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

[Warwick]

I don't know what the last sentence means.

I take your point about not changing a winning side, but we should be picking our best XI. Symonds hasn't cemented his spot in that side.

My point was that it doesn't matter if the team is winning if Symonds isn't in the best team. So I don't know how you read I was advocating not changing a winning side. You are putting words into my mouth.

I noticed you quickly edited this point before because you know this is not true.

You pick the best side no matter what. There is no evidence to suggest atm Symonds isn't in the best side. You keep bringing up the point his average is inflated because he has made hay when the sun was shining. You would find this being the case for most batsmen. He was still doing his job in that role, and hasn't exactly failed when the side has been in "trouble" recently.

 

[wooostace]

Struggles on pitches doing a bit, doesn't have the technique to cope. (All ODI pitches are roads)

 

[Warwick]

we should be picking our best side, even when we're winning Tests. I don't think that's a controversial suggestion.

I made that precise point.

But on the topic, if you think winning is what matters, Roy will be safe for a long, long, time. I get the feeling though winning is irrelevant if Symonds suddenly isn't performing his role any more.

You were implying I was saying the opposite.

I take your point about not changing a winning side, but we should be picking our best XI. Symonds hasn't cemented his spot in that side.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

My point was that it doesn't matter if the team is winning if Symonds isn't in the best team. So I don't know how you read I was advocating not changing a winning side. You are putting words into my mouth.

I noticed you quickly edited this point before because you know this is not true.

OK, whatever.

I edited my point because I realised my initial expression was clumsy.

You pick the best side no matter what.

Agreed.

There is no evidence to suggest atm Symonds isn't in the best side.

What about his mediocre Test average?

Or should we just forget about all his previous failures because he's now in OK form?

There are more accomplished batsmen than Symonds currently outside the Test side.

And I think you're making the argument backwards. Symonds needs to demonstrate that he is in our best XI, rather than someone else making the case that he isn't.

You keep bringing up the point his average is inflated because he has made hay when the sun was shining. You would find this being the case for most batsmen. He was still doing his job in that role, and hasn't exactly failed when the side has been in "trouble" recently.

That's all well and good.

I'm not suggesting he should be dropped. Let's be very clear on that.

I'm just saying that his performances haven't been so good that all question marks should be removed.

 

[Warwick]

Struggles on pitches doing a bit, doesn't have the technique to cope. (All ODI pitches are roads)

Who doesn't struggle? Are you implying this inclusive to Andrew Symonds?

Considering he has made most of his test runs at a venue with a poorer batting pitch than most of the grounds at which he has played, I don't think this is 100% accurate.

 

[TheBrownlowMan37]

Wah, wah, wah. What do you want him to do? Get out?

I bolded this part because it summed up the whole of your post. I was also unaware that 23 was middle aged.

If you think he's cemented his spot, by playing a few care-free innings when we've got the match wrapped up, then you're watching him with maroon coloured glasses. His average is poor and if it wasn't for him batting so low, it'd be even worse.

I personally like Roy, and want him to succeed at test level, but all this talk about his popularity and likeability is laughable. If that's why he's getting a game, then there's seriously something wrong.

 

[likka]

Brett Lee spent 18 months out of the Test side because he wasn't performing.

Also spent many years in the side when he wasn't performing and was being carried by McGrath, Gillespie and Warne.

Even when we're winning, we should be picking our best side. I don't think it's a given that Symonds is in that side.

Totally agree the best side should be picked, historically this has not always been the case.

He's got a Test average of 33, so you can't say he's cemented a spot.

Why? Test average of 91 this year is more relevant than a career average of 33. Test side is picked on current form, which has been pretty good.

Whilst I disagree with using ODI form for test selections, Hilditch seems to do this often... which is another plus for the security of Symond's spot.

 

[Warwick]

Or should we just forget about all his previous failures because he's now in OK form?

Seems as good a reason as any wouldn't you think?

And I think you're making the argument backwards. Symonds needs to demonstrate that he is in our best XI, rather than someone else making the case that he isn't.

It goes both ways. And I don't think I am arguing the latter as much as the former.

I would argue it is more a case of dropping him if he demonstrates he isn't in our best XI. That would require him failing at test level (which I wouldn't say he is doing at the moment) and also having someone else consistently showing they are a better option (if so, who?).

It's awfully hard to prove you are in our best XI. It's easier to prove you are not - which Symonds is not doing at the moment by any stretch.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Also spent many years in the side when he wasn't performing and was being carried by McGrath, Gillespie and Warne.

Was there a better option available at the time?

You could argue Kasper should have been in ahead of him, but Lee's pace was always going to ensure he was thereabouts.

Why? Test average of 91 this year is more relevant than a career average of 33.

He hasn't played enough innings this year for his 2007 Test average to mean anything. For the record, in 2007 he's now scored 230 runs at 76.

And his innings against Sri Lanka were of no real consequence. He made runs, fair enough, but we know he can flay bowlers when given licence to attack. To be a legitimate Test quality #6, he's going to need to do more than that.

As a general rule, a larger statistical sample is more relevant than a smaller statistical sample. That's why I'm inclined to factor in his earlier Test innings rather than limiting my assessments to his past five knocks.

Whilst I disagree with using ODI form for test selections, Hilditch seems to do this often... which is another plus for the security of Symond's spot.

His ODI form got his foot in the door, but Symonds needs to make some big scores if he wants to stay there.

 

[Warwick]

I bolded this part because it summed up the whole of your post. I was also unaware that 23 was middle aged.

Perhaps you should step out and let the adults talk before you embarrass yourself further.

You are so far removed from the point it's not funny.

If you think he's cemented his spot,

Where have I said this?

by playing a few care-free innings when we've got the match wrapped up,

When has he had an opportunity to play a non "care-free" innings recently - and when has he failed at doing so?

His average is poor and if it wasn't for him batting so low, it'd be even worse.

His average would be lower if he got out more cheaply and/or regularly - not if he batted further up the list. I have no idea what this has got to do with anything. Should we take 20 runs off Hussey's average because he has 7 nos from 29 innings and bats lower in the order??

all this talk about his popularity and likeability is laughable. If that's why he's getting a game, then there's seriously something wrong.

Where did I say this was the reason he is getting a game?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I would argue it is more a case of dropping him if he demonstrates he isn't in our best XI. That would require him failing at test level (which I wouldn't say he is doing at the moment) and also having someone else consistently showing they are a better option (if so, who?)..

If we're desperate to include an all-rounder, Symonds deserves the nod.

But I would say Hodge and Katich are both more accomplished batsmen than Symonds. Their FC records support this, and both would be more suited to fighting the rearguard actions often required of #6 bats.

Katich is also in incredible form domestically.

David Hussey has also made a heap of FC runs. Surely Symonds has to make runs consistently to justify leaving Hussey Jr out.

People will say these guys' time has passed, and that's probably true, but I'd like to see Symonds do a bit more to lock up his spot.

It's awfully hard to prove you are in our best XI. It's easier to prove you are not - which Symonds is not doing at the moment by any stretch.

If Symonds demonstrated an ability to stick around and build a big score after we've lost early wickets, that would go a long way to proving he is in our best side.

He's yet to do that, and that's why I remain unconvinced.

 

[Warwick]

And his innings against Sri Lanka were of no real consequence. He made runs, fair enough, but we know he can flay bowlers when given licence to attack. To be a legitimate Test quality #6, he's going to need to do more than that.

I'm confused why this point is being raised.

Are people using this as a reason he should be dropped?

Should he be dropped from the team because he is making runs and not getting out in circumstances where making runs is easier?

If he was failing regularly at a time when we needed him to stand up and make some runs in a trying situation - his place should be questioned. Has it had to do that recently? And if not, why should his place be in any danger?

It almost seems him making runs during the easier times is an excuse for him to be dropped (without looking whether he has needed to perform when we have been struggling recently).

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I'm confused why this point is being raised.

Are people using this as a reason he should be dropped?

Should he be dropped from the team because he is making runs and not getting out in circumstances where making runs is easier?

I'm not saying he should be dropped.

I've made that very clear.

But his innings against Sri Lanka didn't demonstrate the ability to make runs when the going is tough. So the jury is still out on that. Until he demonstrates that ability, there will be a legitimate question about whether he's in our best XI.

People are just making the point thast his scores against Sri Lanka didn't do much to cement his position.

It almost seems him making runs during the easier times is an excuse for him to be dropped (without looking whether he has needed to perform when we have been struggling recently).

Again, I don't think he should be dropped.

Do you understand this?

 

[Warwick]

If Symonds demonstrated an ability to stick around and build a big score after we've lost early wickets, that would go a long way to proving he is in our best side.

He's yet to do that, and that's why I remain unconvinced.

And he is yet to get a chance to do that recently so why should his place be in jeopardy?

He has to fail a couple of times in this scenario for him to be dropped. We both know as soon as he fails once when Australia are in some trouble, his head will be on the chopping board again by all and sundry on here.

You are saying he shouldn't be dropped at the moment, and I am saying the same (as well as acknowledging his name plate is not screwed into the scoreboard for the next 5 years).

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

And he is yet to get a chance to do that recently so why should his place be in jeopardy?

He's had chances against India to impose himself at #6 when we've lost wickets. In both innings, he got a pass at best. He didn't go cheaply, but nor did he go on with it. I'm not bagging him for that, but he's had chances to make his mark in the precise circumstances I've outlined.

His place is not in immediate jeopardy, but neither is it totally secure.

You're prepared to discount earlier failures. I'm not.

There were plenty of instances prior to his recall 12 months ago where he was part of middle order collapses. In my mind, those failures are still relevant and they contribute to my lingering doubts about his ability to do the job in those circumstances.

 

[Warwick]

I'm not saying he should be dropped.

I've made that very clear.

I've heard that clearly.

But I was asking whether people are using that reason for him to be dropped? And if so, that is stupidity beyond belief.

But his innings against Sri Lanka didn't demonstrate the ability to make runs when the going is tough. So the jury is still out on that. Until he demonstrates that ability, there will be a legitimate question about whether he's in our best XI.

And I am saying he should be given that opportunity before his place is being questioned. Until that time, and he is still making runs (it doesn't matter if it's on his own driveway), he will be in the team.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I've heard that clearly.

But I was asking whether people are using that reason for him to be dropped? And if so, that is stupidity beyond belief.

It's not a reason for him to be dropped.

It's a reason for the jury still being out.

And I am saying he should be given that opportunity before his place is being questioned. Until that time, and he is still making runs (it doesn't matter if it's on his own driveway), he will be in the team.

It's entirely legitimate to question his spot in the side.

He's failed plenty of times before and, since his recall, hasn't done enough to convince everyone that he's the right fit at #6.

 

[Warwick]

His place is not in immediate jeopardy, but neither is it totally secure.

Good we agree.

You're prepared to discount earlier failures. I'm not.

Incorrect.

I am not discounting earlier failures - I never said his place was totally secured long-term. But why are these relevant when (a) he is currently making runs and (b) he hasn't had a chance to bat when Australia really needed him lately.

The last time he came in when Australia were in trouble (5-84) he made 156 on a difficult wicket. Australia hasn't been in any trouble since when he has entered the crease.

That doesn't mean his position should then be in danger. You don't punish someone for not performing in a situation that hasn't occurred. He can only do what the circumstance at the time directs him to do. At the moment he is making runs. Therefore, position safe for the time-being.

 

[Warwick]

He's failed plenty of times before and, since his recall, hasn't done enough to convince everyone that he's the right fit at #6.

What hasn't he done that has not convinced you he is the right fit at this point in time?

Make runs when Australia have been in trouble recently?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I am not discounting earlier failures - I never said his place was totally secured long-term. But why are these relevant when (a) he is currently making runs and (b) he hasn't had a chance to bat when Australia really needed him lately.

His earlier failures created doubts about his ability to dig in and grind out a big score. He's yet to really demonstrate that he can do that.

The last time he came in when Australia were in trouble (5-84) he made 156 on a difficult wicket. Australia hasn't been in any trouble since when he has entered the crease.

Against India, he's come in at 4/225 and 4/161.

We weren't "in trouble", but I would have liked to have seen him go on after getting a start both times. He had a golden opportunity to make a big score today, but blew his load despite being set.

That doesn't mean his position should then be in danger.

His spot is not in immediate danger.

Do we have to keep going over that?

There are legitimate doubts about his ability to deliver under pressure and those doubts will persist until he proves himself in those circumstances.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

What hasn't he done that has not convinced you he is the right fit at this point in time?

Make runs when Australia have been in trouble recently?

We've haven't been "in trouble", but in both innings against India he's come in after we've lost a couple of wickets quickly.

He's got a start both times, but then failed to capitalise.

That leaves me unconvinced about his suitability for the #6 spot.

He's an attacking batsman, but I haven't seen much to suggest that he can dig in and grind out a big score when a game is in the balance.

 

[Warwick]

His earlier failures created doubts about his ability to dig in and grind out a big score. He's yet to really demonstrate that he can do that.

Well now we are just playing ring-a-rosy.

The last time he came in with Australia in trouble on a difficult pitch he made 156. He hasn't had a chance to do so recently, yet he is still making runs. Previous failures that happened 2+ years ago may still be relevant, but hardly cause for him to be on a knife-edge if currently performing.

I will re-enter this debate when someone comes up with a reason he should not be in the team, save him not making runs in a position or situation he has not had to contend with recently.

 

[TheBrownlowMan37]

Perhaps you should step out and let the adults talk before you embarrass yourself further.

You are so far removed from the point it's not funny.

I'm older than you and no offence, but i know exactly what the "point" is, sadly you don't.

If you figured out Symonds' average in anything that resembled a pressure situation, it'd be lower than his current average, and you can't compare his not outs to Hussey's. Hussey bats 2 positions higher.

Do your homework

 

[achancely]

Gunnar Longshanks, why do you speak so much about Katich? He had his chance, many chances, and proved he didn't have the mental capacity for international cricket. An Australian Hick perhaps.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

The last time he came in with Australia in trouble on a difficult pitch he made 156. He hasn't had a chance to do so recently, yet he is still making runs.

He has come in with Australia in a delicate position without necessarily being "in trouble".

Previous failures that happened 2+ years ago may still be relevant, but hardly cause for him to be on a knife-edge if currently performing.

No, but they are cause for doubts that he has yet to dispel.