-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
All-rounder in the longer form of the game - Symonds, Watson &/or Other?
- Thread starter Gunnar Longshanks
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
Now now.
Let now get silly.
F/D said:
Now now.
Let now get silly.
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
west indies tour 2003
1st test hogg, bichel, lee, gillespie, macgill
2nd test hogg, bichel, lee, gillespie, macgill
3rd test bichel, lee, gillespie, macgill, mcgrath
4th test bichel, lee, gillespie, macgill, mcgrath.
so it does happen, not that i'm a fan of it personally. i'm a strong believer that a 5th bowler is a bonus and should come from one of our top 6.
admittedly there was no warnie which weakened the bowling a little and no mcgrath for 2 tests. also marto was out with a broken finger sustained from the world cup and the selectors toyed with the idea of 5 specialist bowlers as we had one adam gilchrist in the side.
we don't need 5 specialist bowlers when you have mcgrath and warne who's records speak for themselves. and now lee is standing up. if those guys can't you 20 wickets in a match then there's something wrong.
Gunnar Longshanks said:
west indies tour 2003
1st test hogg, bichel, lee, gillespie, macgill
2nd test hogg, bichel, lee, gillespie, macgill
3rd test bichel, lee, gillespie, macgill, mcgrath
4th test bichel, lee, gillespie, macgill, mcgrath.
so it does happen, not that i'm a fan of it personally. i'm a strong believer that a 5th bowler is a bonus and should come from one of our top 6.
admittedly there was no warnie which weakened the bowling a little and no mcgrath for 2 tests. also marto was out with a broken finger sustained from the world cup and the selectors toyed with the idea of 5 specialist bowlers as we had one adam gilchrist in the side.
we don't need 5 specialist bowlers when you have mcgrath and warne who's records speak for themselves. and now lee is standing up. if those guys can't you 20 wickets in a match then there's something wrong.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
That would be the most pathetic attack australia have fielded in a while. Why not have Tait as first change.
That would be the most pathetic attack australia have fielded in a while. Why not have Tait as first change.
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
Watson is ******** and doesn't deserve another schance in the side
***End of disscusion***
Watson is ******** and doesn't deserve another schance in the side
***End of disscusion***
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
How old is Watson.
How old is Mitch Johnson?
king_Brown said:Watson is ******** and doesn't deserve another schance in the side
***End of disscusion***
How old is Watson.
How old is Mitch Johnson?
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
He is almost 25..........................
IMO Symonds is a great all-rounder and is a hell of a lot better than Watson
Bentleigh said:
He is almost 25..........................
IMO Symonds is a great all-rounder and is a hell of a lot better than Watson
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
Shane Watson
Current age 24 years 245 days
Mitchell Johnson
Current age 24 years 107 days
You are writing off Watson yet Johnson is seen as a promising young quick..
Shane Watson
3360 @ 44.79
91 @ 30.76
Andrew Symonds
12718 @ 42.82
7589 @ 36.13
As far as Sheild crciket (ie. 1 step down from Test) Watson is a better batsman & bowler.
Roy is also half a decade older.
Watson could be a great player. Why bag him?
king_Brown said:
Shane Watson
Current age 24 years 245 days
Mitchell Johnson
Current age 24 years 107 days
You are writing off Watson yet Johnson is seen as a promising young quick..
IMO Symonds is a great all-rounder and is a hell of a lot better than Watson
Shane Watson
3360 @ 44.79
91 @ 30.76
Andrew Symonds
12718 @ 42.82
7589 @ 36.13
As far as Sheild crciket (ie. 1 step down from Test) Watson is a better batsman & bowler.
Roy is also half a decade older.
Watson could be a great player. Why bag him?
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
OK for 1 I wasnt saying that Mitch Johnson deserved a spot either mate.
I might have been a bit rough in my first post by saying that Watson is crap and doesnt desrve a spot in the side, but what I meant is that Roy is by far the better option at this stage of the game and Watson hasnt proven anything. He still needs a good season to prove himself in Domestic cricket before he is even considered IMO
Bentleigh said:
OK for 1 I wasnt saying that Mitch Johnson deserved a spot either mate.
I might have been a bit rough in my first post by saying that Watson is crap and doesnt desrve a spot in the side, but what I meant is that Roy is by far the better option at this stage of the game and Watson hasnt proven anything. He still needs a good season to prove himself in Domestic cricket before he is even considered IMO
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
Don't be stupid. McGrath will be gone soon and we will struggle then because I'm unsure whether Watson can be a world class bowler although I do rate him and Symonds' bowling is average.
Don't be stupid. McGrath will be gone soon and we will struggle then because I'm unsure whether Watson can be a world class bowler although I do rate him and Symonds' bowling is average.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 19,551
- 5,752
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Swansea, Wizards
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
Nope, just play Watson.
Symonds isn't a test player. The one good innings he had, he played it ODI style which is fine but it isn't going to come off very much. Sure play him in every single ODI game but Tests, i don't think so.
Nope, just play Watson.
Symonds isn't a test player. The one good innings he had, he played it ODI style which is fine but it isn't going to come off very much. Sure play him in every single ODI game but Tests, i don't think so.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #213
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
It won't become the norm though. That's what you were suggesting.
Of course 5 bowlers have been picked before. I never argued otherwise. I just said it was incredibly rare, and clearly not our preferred option.
If you think that we're going to regularly pick 5 bowlers and bat Gilly at #6, then you're just flat-out wrong.
For sure.POBT said:
It won't become the norm though. That's what you were suggesting.
Of course 5 bowlers have been picked before. I never argued otherwise. I just said it was incredibly rare, and clearly not our preferred option.
If you think that we're going to regularly pick 5 bowlers and bat Gilly at #6, then you're just flat-out wrong.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #214
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
I never claimed that it had never happened. Just that it was rare, and not our preferred option.
I was aware of that.pluga_4 said:
I never claimed that it had never happened. Just that it was rare, and not our preferred option.
- Oct 5, 2004
- 15,154
- 273
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Phils, Eagles, Flyers, Sunderland
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
OK- held off on this a while to see how it developed.
No to Watson and Roy in the same Test side in the next few months.
Reasons:
Roy is inconsistent with the bat. Yes, he can be devastating, as with the Hour of Power at the MCG, but he needs more consistency to hold his spot. Givehim arun in South Africa and see how he goes. If he performs, he has the spot through the Ashes.
The Bangladesh series counts for NOTHING, apart from perhaps bringing back Tait, Dizzy and Watson.
But- Watson needs more work onhis bowling. Let him bowl in the Shield and work on form.He iscoming back from injury and needs the work- then puthim in for the Bangas. First change?Don't think so, but could try it in that series.
My thought- Roymay make it through 2007, but he'll need consistency. Watson to return in 2007 in full flight
OK- held off on this a while to see how it developed.
No to Watson and Roy in the same Test side in the next few months.
Reasons:
Roy is inconsistent with the bat. Yes, he can be devastating, as with the Hour of Power at the MCG, but he needs more consistency to hold his spot. Givehim arun in South Africa and see how he goes. If he performs, he has the spot through the Ashes.
The Bangladesh series counts for NOTHING, apart from perhaps bringing back Tait, Dizzy and Watson.
But- Watson needs more work onhis bowling. Let him bowl in the Shield and work on form.He iscoming back from injury and needs the work- then puthim in for the Bangas. First change?Don't think so, but could try it in that series.
My thought- Roymay make it through 2007, but he'll need consistency. Watson to return in 2007 in full flight
- Banned
- #216
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
shoot me if this happen no way they deserve to be there in fornt of the next aussie captain cam white.
shoot me if this happen no way they deserve to be there in fornt of the next aussie captain cam white.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
Watson and Roy are 10000000 times the player White is and that is being nice. White can barely bat effectively and Hauritz spins the ball more than him so he can't bowl either! No chance at all! As for captain, pfft!
bushranger said:
Watson and Roy are 10000000 times the player White is and that is being nice. White can barely bat effectively and Hauritz spins the ball more than him so he can't bowl either! No chance at all! As for captain, pfft!
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #218
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
Neither Watson nor Symonds can command a spot as a specialist bowler. Period.
And neither of them will be picked ahead of Hussey or Hodge as a specialist batsman. Period.
There's currently one spot at #6 for a batting all-rounder in our side. You do the maths.
It's even more simple than that.usalion said:
Neither Watson nor Symonds can command a spot as a specialist bowler. Period.
And neither of them will be picked ahead of Hussey or Hodge as a specialist batsman. Period.
There's currently one spot at #6 for a batting all-rounder in our side. You do the maths.
POBT
Brownlow Medallist
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
So, first you change your own argument and now you are trying to change mine?
You said the words - "it won't happen", "seriously, it won't happen" and "it's policy". Clearly it has happened. Clearly there are occasions when it is a viable option. Clearly, given the change in personnel the Australian team is about to experience, it is an option that should be considered unless we uncover 2 bowlers with the wicket taking capability of Warne and McGrath.
But go back and look at my posts. I actually stated that it wasn't much good playing 5 bowlers when there weren't 5 bowlers demanding a spot in the side.
My only argument with you is in your words - "it won't happen", "seriously, it won't happen" and "it's policy". That is incorrect. Allan Border who, with all due respect, must surely know more than you about the internal machinations of the current selection panel, recently gave an opinion that he thought Australia should play 5 front line bowlers at Bellerive against the West Indies after Shane Watson was injured. The fact that Border raised it as an option is a fairly strong indication that this type of team composition has not been discarded by selectors. In another example, it was reported that the Australian selectors were considering playing 5 front line bowlers in the final Ashes Test. In both examples, I would say the form (or lack thereof) of Gilchrist prompted a safety first approach. If Gilchrist had been in form, there was a good chance that the five bowler option would have been used.
I don't think it is a sustainable method of selection. My principal belief is that the burden on the wicket-keeper to consistently fulfill a function as a front line batsmen would be too great. But it is a more than viable option in some circumstances. If Australia is behind in a series, if it is a particularly flat track or if the bowlers have had a particularly heavy workload in previous matches, then five bowlers will be considered.
Gunnar Longshanks said:
So, first you change your own argument and now you are trying to change mine?
You said the words - "it won't happen", "seriously, it won't happen" and "it's policy". Clearly it has happened. Clearly there are occasions when it is a viable option. Clearly, given the change in personnel the Australian team is about to experience, it is an option that should be considered unless we uncover 2 bowlers with the wicket taking capability of Warne and McGrath.
But go back and look at my posts. I actually stated that it wasn't much good playing 5 bowlers when there weren't 5 bowlers demanding a spot in the side.
My only argument with you is in your words - "it won't happen", "seriously, it won't happen" and "it's policy". That is incorrect. Allan Border who, with all due respect, must surely know more than you about the internal machinations of the current selection panel, recently gave an opinion that he thought Australia should play 5 front line bowlers at Bellerive against the West Indies after Shane Watson was injured. The fact that Border raised it as an option is a fairly strong indication that this type of team composition has not been discarded by selectors. In another example, it was reported that the Australian selectors were considering playing 5 front line bowlers in the final Ashes Test. In both examples, I would say the form (or lack thereof) of Gilchrist prompted a safety first approach. If Gilchrist had been in form, there was a good chance that the five bowler option would have been used.
I don't think it is a sustainable method of selection. My principal belief is that the burden on the wicket-keeper to consistently fulfill a function as a front line batsmen would be too great. But it is a more than viable option in some circumstances. If Australia is behind in a series, if it is a particularly flat track or if the bowlers have had a particularly heavy workload in previous matches, then five bowlers will be considered.
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
On the other hand, you can't just say "One should be in the side" unless one of them is actually up to test standard.
The post above is based on the assumption that the all-rounder you pick is capable of playing as a top six batsman. I'm yet to see evidence to support this theory from either of the two options (Or Cam White, and I'm a Victorian).
In my opinion, playing two leg-spinners is a luxury, and you can only do it if:
a) One of the spinners is also a batsman of some ability
b) One of your six batsmen is also a quality medium - fast bowler
c) You are prepared to play five bowlers and bat your keeper at 6
Macgill and Warne don't satisfy option a.
The selectors are hoping for option b, but so far Symonds and Watson are yet to prove that they are capable of being a quality bowling OR batting option. Don't get me wrong, if one of them improves, I'm all for it, but only if they merit selection.
So, if you must play two spinners, you are left with option c (Which doesn't seem to be a preferred option for the selectors, but it certainly isn't a stated policy)
Put simply, if your token all-rounder can't bat, he doesn't justify his spot in the side by being half a bowler as well. You lose out on both counts, and in many games his effect on the match is zero. You would be better served picking a strike bowler (Let's call him Jason for argument's sake) who can do a little job with the bat and will give you much more with the ball.
Sure, it leaves you with five bowlers and Gilly at six. I'm not a huge fan of that myself either, but to me that seems like the best option if we are going to play both Warne and Macgill in the test side, based on the logic above.
Personally, I'd go back to three quicks and Warne, but that's just my opinion, and I don't actually think it will happen.
Gunnar Longshanks said:
On the other hand, you can't just say "One should be in the side" unless one of them is actually up to test standard.
The post above is based on the assumption that the all-rounder you pick is capable of playing as a top six batsman. I'm yet to see evidence to support this theory from either of the two options (Or Cam White, and I'm a Victorian).
In my opinion, playing two leg-spinners is a luxury, and you can only do it if:
a) One of the spinners is also a batsman of some ability
b) One of your six batsmen is also a quality medium - fast bowler
c) You are prepared to play five bowlers and bat your keeper at 6
Macgill and Warne don't satisfy option a.
The selectors are hoping for option b, but so far Symonds and Watson are yet to prove that they are capable of being a quality bowling OR batting option. Don't get me wrong, if one of them improves, I'm all for it, but only if they merit selection.
So, if you must play two spinners, you are left with option c (Which doesn't seem to be a preferred option for the selectors, but it certainly isn't a stated policy)
Put simply, if your token all-rounder can't bat, he doesn't justify his spot in the side by being half a bowler as well. You lose out on both counts, and in many games his effect on the match is zero. You would be better served picking a strike bowler (Let's call him Jason for argument's sake) who can do a little job with the bat and will give you much more with the ball.
Sure, it leaves you with five bowlers and Gilly at six. I'm not a huge fan of that myself either, but to me that seems like the best option if we are going to play both Warne and Macgill in the test side, based on the logic above.
Personally, I'd go back to three quicks and Warne, but that's just my opinion, and I don't actually think it will happen.
DIG
Brownlow Medallist
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
When we played 5 bowlers in the Windies, the pitches were pretty dead plus their bowling attack was so abysmal that we felt we could afford to give up a batsman for a bowler (plus there's the Gilly factor). Selectors won't always rule it out but i can't see it happening too often - maybe in Pakistan on those run feast wickets, unlikely in Sth africa.
LarryLong's 2 spinner logic looks flawed to me. His option (a) isn't really relevant but it doesn't matter if Warne and Macgill are batting crap if another bowler or two are batting well -and Brett Lee and Warne have been brilliant at times in the past 12 months with the bat - helping the tail wag so often.
On option (b), true the all-rounder obviously needs to give something with the ball, but so often in the past that 5th bowler has bowled under 12 overs across two innings - especially when we bat first - that it hasn't been all that important.
Having said all that, I'm hoping Symonds can cement his spot primarily with the bat, but also by being at least useful seaming the ball (ie. a batting all-rounder). Selectors persisted with him in ODI cricket and it paid off spectacularly, now they're hoping for similar results in test cricket. He has the ability to destroy bowling attacks the world over as evidenced in the ODI arena, and maybe it's possible he's on the verge of doing the same in test cricket - it's a worth a look.
When we played 5 bowlers in the Windies, the pitches were pretty dead plus their bowling attack was so abysmal that we felt we could afford to give up a batsman for a bowler (plus there's the Gilly factor). Selectors won't always rule it out but i can't see it happening too often - maybe in Pakistan on those run feast wickets, unlikely in Sth africa.
LarryLong's 2 spinner logic looks flawed to me. His option (a) isn't really relevant but it doesn't matter if Warne and Macgill are batting crap if another bowler or two are batting well -and Brett Lee and Warne have been brilliant at times in the past 12 months with the bat - helping the tail wag so often.
On option (b), true the all-rounder obviously needs to give something with the ball, but so often in the past that 5th bowler has bowled under 12 overs across two innings - especially when we bat first - that it hasn't been all that important.
Having said all that, I'm hoping Symonds can cement his spot primarily with the bat, but also by being at least useful seaming the ball (ie. a batting all-rounder). Selectors persisted with him in ODI cricket and it paid off spectacularly, now they're hoping for similar results in test cricket. He has the ability to destroy bowling attacks the world over as evidenced in the ODI arena, and maybe it's possible he's on the verge of doing the same in test cricket - it's a worth a look.
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
Pretty much on the money. There isn't a place for the two of them in the side at the moment. As it is there is hardly a place for either of them. I suppose we'll see how injuries and so forth go but at the moment they're not vital members of a test team.
usalion said:
Pretty much on the money. There isn't a place for the two of them in the side at the moment. As it is there is hardly a place for either of them. I suppose we'll see how injuries and so forth go but at the moment they're not vital members of a test team.
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
I'm more concerned with the situation where the team is bowling first on a road. I don't think Symonds is a legitimate first change option in that situation, and you're not going to get much out of Macgill either.DIG said:
Rob B
Cancelled
Re: Play Symonds And Watson in the test team together
Personally I would welcome Australia playing Watson and Symonds in the test team together.
Personally I would welcome Australia playing Watson and Symonds in the test team together.
