What does Andrew Symonds need to do to cement a Test spot beyond the 2007/08 summer?

[achancely]

Oh dear, it must be such a trial for you.

Try not to cry.

Maybe leave the night light on for a little while so you don't get upset.

This is a complete fabrication.

Give me an example of me chopping and changing.

Or admit that you need to resort to making stuff up to keep your head above water.

Try not to fall on your face, little girl.

Plenty.

But I remain thankful that I don't live in Adelaide. That must be tough.

You are a sad, sad boy.

If you enjoy acting like a child on an Internet board, I guess things must be difficult.

I'm done with you. I'm surprised with the offensive language you use that you have not been banned.

 

[likka]

But I remain thankful that I don't live in Adelaide. That must be tough.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

You are a sad, sad boy.

If you enjoy acting like a child on an Internet board, I guess things must be difficult.

I'm done with you.

At least you know when you're beaten.

You deserve kudos for that.

 

[beatnik]

At least you know when you're beaten.

You deserve kudos for that.

you, however, never know when you are beaten...

...you deserve pity for that

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

At least you know when you're beaten.

You deserve kudos for that.

Didn't you say a few days ago that calling someone a moron was an outdated insult? Yet you use the "little girl" line atleast 3-4 times a week. Just an observation.

-slowly backs out of the thread-

 

[likka]

you, however, never know when you are beaten...

...you deserve pity for that

He knows... just never publicly admits it. Pretty sad really.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Didn't you say a few days ago that calling someone a moron was an outdated insult? Yet you use the "little girl" line atleast 3-4 times a week. Just an observation.

-slowly backs out of the thread-

If someone goes all sooky and dramatic, then it's apt.

Moron is hollow.

You can tell when someone is acting like a little girl. People just use "moron" to badger anyone who disagrees with them. It's lost its meaning.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

you, however, never know when you are beaten...

Well I've never experienced it, but I imagine it would suck.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

If someone goes all sooky and dramatic, then it's apt.

Moron is hollow.

-slowly re-enters thread-

According to a study? Calling someone a little girl, seems far less mature than calling them a moron, but they're both insults and both unnecessary. Too many people start their posts with an insult, then their argument becomes void.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Too many people start their posts with an insult, then their argument becomes void.

I agree.

I tend to tune out of posts that start with a petty insult.

But I'm not against throwing in some mustard towards the end.

 

[campbell]

Different year, same whinge about Roy.

he can never please you blokes.

Thank goodness you know nothing about cricket and dont pick the australian team.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Different year, same whinge about Roy.

What's the "same whinge"?

I don't recall him being given not out in a shocking non-decision last year.

Seems like it's a totally different observation being made.

Besides, if people have had persistent doubts about Symonds' suitability at Test level, I reckon they've had good reason.

 

[campbell]

Same whinge, he is not good enough, blah blah blah.


Get over it. He is by far the best fielder in the world atm. He is an awesome talent, and guess what he is all ours.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Same whinge, he is not good enough, blah blah blah.

That's hardly the "same whinge".

I think it's a pretty legitimate thing to say if there's a guy in the Test side who is struggling.

Up until 5 minutes ago, Symonds had given every indication that he wasn't good enough. So I don't think you can be too critical of those who have said as much.

 

[Beau_Waters for PM]

I agree that he won't get dropped anytime soon.

I just think that some of the triumphalism following his century is a bit misplaced.

Sure, he made the runs and played some good shots, but he should have been out on 30. That was as bad a non-decision as you'll see all summer.

Let's not pretend otherwise.

I'll sign that.

Do you play cricket Gunnar?
Yes he hit the ball, was he given out? No.
Theres nothing more to it then that.
He was given not out, he did what every good batsman does, he makes the most of a mistake, whether it be a bad umpiring decision or a mistake by the fielder.
All good sportsmen make the most out of mistakes or second chances.

Footballers make the most of umpires mistakes, Im sure you'd have no problems if an eagles player got a goal resulting from an umpiring mistake, would it any less of a goal? NO. Does the umpires mistake makes Symonds century any less of a century? No.

Hes not out, as simple as that.
Hes scored a good century.

Good post.

---

This is my view of the role of a batting all-rounder (the role Symonds is currently playing in the team) - the player should be able to:

1) Come in when the team is in a commanding position (e.g. 4/400) and make a quick-fire 50 or so (although even tail-enders can fill this role from time to time)
2) Come in when the team is in strife and play a match-saving big knock without throwing his wicket away
3) Bowl and take wickets when needed. One can't expect a top-notch average or strike rate, but the all-rounder must at the very least be a better bowler than any other "batsmen" e.g. M. Clarke

Symonds fulfills criteria 1) , but rarely has the opportunity to perform a match-saving innings (criteria 2) due to the strength of the batsmen above him. Which is why he needs to take his chances when they come, and he did that in this first innings. Sure, he was aided by some extremely favourable umpiring, but there's no need to dwell on this fact - it merely needs to be noted. All we can expect him to do is to capitalise on any mistakes that are made by others, and that is exactly what he did. Period.

I do believe that Symonds needs to improve his bowling. He is 'handy' but needs to be more than that. If all the selectors wanted was a 'handy' bowler, then they should just use Clarke and select a 6th batsman. I hope to see him improve on his bowling in the near future.

EDIT: Oh, and a player should NEVER be picked on their fielding ability alone. It is simply a bonus.

 

[jerry springer]

The fact he should have been sent on his way on 30 takes some gloss of his innings. That has been my point throughout.

I don't think it's particularly controversial.

then why have you spent 5 pages of this thread carrying on about it?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

then why have you spent 5 pages of this thread carrying on about it?

Because there are some people so blinkered that they actually disagreed with me.

They insisted that Symonds' huge slice of luck should be totally ignored when assessing his innings.

Bizarre.

 

[Ripper]

Because there are some people so blinkered that they actually disagreed with me.

They insisted that Symonds' huge slice of luck should be totally ignored when assessing his innings.

Bizarre.

It shouldn't be ignored. However even if you accept that he was out from the stumping (50/50 IMO) the fact remains that he has averaged 80 odd for each innings of his innings which does prove that he is not out of place in the test team.

There is little difference between this and when Justin Langer was out vs Pakistan at Belreive many tears ago when Gilly & Langer won the test match.

 

[Russian]

this is going nowhere - may re-open later