ 4:42am
Colin N said | September 4th 2009 @ 4:42am | Report comment
“Going by the numbers, Vettori is the superior cricketer by some way.”
No he isn’t, Flintoff has a better bowling and batting average than Vettori. At least get your facts right. You can argue the influence of a player, and that’s the point of a debate, but if you’re merely basing your opinion on facts then you are wrong.
I don’t believe Vettori has had the injury problems of Flintoff either, and has played 15 more tests fully fit (unlike Flintoff). Flintoff is an overrated player and Vettori an underrated one, but Flintoff, if we’re going by numbers (like you seem to be doing) is a better player.
September 4th 2009 @ 8:43am
Hammer said | September 4th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
It’s all to do with consistency CN – and that why Vettori is better … and when you consider that they are both fundamentally bowling allrounders the stat that stacks up more than any other is this one … “The Kiwi has taken 10 wickets in a match three times and five wickets in an innings 18 times, compared to the zero and three of Flintoff.”
September 4th 2009 @ 9:30am
Colin N said | September 4th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
It’s not the fact that he thinks Vettori is a better cricketer, more that he basis his argument on statistics, which proves the phrase:
“Going by the numbers, Vettori is the superior cricketer by some way”
is wrong.
Anyway, regarding your point about consistency. Flintoff has very rarely been injury free, which would have contributed to Flintoff’s lack of consistency. Between 03 and 05 where Flintoff was predominantly injury free, he averaged over 40 with the bat and 28 with the ball.
“Not bad for a fat lad.”
September 4th 2009 @ 9:03am
Hansie said | September 4th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Good article. Flintoff generates a lot of hype, much of which is undeserved. A batting average of 32 and 3 5-wicket hauls is not much return from an all-rounder after 79 tests.
September 4th 2009 @ 9:19am
southernwaratah said | September 4th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Well written and a great point. If Vettori was English he’d be a legend. Anything above mediocrity and England will applaud it to the hills like the second coming off Jesus of Nazareth
September 4th 2009 @ 9:35am
Brett McKay said | September 4th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Dan Vettori is a quality player in every facet, including captaincy. Hugely underated, except by Kiwis of course, and Australian top order batsmen, who he seems to always bowl well against. And he’s only 31 or so, so he’s probably got another five years in him.
Oh, if only he were Australian….
September 4th 2009 @ 9:38am
Hammer said | September 4th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
The other thing you can say about him is he’ll always give you 110% … take the farce that was the World XI v Aust a few years back … Vettori was the only one amongst that gallery of “stars” who put in for both forms of the contest .. the rest treated it as a money making jolly …
September 4th 2009 @ 11:15am
FIsher Price said | September 4th 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Vettori as a Test player in matches against Australia is worth looking up on StatsGuru…
September 4th 2009 @ 11:43am
dasilva said | September 4th 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Flintoff at its peak was probably better player then Vettori.
However I think over the last 4 years, Vettori has been a better player then Flintoff
Vettori Mat Runs HS Average 100 Wkts BBI Bowl Av 5 Ct St
2005-2009 35 2010 140 43.69 3 115 7/130 30.99 7 19 0
Flintoff
2005-2009 37 1738 102 30.49 1 131 5/78 30.02 2 22 0
September 4th 2009 @ 10:07pm
Colin N said | September 4th 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
That’s interesting, despite Flintoff being injured most of the time, he’s still played more than Vettori. I suppose he has played in three full Ashes series meaning that he has wracked up 14 test matches in three series.
September 4th 2009 @ 10:16pm
dasilva said | September 4th 2009 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
New Zealand barely plays any test cricket. Most of their series they play only contains 2 matches.
It’s one of the reason why they are struggling in Test Cricket.
September 4th 2009 @ 10:18pm
Colin N said | September 4th 2009 @ 10:18pm | Report comment
“It’s one of the reason why they are struggling in Test Cricket.”
Yes, one of many I think.
September 4th 2009 @ 12:14pm
Viscount Crouchback said | September 4th 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
I can’t help finding the above analysis rather facile. I know that cricket fans love their statistics, but surely the past decade or so of batting average inflation has convinced even the stubbornest of statisticians that we need to look beyond mere numbers. Dileep Premachandran this week wrote an excellent article on this topic in The Guardian. You can read it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/sep/02/sri-lanka-batsmen-averages (scroll down to the second half of it).
I believe there are several reasons to argue for Flintoff being placed some distance above Vettori. First, Flintoff has dominated series against the very best teams in the world (Australia in 2005, South Africa in 2004); how often has Daniel Vettori swung a major series New Zealand’s way? Secondly, his peers and competitors – that is, the world’s finest batsmen – place Flintoff at the very zenith of world bowling. Ricky Ponting himself said after Lord’s that Flintoff at his best was one of the five finest bowlers he had ever faced. I doubt he would say the same of Daniel Vettori. Third, there is the sizzle factor – Flintoff has it, Vettori doesn’t.
It’s natural that we sometimes seek to puncture the Flintoff myth. He’s not as lovable as he likes to seem, his batting is inept for a man who considers himself a Test #6, and he never took the number of wickets that his bowling ought to have done. But let’s not over-egg the pudding by placing a serviceable journeyman – Vettori – alongside the chap. Sometimes we must simply forget the numbers and trust our senses.
September 4th 2009 @ 12:40pm
dasilva said | September 4th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Flintoff is a better match winner. He can play the great innings and he can bowl superbly as well
He is also inconsistent (admittingly due to his injury problems) and has a tendency to be hot and cold.
With Vettori, you know what you are going to get.
In any case I always have a soft spot for battlers in poor teams who performance holds the team together.
Vettori may not be a match winner but that’s partly because of the side he is playing with. He is currently pretty much New Zealand best bowler and arguably best batsman as well. That has to be taken in consideration as well
It’s also the reason why I think Andy Flower is a better keeper batsman then Adam Gilchrist.
Gilchrist is more devastating but Flower is a battler who fight to the end whilst the ship is sinking and he played some of the greatest innings in a losing performance in Test history.
In any case I agree with looking beyond mere numbers in terms of eras in where you score the runs. I think Steve Waugh, Brian Lara and Tendulkar are a better batsman then Ricky Ponting. I think Hayden is incredibly overated etc.
Averaging 50 in the 90′s is worth more then averaging 55-60 in the 00′s
However with Flintoff and Vettori, i was comparing stats from the same era. Therefore some fair statistical comparison can be made
September 4th 2009 @ 2:10pm
Viscount Crouchback said | September 4th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
Not sure I agree with your Flower over Gilchrist logic. The psychology of being a big fish in a small pond suits some players down to the ground. Astute observers of county cricket suggest that this is true of Mark Ramprakash.
It would be interesting to see how Vettori or Flower would have coped with the heightened scrutiny and pressure of performing for England, India or Australia.
September 4th 2009 @ 12:49pm
Jerry G said | September 4th 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
There’s no question that Flintoff at his peak is better than Vettori, but I think the “match winner” or “series turner” card isn’t really appropriate. How often has Vettori had anywhere near the level of batting support or other bowlers that Flintoff has had during those major series? There’s a reason why people think Vettori should be batting higher – the NZ top 6 has generally been crap.
September 4th 2009 @ 1:04pm
Tom said | September 4th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Flintoff is a personality player. McGill had better figures than Warne in the tests they played together, but no one would argue that he is a superior bowler. Having Warne at one end allowed McGill the success he had, just as having Flintoff’s bowling, with his pace and extra bounce, allows his teammates to do better than they otherwise would have.
September 4th 2009 @ 1:15pm
Jerry G said | September 4th 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
And vice versa. There were many better bowlers (Harmison) and better batsman (too many to mention) in the the English team than Flintoff.
September 4th 2009 @ 10:09pm
Colin N said | September 4th 2009 @ 10:09pm | Report comment
Talking about inconsistant, there’s no-one more inconsistant than Harmison in the England set-up, including Flintoff.