I went to a charity lunch a few weeks ago (during the first test of the series) where Merv Hughes was the guest speaker. He spoke on a number of things and was really entertaining. One of the things he covered was the exclusion of Andrew Symonds from the Indian tour. Merv said that Roy had done the wrong thing in Darwin and needed to be punished, however, he thought missing the two tests against Bangladesh was enough. As a selecter, he wanted Symonds picked but the senior players in the squad thought that he shouldn't tour. Perhaps the players knew more about his state of mind, but that's where the decision came from.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Bring back Andrew Symonds!
- Thread starter MrNatural
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I must say, I have never been convinced by Symonds.
1. Brilliant fielder - no argument.
2. Crap bowler.
3. OK batsman - no better - does not deserve his spot as a batsman alone.
If you go back over history, you find that the great all-rounders were all good enought to hold their spot either as batsman or bowler only (usually bowler). A half-a-batsman and a half-a-bowler does not make a test cricketer. I can only think of Ken Mackay as an Aussie who made a test career out of being a 'bits and pieces' player.
I think Watson has the ability to make it as either a test-quality batsman or bowler - at this stage he is neither, but I think he could do it. Symonds could only be a test-quality bat - and up to now in his career he hasn't been.
1. Brilliant fielder - no argument.
2. Crap bowler.
3. OK batsman - no better - does not deserve his spot as a batsman alone.
If you go back over history, you find that the great all-rounders were all good enought to hold their spot either as batsman or bowler only (usually bowler). A half-a-batsman and a half-a-bowler does not make a test cricketer. I can only think of Ken Mackay as an Aussie who made a test career out of being a 'bits and pieces' player.
I think Watson has the ability to make it as either a test-quality batsman or bowler - at this stage he is neither, but I think he could do it. Symonds could only be a test-quality bat - and up to now in his career he hasn't been.
- Banned
- #28
Since being recalled against England in 2006, Symonds has justified his spot as a batsman alone.
Since then, he's made 1009 runs at 72.
On top of that, he's the best fielder in the world.
And given our lack of quality spinners, we could soon find ourselves picking four front-line quicks. In that situation, Symonds' bowling adds crucial variety.
- Nov 13, 2004
- 11,375
- 7
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Aussie Cricket Team, Roy, Punter.
- Banned
- #29
Symonds offspinners would have been very handy here, no doubt.
I still remember a game in Sri Lanka (ODI) in early 2004 when he bowled one of the best offbreaks you could ever wish to see to a right handed batsmen.
Cant remember who the batsmen was, but the ball was flighted and drifted away and then spun back viciously through the gate to clip the top of off. The facial expression of Symonds afterwards ment the dismissal would live deep in the memory.
Another crucial element to his batting is his ability to counter-attack.
I still remember a game in Sri Lanka (ODI) in early 2004 when he bowled one of the best offbreaks you could ever wish to see to a right handed batsmen.
Cant remember who the batsmen was, but the ball was flighted and drifted away and then spun back viciously through the gate to clip the top of off. The facial expression of Symonds afterwards ment the dismissal would live deep in the memory.
Another crucial element to his batting is his ability to counter-attack.
DIG
Brownlow Medallist
Wow - what an absolute crock.
Since his recall Symonds has been superb with the bat. Even his bowling's chipped in here and there with some crucial partnership breaking wickets over time.
But his batting alone is enough to warrant a place.
On his proven ability alone, he should be in the side now. And over summer having him would free us to play 4 quicks on occasion without jeapordising over rates. Watson plus 4 quicks can't work unless he can hold his own with the bat - something he's probably capable of, but hasn't managed yet.
For Roy to return, it comes down to 1) his state of mind (this will lead to better form too), and 2) whether the team's willing to accept him back.
Thats right on the money DIG.
Does he want to play Test Cricket? No doubt
Does the squad want him back? almost unbackable odds.
He's a proven performer when it matters, and one would be out of their mind if they didn't think he would make much difference in India, In my opinion.
Does he want to play Test Cricket? No doubt
Does the squad want him back? almost unbackable odds.
He's a proven performer when it matters, and one would be out of their mind if they didn't think he would make much difference in India, In my opinion.
- Banned
- #33
David Hussey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Symonds
- Banned
- #34
I don't think so.
Symonds isn't out of the side because of form.
He's being punished for a disciplinary breach. Why would a Shield tonne persuade the hierarchy to let him come back earlier than planned?
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Gunner jeez you are hypcritical. Lets see if anyone else proposes a batsman or bowler you state categorically that he has not done enough at State level (using stats)..yet Symonds who hasn't done anything at State level since should be exempt from this rule, remind us WHY exactly?..hmm. Someone is having a few bets each way. It is either one or the other..Symonds would struggle to average 10 this season. He does not deserve a spot, and Watson has done nothing wrong to be dropped.
- Banned
- #36
Because Symonds has performed at Test level.
No hypocrisy.
When picking an Australian side, I would prioritise performances for Australia over performances for Queensland.
Try again.
he didnt want to go overseas at all when we start playing back in australia he will be in the team
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Apart from his one game where he made a century has Symonds REALLY performed. I don't think so to be dead honest. You need to be making runs at State level if you are not in the side, it is a pretty simple concept. You need to FORCE a player out of the side through good performances, Symonds has not done this.
- Banned
- #39
Firstly, Symonds has averaged 72 since being recalled in the 2006 Ashes.
Secondly, Symonds wasn't dropped because of form. He was dropped for disciplinary reasons. That's the only reason watson is in India. He certainly didn't force his way in through strong domestic performances.
I'll admit that Symonds' form for Queensland is less than ideal.
But ultimately, I think we'll have a better chance against SA and England if Symonds is in the XI. He's made runs at Test level. Watson hasn't. And Symonds' bowling allows us to play four quicks. That's not the case with Watson. Throw in Symonds' fielding, and I think that, overall, he adds more to our XI than Watson.
- Nov 13, 2004
- 11,375
- 7
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Aussie Cricket Team, Roy, Punter.
- Banned
- #40
Conversely however, the inclusion of Watson allows us to play a specialist spinner.
Symonds will not be picked for the New Zealand series and if his form continues to be ordinary, he wont be picked against South Africa except in extreme circumstances.
The selectors want to play a spinner, a front line spinner. Watson averages 30 with the ball in domestic cricket. A frontline spinner would add more variety to our attack then Symonds part time offspinnes.
Symonds will not be picked for the New Zealand series and if his form continues to be ordinary, he wont be picked against South Africa except in extreme circumstances.
The selectors want to play a spinner, a front line spinner. Watson averages 30 with the ball in domestic cricket. A frontline spinner would add more variety to our attack then Symonds part time offspinnes.
- Banned
- #41
We don't have anyone who is good enough to be picked for their spin bowling alone.
How many times do I have to point that out before you either refute that or alter your line of argument?
What "extreme circumstances"?
Wanting to pick our best XI?
That's not very extreme.
I don't know how much damage Symonds has done, so I'm not going to argue about the likelihood of his recall. What I will argue though, is that we are a stronger side with Symonds than without.
If we had a specialist spinner worth picking, that would be a legitimate argument.
We don't. Hence, four front-line quicks. Hence, Symonds' bowling becomes more useful than Watson's.
- Nov 13, 2004
- 11,375
- 7
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Aussie Cricket Team, Roy, Punter.
- Banned
- #42
It is not up to you to decide if you have a spinner worth picking.
That is why point.
The selectors have shown their hand and that is that they want a spinner.
There reasoning is most likely that 4 frontline seamers is a waste as 3 front line seamers should be able to do the same job. The idea is that a 4th seamer is going to be bowling less overs then the other 3 and his going to be using a softer ball.
Why not take a spinner in?
Watson can fill that 4th seamer role.
We are struggling to bowl sides out in the 2nd dig, i feel we do have 1 or 2 specialist spinners worth picking, not necessary on stats, but what they may offer our side.
4 frontline seamers is a risky move as we saw last year in Perth. One seamer is often left with a soft ball when his normally used to opening with a new ball and he simply becomes a stock bowler who bowls 10 or so overs.
Id personally rather go in with 3 seam bowlers who are PERFORMING, Watson (4th seamer, stock bowler who averages 30 at FC level), and a specialist spinner. Clarke and Katich provide part-time spin.
The key here is the 3 seamers. If one is having a bad series it is very risky to bring in another seamer without dropping an underperforming bowler. Im not totally against 4 frontline seamers in the RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES but i will always perfer the traditional setup.
The right circumstances is when you have 3 frontline seamers performing but nothing from the spinners at all. Then you can bring in a 4th seamer to replace that spinner.
But you have to decide what is worth more, a frontline spinner operating with a soft ball on a wearing pitch or a 4th seamer operating with a soft ball on a road.
Personally, id take the spinner.
That is why point.
The selectors have shown their hand and that is that they want a spinner.
There reasoning is most likely that 4 frontline seamers is a waste as 3 front line seamers should be able to do the same job. The idea is that a 4th seamer is going to be bowling less overs then the other 3 and his going to be using a softer ball.
Why not take a spinner in?
Watson can fill that 4th seamer role.
We are struggling to bowl sides out in the 2nd dig, i feel we do have 1 or 2 specialist spinners worth picking, not necessary on stats, but what they may offer our side.
4 frontline seamers is a risky move as we saw last year in Perth. One seamer is often left with a soft ball when his normally used to opening with a new ball and he simply becomes a stock bowler who bowls 10 or so overs.
Id personally rather go in with 3 seam bowlers who are PERFORMING, Watson (4th seamer, stock bowler who averages 30 at FC level), and a specialist spinner. Clarke and Katich provide part-time spin.
The key here is the 3 seamers. If one is having a bad series it is very risky to bring in another seamer without dropping an underperforming bowler. Im not totally against 4 frontline seamers in the RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES but i will always perfer the traditional setup.
The right circumstances is when you have 3 frontline seamers performing but nothing from the spinners at all. Then you can bring in a 4th seamer to replace that spinner.
But you have to decide what is worth more, a frontline spinner operating with a soft ball on a wearing pitch or a 4th seamer operating with a soft ball on a road.
Personally, id take the spinner.
- Nov 13, 2004
- 11,375
- 7
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Aussie Cricket Team, Roy, Punter.
- Banned
- #43
Basically Gunnar your wanting to bring a 4th seamer in to compensate for underforming bowlers in the original 3 seamer setup.
I have always felt that move is asking for trouble.
Drop the underperforming bowler and replace him with the 4th seamer.
COME IN SPINNER
I have always felt that move is asking for trouble.
Drop the underperforming bowler and replace him with the 4th seamer.
COME IN SPINNER
- Banned
- #44
Pretty long-winded justification for playing a specialist spinner.
What I find particularly jarring about the whole thing is that you don't actually mention any spinner by name.
Suggests there's no-one really demanding selection, doesn't it?
The selectors wanted a spinner in India, but that may not be the case in Australia. Maybe we can get by with just Clarke and Symonds.
- Banned
- #45
Partly - but it's ultimately about whatever improves the side.
And our best four quicks are better than our first-choice spinner.
Hence, pick the four quicks and use Symonds and Clarke as spinners.
That would be an improvement on an attack that includes three quicks, Watson and a specialist spinner.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
If his form at the moment is not ideal he will not be picked. Pretty easy concept and one I thought you would get. We do not want to be picking out of form players in a test team. Frankly I am a Queenslander but I do not rate Symonds at test level, in all that time he has scored one hundred, that is it and that was 10 months ago in Melbourne. An average of 72 is decent but when you break it down to hundreds and MATCH WINNING innings' Symonds has been ordinary. Long term I'd rate Watson with the bat more, especially with Hadding being a fruitloop at no7, we need a safer batsman at 6. Watson would have been in the side in India whether Symonds was there or not.
DIG
Brownlow Medallist
His state form is a concern but he wasn't dropped due to form. It was disciplinary only. Our best team has Roy in it but i can actually see LTD's points and think it is more likely the selectors will keep Watson and trial some spinners - god knows who though.
But everything else in your post is completely flawed.
He's made 2 centuries, not 1. And both were matchwinning 150s.
His average of 72 since recall is superb. Twist it how you like, it doesn't matter - it's remarkable.
He's been incredibly safe at #6, went through something like 16 knocks in a row without a score under 10 which has rarely been matched in the history of the game, even by Bradman. This perception by some people that he is inconsistent and unreliable has no parallel with his recent test career.
At #6 i'd prefer someone who consistently gets 50 and steadies the ship or pushes for quick runs, than someone who'll sporadically play matchwinning knocks and fail every other time leaving us 5 down. Symonds can steady or make big tons anyway.
There's absolutely zero question over his worth as a test player, and to suggest otherwise is just preposterous. He's completely proven himself in the test arena. It's a matter of getting his head right and his senior teammates back on side. Something that may not ever happen, we'll see.
- Banned
- #48
It's a bit rich for you to adopt a condescending tone.
You're the on who struggles to argue in a straight line.
Symonds' Test performances carry more weight than his form for Queensland. How many times do you need me to say it?
Symonds wasn't dropped because of form. He was dropped for disciplinary reasons. At the the time he was dropped, he was in our best XI. Once he's "done his time", his poor form for Quensland won't mean he's no longer best XI - not when he's done the job in the Test side of late.
Well, you're now just ignoring the stuff that doesn't suit your argument.
Is that right?
How would that XI have looked?
What did Watson do at domestic level to earn his spot?
P.S. What happened to me being a hypocrite? You abandoned that line pretty quickly. Just throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks?
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
He still has to be in form at domestic level. You can't pick a guy who is out of form in the test side, regardless of prior stats, and his stats are not that good. For a time that Australia has dominated Symonds has hardly been racking up the hundreds has he..and I don't rate his bowling at all. As for Watson he would hae played, would have been in the side ahead of White, and batted 7, Haddin at 8.
- Banned
- #50
What did Watson do domestically to get picked?
You insist that a player needs to have played well for their state to get into the Aussie side - so what did Watson do last season?
Also, remember when Damien Martyn was recalled to the Test side for the 2006 tour to SA after being dropped following the 2005 Ashes?
His domestic form had been shit all summer, but he was recalled on the grounds that he had made runs for Australia previously.
I don't think the selectors were right to recall him in that instance - he had been dropped for poor form rather than disciplinary issues - but it demonstrates that the selectors are sometimes prepared to overlook poor domestic form with players who have previously done the job for Australia.
Since being recalled against England, Symonds has averaged 72.
Are you really going to argue that's not good enough?
When was the last time we played only three specialist bowlers?
It's all well and good to say "Oh, he would have played", but you should at least acknowledge that it would have been a massive departure from the way we've structured sides over the past 15 years.
It would also have meant playing India in India without a specialist spinner. Unlikely.
