But what is the point when you have Jaques and Rogers, two batsman who have been destroying Australian and English attacks, both pushing for selection as a partner to Matthew Hayden? Seems unnecessary to even think of shifting Hussey.
In theory. But, it doesn't work that way.
Maybe the fact that the balance of the side would be better with more bowling options. We've seen how weak our side can be without both McGrath and Warne. If there can be room made for Watson and Symonds it gives more options for Ponting.
Because you have 2 middle-order players with even more compelling cases for selection, in Symonds and Watson.
On the Hussey opening issue, I think he's stated somewhere that he'd prefer not to bat in the top order, so it's pretty unlikely unless he is very cleverly negotiated with for mine. I don't see a problem with bringing in a Jaques or a Rogers to open. Leave Hussey where he is, it's fine.
If Watson is in the side, Symonds's bowling will be completely and utterly irrelevant really. If Symonds gets selected ahead of Watson, I'll be angry and disappointed, but at least I can actually see the logic in it. If Symonds gets selected as well as Watson, I'll probably be less angry because Watson is there, but at the same time, more confused at annoyed at the selection of Symonds. If there's already five bowling options in the team better than Symonds, there is little to no reason to select Symonds over a better batsman for the sake of his bowling.
I don't beleive that Symonds has a compelling case, although we could go on for ever whether it's a form vs class issue. Not too sure about the Rogers thing though, but he's being going well.
Yeah was a great day, that.
Rogers is most certainly a genuine opener.
I don't think he should be picked as a specialist batsman, but it's not as simple as looking at first class records and picking the guy with the best one. Symonds has a range of things in his favour aside from his FC and test averages, and it's not a matter of comparing him directly with Rogers or Hodge as a batsman, even if Watson is in the side too.
Agreed. Good point on the Hodge dropping aswell. Selectors just don't know what they want to do.
That's exactly the point. If I were an Australian selector I would want Watson to prove he can get through more than 10 hours of cricket before he gets injured before I'd pick him. Symonds is a good enough bat at test level when you add in the fact that he is probably the best fielder in the world, can add a little with the ball and rarely gets injured.
So what is it a matter of then? Picking him based on his bowling would be ridiculous given there would be five better bowlers in the side than him already. Picking him just because he is in the ODI side would make as much sense as England's continued and ridiculed selection of the likes of Vaughan and Strauss in the wrong form the game.
Again, this is all a mute issue atm, as a lot of it will come down to form in the early games of the season. If there was a test to be played next week Symonds would have to be considered the best batsman because he has a test century and half century to his name in the last two tests and no other batsman has any first class form to press their case. Come early November there will have been 2 or 3 Pura Cup games for players to press their cases with big runs.
As I said earlier, it's his bowling, fielding, international experience, consistent success in the ODI format with the bat and his record in recent tests that will support his inclusion as a batsman. Obviously it's not a matter of saying "he's not as good as X but we'll pick him anyway", it's simply a matter of there being more things to consider than overall record. Symonds brings a lot to a team, and he's recently shown that he's not totally incapable with the bat at test level. That's a strong case, simple as that. If Hussey opens, Symonds is probably the most likely candidate to come into the middle order, with Watson as the all-rounder. If Hussey doesn't open I think Symonds will miss out, but it'll be a close thing.
Some things simply become irrelevant though within the context of the rest of the side. With Watson in the side at 6, Symonds's bowling becomes irrelevant. ODI performances are irrelevant in general at test level IMO, and minor factors like fielding and international experience do nothing to overweigh the fact that Hodge is an infinitely better batsman.
Except they aren't "minor factors". Particularly, international experience (and success) is a hugely important factor to Australian selectors, which is why those who succeed in one form of the game almost always get preferential treatment when it comes to selection in the other, unless it's clear that they aren't capable. Ditto for issues like how well a player gels with the team.
