Bulls forever wrote:Grahaml wrote:I can come up with a bunch of reasons why things are easier for Vettori than Hauritz too. Always gets a chance to bat how he likes, no smashing the ball around to set a target and sacrificing wickets before a declaration; Doesn't have to worry about his spot; Being the best and most dangerous bowler NZ have most of the time the batsmen don't look to attack him so much; Always gets to bowl to the tail and when the deck is good to bowl on (Aussie quicks tend to get the lion's share of the best times to bowl); Plays a lot more tests against the likes of Bangladesh.
All in all, though, I think the average speaks volumes. Vettori is widely respected mostly because the rest of the NZ side is so poor. Not sure we'd be talking about Vettori's batting like we do if he always had blokes ahead of him averaging 50.
G - Vettori gets selected, Horrie doesn't - STOP THERE.
Not sure I agree with your thread, is always batting under pressure because NZ top order is crap, has no quality bowler at the other end to pressure batsman, I could go on, I think you could argue till the sun comes up. IMO he is definately a better cricketer than Horrie, but I think Horrie is the best we have the moment and very unlucky.
I think a lot of posters are too young to remember a bloke called Glen Turner - NZ legendary cricketer, who made squillions of runs in country cricket, but wouldn't play Tests for quite some time. Hence I rate young Danny No. 4 in NZ cricket 1. Sir Richard 2. Glen Turner 3. Martin Crowe 4. Danny boy.
Ah, so anyone who gets picked for NZ must be better than someone who doesn't get picked for Australia?
The point of my post was that trying to say who has it harder or easier in an actual match is so wishy washy that you can make the same thing either a benefit or a drawback. In the end, the records speak volumes.
