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

[TorresIsGod]

How is it relevant?

It's clear to everyone that the selectors want an all-rounder in the side, to bat at 6 and bowl when needed.

If we didn't need that extra bowler, then someone like Hodge or even Dave Hussey (form permitting) would be looking at being the #6 for Australia, even if there were other all-rounder options (which there currently isn't) knocking on the door for selections, Symonds would still be first picked...

 

[The Passenger]

still has a good way to go to cemenet his spot IMO.

Is much improved as a test cricketer (confidence more than anything) but still not the complete package.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

How is it relevant?

Because if his batting alone isn't enough, then he needs to contribute elsewhere to justify his selection.

His fielding is outstanding and his bowling is handy.

I just think it's worth discussing the levels Symonds needs to produce in all three disciplines to justify his selection.

 

[TorresIsGod]

His batting alone would never justify his selection, he's an all-rounder remember? Therefore, batting, bowling and fielding all come into it when selecting the team...

And he does contribute with the ball and in the field anyway... Would you change your argument if Gilchrist (a wicket-keeper with a near 50 average over the best part of 100 tests) was moved to #6 and Symonds (the all-rounder) batted at #7? Would you focus less on his batting if he batted lower in the order?

He chips in and regularly takes wickets when bowling, as he did against Sri Lanka/India, and against England...

He is never going to take a big bag of wickets, because he's never had to.

1 or 2, nothing more, even none, but as long as he's tight and doesn't concede runs and can build pressure, then a strike bowler can take the wickets.

As I said, I rate him as the best fielder in the world.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

His batting alone would never justify his selection, he's an all-rounder remember? Therefore, batting, bowling and fielding all come into it when selecting the team....

Sure - but he is still required to bat at a decent standard.

If he was averaging 20 with the bat, simply being an all-rounder wouldn't keep him in the side.

For mine, he needs to average 40+ with the bat and low 30s with the ball.

I think those benchmarks are worth discussing.

And he does contribute with the ball and in the field anyway.

I never said he didn't.

Would you change your argument if Gilchrist (a wicket-keeper with a near 50 average over the best part of 100 tests) was moved to #6 and Symonds (the all-rounder) batted at #7? Would you focus less on his batting if he batted lower in the order?

No. Only a muppet would think that made a difference.

 

[beatnik]

i'm staying out of the sooking debate but i think it's odd that there is still ongoing question mark over Roy's place despite him delivering an encouraging return on the Test selectors' investment in the past few years

his current Test stats are 33 with the bat and 39 with the ball which is unspectacular but if you look at how it breaks down, it shows he is improving with each series:

[FONT="Courier New"]                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St
Test career           16   700 156   33.33   1   4  14  3/50   39.42  0  13  0
since SA              12   637 156   42.46   1   4  12  3/50   32.33  0   6  0
since Ashes            6   414 156   69.00   1   2   5  2/8    28.60  0   3  0
this summer            3   182  53*  91.00   0   2   3  1/10   21.33  0   0  0
[/FONT]

i know stats can be cut to suit any argument but i am not basing my argument on the above averages - simply using them to highlight the improvement curve in Symonds we have all watched with our own eyes in the past 2 years

just as he did with one-day cricket, Symonds has required a period of adjustment but as his confidence grows, so do his stats

i agree that team selection is not a popularity contest and nor is entertainment value or marketing appeal - to me, the fact that he's a favourite with fans, a marketing icon and the world's best fielder are all icing on the cake...Roy must earn his place on his his ability with bat and ball and I have no doubt he will continue to do so

that said, you can't overstate the importance of true mateship in creating team bonds and a winning culture and Symonds seems to have that talismanic larrikin nature about him that make others enjoy their cricket

cemented? no-one's spot is immune to an ongoing form slump but I'd say his spot is safe into the foreseeable future based on the improvement he has already shown

peace

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

i know stats can be cut to suit any argument but i am not basing my argument on the above averages - simply using them to highlight the improvement curve in Symonds we have all watched with our own eyes in the past 2 years

just as he did with one-day cricket, Symonds has required a period of adjustment but as his confidence grows, so do his stats

That's fine. I'm not suggesting he should be dropped.

I'm merely saying that he has not yet done enough to cement his spot.

I hope he becomes a quality #6, but some people reckon he's already done enough to be an automatic selection. I disagree.

 

[TorresIsGod]

I don't think he needs to average 40+ with the bat, however, I think he will end up with a 40+ average, and going on recent matches, he hasn't needed to/been given the chance to bowl all that often, but when he has, he's done the job.

Freddie Flintoff averages 32 with the bat and 32 with the ball over 67 Tests.
Andrew Symonds averages 33 with the bat and 39 with the ball over 16 Tests.

Now, would you say that if Flintoff was 100% fit, he's not assured of his spot in the England side?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I don't think he needs to average 40+ with the bat.

If Symonds can't average 40 with the bat, he shouldn't be batting at #6 in the Australian Test side.

Freddie Flintoff averages 32 with the bat and 32 with the ball over 67 Tests.
Andrew Symonds averages 33 with the bat and 39 with the ball over 16 Tests.

Now, would you say that if Flintoff was 100% fit, he's not assured of his spot in the England side?

Of course a fit Flintoff is assured a place.

But:

1) The England side is easier to get into than the Australian side. Let's hope that is always the case.

2) Flintoff's bowling alone gets him into the England side. His batting is a bonus. Symonds, on the other hand, wouldn't get into the Australian side on his batting or bowling alone.

3) Flintoff's record since 2003 is much better than his overall record. If you looked at Flintoff's numbers post-2003, there's no doubt that he deserves a game for England.

 

[TorresIsGod]

As I said, as an all-rounder, I don't think Symonds needs to average 40 with the bat, especially when the other players around him are making runs.

If Australia weren't looking at playing an all-rounder in the side, then Symonds wouldn't be in the side, because his batting alone isn't good enough, but with the #6 spot being for an all-rounder, he's our best.

Recently, Flintoff has been average, although, I do agree that when he is fit, his bowling alone would get him into the side, but as an all-rounder, his batting isn't good enough, there are really no other 'all-rounder options' for England, as seen with their current side, they've got Bopara, who bowls 110 playing that role, Australia don't have any other options at the moment anyway, Shane Watson cannot score double figures, and his bowling is very, very crap.

In my opinion, Symonds has done enough

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Recently, Flintoff has been average, although, I do agree that when he is fit, his bowling alone would get him into the side, but as an all-rounder, his batting isn't good enough

Recently? He only played one Test in 2007, so which performances are you referring to? He hasn't been on the park recently.

Check your facts.

And his batting isn't good enough for what?

He's a bowling all-rounder and his bowling alone would get him into the side. His batting is a bonus.

And from 2003, Flintoff has averaged 38 with the bat and 28 with the ball. That's exceptional.

If Symonds can sustain those kind of numbers over a four-year stretch, he will be an awesome player.

 

[TorresIsGod]

Symonds will never be a "strike" bowler like Flintoff, he'll never average under 30 with the ball, because a) he doesn't bowl enough to take bags of wickets and b) when he does bowl, wickets have already fallen.

I too class Flintoff as a 'bowling all-rounder', but it seems that you would class Symonds as a 'batting all-rounder', however, I'd class him as just an 'all-rounder', which says he's very even in all three disciplines if you will.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I too class Flintoff as a 'bowling all-rounder', but it seems that you would class Symonds as a 'batting all-rounder', however, I'd class him as just an 'all-rounder', which says he's very even in all three disciplines if you will.

Symonds is a batting all-rounder every day of the week.

 

[TorresIsGod]

No way, Symonds was pictured when the term all-rounder was coined.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

No way, Symonds was pictured when the term all-rounder was coined.

Are you on drugs?

Every all-rounder in the world is a bowling all-rounder or a batting all-rounder.

There's no such thing as "just an all-rounder".

Symonds' batting is clearly more his strength than his bowling. Do you seriously disagree with this?

 

[TorresIsGod]

What about Dwayne Bravo? What's his 'strength'?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

What about Dwayne Bravo? What's his 'strength'?

To be honest, I'd don't really know enough about him to make a definitive call, and it's complicated by the fact that he hasn't really shone consistently with bat or ball at this stage of his career.

He's a young player who is still developing, so could probably still go either way, but I'd reckon the West Indies would see him as a batting all-rounder. That's supported by the fact he now bats at #6.

I saw he took 4/24 against South Africa last week, and if his bowling really improves he might be more a bowling all-rounder in future. But at the moment, I'd say his batting is his main attribute.

 

[DIG]

For mine, he needs to average 40+ with the bat and low 30s with the ball.
I think those benchmarks are worth discussing.

....

i'm staying out of the sooking debate but i think it's odd that there is still ongoing question mark over Roy's place despite him delivering an encouraging return on the Test selectors' investment in the past few years

his current Test stats are 33 with the bat and 39 with the ball which is unspectacular but if you look at how it breaks down, it shows he is improving with each series:

[FONT="Courier New"]                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St
Test career           16   700 156   33.33   1   4  14  3/50   39.42  0  13  0
[U][COLOR="Blue"][B]since SA              12   637 156   42.46   1   4  12  3/50   32.33  0   6  0[/B][/COLOR][/U]since Ashes            6   414 156   69.00   1   2   5  2/8    28.60  0   3  0
this summer            3   182  53*  91.00   0   2   3  1/10   21.33  0   0  0
[/FONT]

i know stats can be cut to suit any argument but i am not basing my argument on the above averages - simply using them to highlight the improvement curve in Symonds we have all watched with our own eyes in the past 2 years

just as he did with one-day cricket, Symonds has required a period of adjustment but as his confidence grows, so do his stats

i agree that team selection is not a popularity contest and nor is entertainment value or marketing appeal - to me, the fact that he's a favourite with fans, a marketing icon and the world's best fielder are all icing on the cake...Roy must earn his place on his his ability with bat and ball and I have no doubt he will continue to do so

that said, you can't overstate the importance of true mateship in creating team bonds and a winning culture and Symonds seems to have that talismanic larrikin nature about him that make others enjoy their cricket

cemented? no-one's spot is immune to an ongoing form slump but I'd say his spot is safe into the foreseeable future based on the improvement he has already shown

peace

Until he has a sustained slip in form, there should be no "question mark" over his place.

BTW, very good post Beatnik.

 

[POBT]

There's no such thing as "just an all-rounder".

I'm not sure that is necessarily true. A guy like Brian MacMillan was, for most of his career, a legitimate all-rounder in that he could bat at #6 and open the bowling - I don't recall him ever being considered either a batting all-rounder or a bowling all-rounder. It was several years before Kallis' batting overtook his bowling - he was a genuine all-rounder early on. Some players switch their dominant skill during their careers - Imran Khan's batting probably overtook his bowling in the last few years of his career. Some players use the fact that they play as an all-rounder as a bit of a licence to play loose, attacking cricket with the bat - from all reports, Keith Miller was in that category and could easily have held his spot as a pure batsman.

The classic example of a true all-rounder is Ken Mackay. His average with both bat and ball was about 34 - I don't think he was ever considered either a batting or bowling all-rounder - just a useful cricketer who played a role in that era by playing the straight man to attacking cricketers like Miller, Benaud and Lindwall. He might not go down in the annals as a champion of the game but 30+ Tests is a great achievement considering the strength of the Aussie side during his career.

I am also unsure about this concept of "cementing" a place in the side. Plenty of players with "cemented" places get dropped after 1 or 2 bad series. Guys like Jaques and Hussey, with their incredible starts to their test careers, are potentially 3 or 4 failures from being dropped. True, if they continue their form, they'll retain their spot. But, as Beatnik's post indicates, the same could easily be said for Symonds.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I'm not sure that is necessarily true. A guy like Brian MacMillan was, for most of his career, a legitimate all-rounder in that he could bat at #6 and open the bowling - I don't recall him ever being considered either a batting all-rounder or a bowling all-rounder. It was several years before Kallis' batting overtook his bowling - he was a genuine all-rounder early on.

That's all fair enough.

Of course there are players who blur the distinction. That said, I reckon if you dug deep enough, you could make a case to prioritise one over the other.

This is an interesting tangent, but in relation to Symonds, there's not much ambiguity. He's a batting all-rounder. Period.

I am also unsure about this concept of "cementing" a place in the side. Plenty of players with "cemented" places get dropped after 1 or 2 bad series. Guys like Jaques and Hussey, with their incredible starts to their test careers, are potentially 3 or 4 failures from being dropped.

I think that's a stretch. Jaques and Hussey would need to struggle for much longer than that before being axed.

But I take your point. No-one is guaranteed an indefinite stay in the Australian side.

However, I think Symonds' visa as a Test #6 is uniquely short-stay.

I'm not saying he's destined to fail. I think he could still make it. But he's far fewer failures away from the axe than anyone else in the top 7.

He's clearly the worst batsman in that group. Clearly. And there are a handful of batsmen outside the team who are more accomplished. Hodge has a Test 200, while Katich and David Hussey have FC records that dwarf Symonds'. If Watson was fit, he would possibly be preferred.

We have a guy who probably isn't in the top 10 Australian batsmen, but he's batting at #6 in the Test side. That's irregular.

For mine, the Symonds equation is simple. To cement a spot, he can narrow that gap between him and the other members of our top 6 with some big scores that make a difference. To date, he's ticked that box once. That innings at the MCG won't keep him safe forever. How long can we justify picking a batsman outside our top 10 at #6? He either pushes into that top group, or comes to rely on his other skills to retain his spot.

His fielding is outstanding, but realistically, that's not going to keep him in the team.

So the second way Symonds can cement a spot is by being so useful as a fifth bowler that he becomes more valuable than any of the superior batsmen outside the side. Currently, I don't think you can say he's done that, but that might change, especially if we decide four quicks are the way to go. Maybe Tait becomes more attractive than Hogg or MacGill. Suddenly Symonds' off-spin becomes priceless. If we played four quicks, Symonds' spot would be locked up pretty quickly.

I'm not anti-Symonds. I want to be clear about that. It would be a huge bonus for Australia if Symonds made it as a Test cricketer. We'd have the best fielder in the world, an aggressive #6 averaging 40+ and a versatile, capable fifth bowler interchanging medium pace and off-spin. All in one player. He would be a massive asset.

The problem is that people become too fixated on his upside. Symonds isn't a rookie. He's not a talented 24-year-old who can be carried for a while to further his development. He's 32. He'll turn 34 during the next Ashes. If he's good enough, he needs to show that immediately. Since when does the Australian side include 32-year-old 'project' players?

If we start picking an all-rounder because of a potential upside, then pick Luke Butterworth or Moises Henriques. That's a bit extreme, but if we're picking Symonds on the basis of what he could be then why not pick a younger player instead? The logic of chasing upsides is elastic, but it favours young men over old.

Symonds is too old to be picked as a development player. He needs to impose himself at Test level in one of the two ways I mentioned earlier. If he spends the next 18 months treading water, and then fails with bat and ball during an Ashes series, he will be a discarded 34-year-old Test all-rounder, and we'll all be wondering why we kept him in the side for two years after he had already been axed twice. That's the downside of Symonds' selection. It should be considered along with the upisde that seems to be satisfying everyone currently.

Symonds needs to do more than coast. He needs to produce his best now. This is his last shot.

 

[Paddywhackers]

Are you on drugs?

Every all-rounder in the world is a bowling all-rounder or a batting all-rounder.

There's no such thing as "just an all-rounder".

Symonds' batting is clearly more his strength than his bowling. Do you seriously disagree with this?

I think there could be, if say, an players batting and bowling were equally as good. Therefore hard to split. Imagine there was a player that bowled like Warne but batted like Ponting. He'd be a pure all rounder.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I think there could be, if say, an players batting and bowling were equally as good. Therefore hard to split. Imagine there was a player that bowled like Warne but batted like Ponting. He'd be a pure all rounder.

Imagine a unicorn that could talk, bat in the middle order and bowl reverse swing.

That unicorn could captain Australia.

Provided the selectors didn't pick Shane Watson ahead of him.

 

[The Passenger]

australia has had the right idea over the years in terms of all rounders - you have to be good enough to be in the best 6 batsman, or the best 4 bowlers to get into the team whilst the other discipline is a bonus. Occasionally, they'd pick a player who was just outside of the best 6 bats or 4 bowlers in the country if it justified having an all rounder in the team.

With Symonds he's obviousbly a batting all rounder. He's bowling will NEVER ever get him in the team alone. He may one day be in the best 6 batsman (discount Gilchrist due to keeping) in Australia - at the moment he isn't. As i said though if they weren't in the best 6 they'd be pretty close to it... i.e. within the next 2 or 3 batsman. But Symonds isn't in that group either.

There are 5 batsman in the top 6 of the test team that are better than him and there are at least 5 batsman off the top of my head outside of the team who are better batsman - Hodge, Katich, D Hussey, Rogers, North, Watson* are all better batsman, whilst there are two keepers in the country who are better batsman (Gilly and Haddin).

In terms of ranking Australias batsman Symonds would be in a group with the likes of Di Venuto, Voges, Cosgrove and co. around about the 13th/14th to 20th best batsmen in the country.

It's very unusual for the Australian team to persist with a batsman in that bracket as an all rounder option. Normally they'd have to be within the 7th-10th bracket, if they weren't already in the top 6 batsman.

In saying that he's now averaged over 40 in his last handful of tests so he's not doing anything wrong.

If he gets his overall average up to 40 (or close to) and keeps it there then he will justify losing the 5-10 runs that a better batsman may (no garuantees they will achieve an average of 45+ either) give the team for the sake of having a handy 5th bowling option.

*Watson is way out of form opening. I was a big fan of giving him a run at opener. it's failed, i'd give him another game or two at most and then move him back to number 3 or 4 if he continues to fail.

 

[The Passenger]

one of the things i forgot to mention, and this may sound a tad arrogant but in many respects it is true in terms of home tests - but when a player gets into the test team they are often playing TEAMS that are worse than what they encounter in the Sheffield Shield.

There are obviousbly individually brilliant players such as Murali, Kallis, Sangakarra, Tendulkar, Lara (now retired), Flintoff and co. but as a team, most touring sides wouldn't beat the state teams on Australian soil.

And if you look at 3 of the most recent additions to the test team, Hussey Jacques and S Clark, then you'd notice that their test performances thus far have been above their Shield performances (particularly Hussey and Clark). Same as Johnson but he's only played 3 tests thus far (I know Jacques has only played 5 as well)....

So when a player gets in the team, they are killing opposition teams on Australian soil.

Then we go on tour, obviousbly these are tougher but we're still doing well. said player may struggle a bit, but not enough to drop them based on their home test form, then the next summer rolls around and they cement their spot in the team for a while longer if you get what i mean...

Basically what i'm getting at is because of Australia's dominance at home, and touring sides inability to handle Australian wickets, the trend is that once a player gets into the team they're going to have to really crack under the pressure to play themselves out of the team....

 

[Ripper]

I think there could be, if say, an players batting and bowling were equally as good. Therefore hard to split. Imagine there was a player that bowled like Warne but batted like Ponting. He'd be a pure all rounder.

Sobers