Pretty sure he would, or close to it.
BTW you haven't even answered my question, kinda defeats your point right?
I DID answer your question but it just went over your head as many things I've said thus far have, I merely . But since you can't read in between the lines, I'll give you a straight answer which is, YES; had Vettori been playing for England during the time Swann has played for them then he'd've averaged better than his current average & its only blatently obvious when looked in the light that when Bond played for NZ & made things a little easier for him, Vettori averaged 25 in 18 Tests, (28 without matches against Ban & Zim) so I'm absolutely certain that had he been playing for a better team with better batting & bowling resources, he'd've averaged 30 or so or lower still like most modern great spinners have & do. As for Swann, YES, he'd been forced bowl negatively for team's cause had he been playing for a worse team & hence his average would've suffered just like Vettori's has over his career.
Earlier, I was trying to make you recognize that both Warne or Swann's averages would've suffered heavily had they been playing with average batting & bowling line-ups & made to bowl but your logic is "Pretty sure he would, or close to it." WoW, what reasoning, just because you think so :sarcasm, so we're supposed to take your word for it? And then how hypocritical of you to say that I'm the one not coming up with valid arguments to defeat your points?
Ok, has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
It has EVERYTHING to do with what we're discussing since we're talking about a left-arm-spinner & why his average looks so ordinary. You only think it's irrelevant because you're too young, & hence oblivious to the nuances & history of cricket.
When did I say that? Read my post again. I say they are not restricted to bowling that "just-short-of-a-good-length" all the time, as you said here:
You've said, "
How is the world's most accurate length bowler bowled "just-short-of-a-good-length" all the time?" which is open to the inference that they're incapable of bowling that length. While I clearly never said that they can't bowl other lengths rather I've VERY CLEARLY mentioned that it's more BENEFICIAL for them to bowl that length.
That post still makes me :laugh BTW you obviously haven't seen them bowl much if you think they bowled full once in a blue moon :laugh
Obviously, that "once in a blue-moon" statement was used in a hyperbolic sense (that also went over your head :sarcasm) since they never "mixed it up" as much as you've said "
For one delivery they would bowl it short of a length, the next on a length, and the next just full of a length (like a seamless transition)", they did NOT "mix it up" under "normal" Test-match situations, they consistently bowled short-of-good-length 90-95% of the times since that was their natural length & more productive for them, of course, they bowled a good length ball or a yorker but that's NOT "mixing it up" like you've stated in the statement above, what I've said is that the MAJORITY of the balls of these bowlers "usually" bowled were just-short-of-a-good-length.
And did you know that these bowlers were known CONSISTENCY of line & LENGTH so they did NOT believe much in "mixing it up", oh wait, you didn't see enough of them to know that that's why you go by what someone once told you that "fuller the length, better the results" or something like it & it got stuck in your head & you now keep harping on that without understanding the context in which in applies.
Now, I see what the problem with you is, you with your layman-like thinking are going "just-short-of-a-good-length = not good length = too short = bad length, so great bowlers couldn't have been bowling that length". So may be I should clarify that what's "usually" considered to be "good length" is a good length to bowl for shorter bowlers and/or swing bowlers but as I've said, it's more beneficial for taller bowlers to bowl slightly shorter so "just-short-of-a-good-length" is the "good length" for the taller bowlers since as I've said, by bowling that length, they're able to create indecision in batsmen's mind about whether to play forward or back, plus, it's a length which off which no "normal/regular" cricketing shot can be played & hence McGrath, Ambrose & Flintoff, all were difficult to score off even on flattest of pitches while bowlers that rely heavily on swing & usually bowl good length will usually prosper in helpful conditions but go for runs on flat pitches as good length is drivable & when the ball isn't swinging, it's a very hitable length.
Thanks for explaining the basics of bowling. Now lets get back the discussion.
I will explain it for you if it is so hard to understand, if you are beating the outside edge all the time, it means you are not full enough.
Just watch these videos and try to explain yourself why bowling slightly fuller is not a good idea:
Dailymotion - Glenn McGrath Magic Over in 3rd Ashes Test 2006 - a Film & TV video
YouTube - Glenn Mcgrath reverse swinging yorker
YouTube - Curtley Ambrose devastating spell of 7 for 1 run v Australia (how many blue moons passed in this video :sarcasm)
How do the McGrath videos prove that the MAJORITY of McGrath's balls in his career weren't just-short-of-length? An good-length-ball or a yorker to a new batsman or a tail-ender doesn't contradict anything I've said. Further, it was the last over of the day so he was going for wickets & they were going to look to score so he'd nothing to lose but did he CONSTISTENTLY bowl yorkers & good length balls in his career? DEFINITELY NOT! If he'd experimented as much YOU SAY he did with his length he'd've been termed "the most inconsistent bowler" instead of "the most consistent one".
As for Ambrose's spell, it was at Perth & the pitch was offering a lot of bounce so as any intelligent bowler would, he decidedly bowled more good length balls otherwise they wouldn't've threatened the stumps, plus, he would become susceptible to getting pulled due to extra bounce the pitch had but the question is how many pitches in the world offer WACA=bounce? Again, one spell at WACA doesn't doesn't contradict the fact that MAJORITY of his balls in his career were just-short-of-length.
Further he still got wickets from just-short-of-a-length in that spell of 7-1 &
for your contention that bowling consistently just-short-of-length can't get you edges or wickets in general, please watch following frozen screenshots from your 7-1 video highlighting where the ball pitched for some of the wicket-taking deliveries
Imageshack - 712nd.jpg
Imageshack - 713rd.jpg
Imageshack - 714th.jpg
Look at how short those deliveries are, were those fuller good length deliveries???? They're VERY CLEARLY just-short-of-a-good-length balls.
McGrath -
YouTube - Glenn McGrath: 6-60 at GABBA 2006/7 (all wickets on short-of-length deliveries, freeze as the ball pitches & see that those are NOT good length balls)
Ambrose -
YouTube - Ambrose at Perth Feb 1997, 5-43 (all wickets off just-short-of-length deliveries, freeze as the ball pitches & look)
You've never seen Ambrose in a live-match so you obviously don't know what length he consistently bowled; as I've said, you were just told or heard people saying that "fuller is always better" & you're assuming that every great pacer followed that mantra so leave the judgement about his consistent length to those who've actually seen him bowl.
Of you go then, don't bother trying to be relevant to what I posted.
Now wasn't that hard? Oh wait it again defeated your point so you chose to ignore it.
I've never ignored any of your arguments, I've given detailed explanations for my views unlike your one-liners saying "this is so because I say it is" & on the topic of ignoring, where's your reply to my argument regarding Flintoff ripping through Aus with reverse swing; according to you, he's too stupid to understand the importance of bowling fuller so was he reverse swinging the shorter balls & may be bouncers too that got Aus in trouble?
Saying that strategy doesn't have an impact on the bowlers' averages just exposes that you know nothing about cricket; it's like saying, had McGrath bowled without a slip throughout his career, he'd've still averaged 22, NO, HE COULDN'T'VE because one of his main modes of taking wickets is getting batsmen out in slips & if there're none or one or two only then not only he'll be deprived of those wickets for the moment but at least some of those batsmen will go on to score 50s, 100s, 200s & almost 1/4 or so of those runs will be scored of him which'll increase his average substantially.
Don't embarrass yourself anymore, pal, any person who's familiar with the basics of Cricket would realize how non-sensical your statements are. You're laughing at my statements :sarcasm but if only you could realize how ridiculous you sound, you'd've left for the Poles by now & would never have showed your face ever again to a cricket-enthusiast; other posters have already expressed how they feel about the our discussion anyways.
Can you read, pal? Please read again, I've said, Vettori averages 25 in Vettori-Bond Tests & 28 if you exclude Vettori-Bond Tests against Ban & Zim while his career avg is 34; how dare you say Vettori's average dropped "slightly" by 1-2 avg points in the face of blatent facts that it clearly dropped by 9 or at least 6 which makes his avg closer to Swann & Warne's averages, Warne of course had the luxury of playing in one of the greatest teams of all times so he had a massive advantage over both Vettori & Swann. Another instance of denial in the face of facts just to prove a point which is flawed in the first place.
So I don't really see a point in wasting my time trying to change your mind. 
