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

[TheBrownlowMan37]

Fortunately, the Australian selectors are looking forward at more mentally strong cricketers.

I can't believe the words "mentally strong" were uttered in a thread about Symonds.

 

[achancely]

I can't believe the words "mentally strong" were uttered in a thread about Symonds.

? World Cup 2003...143* (125)

...

...

not mentally strong?

 

[TheBrownlowMan37]

? World Cup 2003...143* (125)

...

...

not mentally strong?

Once again you highlight a once off innings in a limp attempt to prove your point. In general, Symonds is not a mentally strong player, and most people can see this.

He's more likely to reach 30 and then play a stupid shot, than go on to make 70-100 runs.

 

[achancely]

Once again you highlight a once off innings in a limp attempt to prove your point. In general, Symonds is not a mentally strong player, and most people can see this.

He's more likely to reach 30 and then play a stupid shot, than go on to make 70-100 runs.

His performances since 2003 make your statement limper than any. He has averaged around 50 in ODIs and is widely considered the best ODI player in the world.

In addition, under immense personal abuse in India recently, he dominated.

Mental strength? You, 'in general', don't seem to have a clue son!

 

[DIG]

Once again you highlight a once off innings in a limp attempt to prove your point. In general, Symonds is not a mentally strong player, and most people can see this.

He's more likely to reach 30 and then play a stupid shot, than go on to make 70-100 runs.

Not mentally strong - WTF?

 

[DIG]

Why?

What is he doing differently?

He's in form, has improved technical aspects of his game such as his defence against spin, his square and late cuts, and also in his earlier stints he lost all confidence knowing each innings could be his last.

Just remember too that in Sri Lanka several years ago Murali destroyed him - not the first bloke that's happened to. Now he plays Murali very well both internationally and at home.

ODIs are a different game. He needs to do it in Tests.

And one good innings isn't sufficient to dispel doubts created by a string of early failures.

I don't discount his earlier failures at all.

But I'm not sure what parallel you're trying to draw there. Clarke's overall record is significantly better than Symonds'.

Firstly, those guys were all in their early 20s when they started out. Symonds is a mature player. And I wouldn't say that Ponting's failures ever matched Symonds'.

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerProgressBat.asp?PlayerID=2041

Secondly, I have no problem with players struggling, getting dropped and then being recalled. That's fine. That's how it should work if players earn a second chance. But Symonds hasn't convinced me that he's the right fit at #6. He was terrible in that role when he started out, and those legitimate doubts haven't been completely dispelled by his performances since.

It has been quite good, although I don't set much store in the innings he played against Sri Lanka.

Had he gone on and made a big total in either innings against India at the MCG, I would have been more impressed.

I don't disagree everything here, i just don't think he's in quite as much danger of being dropped anytime soon as you do, right now.

 

[Cousin Jed]

? World Cup 2003...143* (125)

...

...

not mentally strong?

Richie Benaud is that you?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

All this sentence construction nitpicking.

It's got nothing to do with "sentence construction".

You suggested my posts were ambiguous. I'm just asking you to provide an example.

Fortunately, the Australian selectors are looking forward at more mentally strong cricketers.

How many of those guys can match Katich's FC record?

If they're so capable, surely they should be showing more at that level.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I don't disagree everything here, i just don't think he's in quite as much danger of being dropped anytime soon as you do, right now.

I don't think he will be dropped this summer.

If he has a lean trot, there will be pressure, but his place isn't in immediate jeopardy.

 

[Mikes4]

The matter of the fact is the guy just keeps "contributing" to flat out wins, and that is all he has to do. Really, Australia is that good if he keeps coming up with 3 wickets and 70-80 odd runs each match(with the proviso they keep smashing all-comers) , then he is certain to remain in the team for as long as he wants. He is what they are after in a number 6/All-Rounder. Full stop.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

The matter of the fact is the guy just keeps "contributing" to flat out wins, and that is all he has to do.

Or the fact of the matter even?

Really, Australia is that good if he keeps coming up with 3 wickets and 70-80 odd runs each match(with the proviso they keep smashing all-comers) , then he is certain to remain in the team for as long as he wants.

Sure - but 3 wickets and 70+ runs isn't his typical Test.

In how many matches has he delivered that?

 

[The Casey Cat]

Or the fact of the matter even?

Sure - but 3 wickets and 70+ runs isn't his typical Test.

In how many matches has he delivered that?

Really will you give it a freakin rest!!! Symonds is in the team and is contributing well. Even better is that he is entertaining to watch whether batting, bowling or fielding which is important when our opposition won't give us a decent contest. The way you sook anyone would believe he made a pair and went for six an over with the ball.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Even better is that he is entertaining to watch whether batting, bowling or fielding which is important when our opposition won't give us a decent contest.

That is not part of the selection criteria.

You've said Symonds is safe "if he keeps coming up with 3 wickets and 70-80 odd runs each match", as though he's regularly produced that kind of return. Also, I don't think a Test average of 35 would cut it.

The way you sook anyone would believe he made a pair and went for six an over with the ball.

How am I sooking?

I don't even think he should be dropped.

 

[TorresIsGod]

The way I see it, if Symonds wants the spot, he's strong enough and certaintly capable of keeping the spot until he doesn't want it anymore.

He did nothing wrong at all against India in the first Test.

35 in the first innings (dismissed with the score at 281)
3 overs, 0 for 8
44 in the second innings (dismissed with the score at 243)
13 overs, 5 maidens, 1 for 25

Oh and his wicket against India? Rahul Dravid LBW... not a bad wicket to pick up

You cannot fault his performance, 79 runs, and 16 overs, 1 for 33, that's just over 2 runs per over, in a Test Match for an all-rounder, that's awesome, the strike bowlers were taking wickets and the #1 spinner took wickets, he chipped when he needed to

Against Sri Lanka - 53* 1/10 [5] & 1/21 [6] (first Test) & 50* - DNB (second Test)

Not sure what else you want him to do? When we were in trouble against England at the MCG, he made 150+, he also took 2 wickets, one of them being Flintoff LBW, we were in massive trouble against England when he and Hayden were together, what happened? He kept his head, played along the ground, if the ball was there to hit, he hit it...

The spot is his, give this a rest Gunnar

 

[tin can sam]

That is not part of the selection criteria.

It should be, I'd prefer to debate this over a few beers so I'll just type this.

With Australia smashing everyone, it's becoming boring, we need to get more people to the cricket and keep the matches entertaining.

Symonds should be given the nod over somebody similar or slighty more appropriate to play then himslef, because he gets people through the gate.

 

[TorresIsGod]

TCS.

I think that while Symonds may not average 45 with the bat, I think in the field, he easily makes up for those runs he doesn't make, he saves so many runs, chases down, gets everyone else going in the field and then they save runs.

For a young player watching on, they want to be like Symonds or Clarke, why? Because a) they're entertaining when they bat, b) they both bowl a bit, Symonds more-so and c) they're guns in the field and they get the crowd excited, a fantastic save/run out, you know, things that inspire the team, they are the two who usually provide it, he definitely puts bums on seats, so to speak (mostly, they're standing, but they're definitely there)

Just listen to the reaction he got when coming out to bat at the MCG in the first innings...

 

[Ripper]

The way I see it, if Symonds wants the spot, he's strong enough and certaintly capable of keeping the spot until he doesn't want it anymore.

He did nothing wrong at all against India in the first Test.

35 in the first innings (dismissed with the score at 281)
3 overs, 0 for 8
44 in the second innings (dismissed with the score at 243)
13 overs, 5 maidens, 1 for 25

Oh and his wicket against India? Rahul Dravid LBW... not a bad wicket to pick up

You cannot fault his performance, 79 runs, and 16 overs, 1 for 33, that's just over 2 runs per over, in a Test Match for an all-rounder, that's awesome, the strike bowlers were taking wickets and the #1 spinner took wickets, he chipped when he needed to

Against Sri Lanka - 53* 1/10 [5] & 1/21 [6] (first Test) & 50* - DNB (second Test)

Not sure what else you want him to do? When we were in trouble against England at the MCG, he made 150+, he also took 2 wickets, one of them being Flintoff LBW, we were in massive trouble against England when he and Hayden were together, what happened? He kept his head, played along the ground, if the ball was there to hit, he hit it...

The spot is his, give this a rest Gunnar

Big big wicket that one, turned the game.

I reckon he has done enough for this summer.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Not sure what else you want him to do?

Make more runs.

The spot is his, give this a rest Gunnar

You think he's an automatic selection, do you?

 

[Dez!]

Make more runs.

You think he's an automatic selection, do you?

Dude, shut up.

He's in the team, contributing and contributing well.

Argument over.

 

[TorresIsGod]

Make more runs.

He doesn't need to make runs, if you've got Hayden making a century, Jaques making a 50, Ponting and Hussey stumbled, both Symonds and Clarke made mid-range scores, they didn't need to do anymore. I'm confident that if he's needed to dig in and make a big score, he'll do it.

You think he's an automatic selection, do you?[/quote]

Yes, I do.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Dude, shut up.

Are you 12 years old?

Stop sooking, little girl.

He's in the team, contributing and contributing well.

Do you think he's an automatic selection? Why should discussion of Symonds' spot be off limits?

I think it's entirely legitimate to ask what Symonds needs to do to fully cement a place in the side.

Sorry if you can't handle that. No-one is forcing you to read this thread.

Argument over.

Who are you to make that judgement?

You certainly haven't added anything remotely coherent to the discussion, so nothing you've actually said has driven the argument in either direction.

Try again.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

He doesn't need to make runs, if you've got Hayden making a century, Jaques making a 50, Ponting and Hussey stumbled, both Symonds and Clarke made mid-range scores, they didn't need to do anymore. I'm confident that if he's needed to dig in and make a big score, he'll do it.

Australia didn't need him to make more runs.

But Symonds needs to make more runs to fully cement a spot.

Do you reckon Symonds currently deserves a spot on his batting alone?

 

[TorresIsGod]

Asking if Symonds deserved to be picked on his batting alone has no relevance here.

Australia want an "all-rounder" at #6, if they were looking for a batsman, Brad Hodge would bat there...

The all-rounder, in this era, an 'all-rounder' is now someone who can bat, bowl, with variety (as Symonds can with seamers or spinners/darts), and be able to field, and I consider Symonds to be the best in the world.

So now, I'll be nice and answer your question anyway, no, I don't think Symonds would get the nod if you were only thinking of his batting, there are others, but as the person who fits the role who can do everything asked of him, well enough that he isn't a liability, which he certaintly isn't, then Symonds is the man, he very rarely gets injured, besides two freak things, rolling his ankle running between the wickets and the bicep injury, Watson is forever injured, has no variety with bowling, and currently, isn't even a better batsman than Symonds anyway, and isn't half as good as fielder.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Asking if Symonds deserved to be picked on his batting alone has no relevance here.

It's entirely relevant.

Australia want an "all-rounder" at #6, if they were looking for a batsman, Brad Hodge would bat there....

So if Symonds doesn't deserve a spot on his batting alone, then what are the benchmarks with bat and ball for his selection to be justified?

40 with the bat and 30 with the ball?

The all-rounder, in this era, an 'all-rounder' is now someone who can bat, bowl, with variety (as Symonds can with seamers or spinners/darts), and be able to field, and I consider Symonds to be the best in the world.

You think Symonds' is the world's best all-rounder at Test level?

Say that again for me.

 

[TorresIsGod]

The best fielder in the world, not the best All-Rounder...

And no, I don't think Symonds is a better 'batsman' than Hodge or Dave Hussey or even Brad Haddin, but, neither of them bowl at his level or field at his level...