Room For Symonds in Aus test side?

[iamdavid]

Yeah, just worked that out.

I see Ponting said Symonds would bat at 7 if Watson played as well. So would Gilly be at 6, or are is he suggesting three specialist bowlers plus Watson, Symonds and Clarke, do people think?

I hope its not the latter... In fact I hope its only a hypothetical full stop.

Dont think they'd ever be that silly, really hope not atleast, no use having 6 "bowling options" if only three of them are actually capable of getting a wicket.

 

[Richard]

Matt79. When you make a Quick Reply, it will always appear straight away, no matter how many times you post on a page. However, if you reload the page, it will return to the forum default of only once per page.

Aha. Explains why it's never a problem for me, as I never use the QR.

 

[Matt79]

Dont think they'd ever be that silly, really hope not atleast, no use having 6 "bowling options" if only three of them are actually capable of getting a wicket.

Yet playing Symonds at 7 below Gilly kinda implies he's in the team as more of a bowling allrounder than a batsman who can bowl a bit in an ODI or if required for a short spell in a Test. Which is an... interesting way to look at the issue.

 

[aussie]

Watson, as far as I know, has never opened in FC cricket.

It's one hell of a stretch for him to do so in a Test match.

I don't think we should be that desperate to have him in the team.

Opening requires a certain temperament; something that's built up over many years.

My hope is that he overtakes Symonds- and if he's as good as people think, he will.

Agreed, being an all-rounders (a fast-bowling one too) & opening the batting is a very tough task. It hasn't been done in history so really even if Watson has potential to do it is a very tough task. His role definately should bat no higher than 6 & maybe in the future if his game really improves he could be Australia's Kallis...

 

[aussie]

I think that's just using hindsight to be clever, TBH. Virtually no-one thought Hussey should have been playing at the time - he was an opener, Katich had performed well not so long ago, and in fact I always had and still do rate Katich very highly.

Dropping him in 2003\04 for Symonds was nothing short of a disgrace. Who on Earth drops someone who's scored an unbeaten century and a half-century in the previous Test for someone who's never played a Test before? It was plain madness, and I was delighted it was reversed in the Third Test.

When you look back at it now based on Symonds performances then you could say it was a stupid decison but at the time it would not have been so clear cut to judge.

For that series Australia were looking for a bit of variation in their attack & based on how well Symonds was doing in ODI cricket, his all-rounder ability seemed like it could be very useful in Sri Lanka & at the time many were backing Symonds to take his ODI form into test cricket but it wasn't to be.

 

[The Sean]

Agreed, being an all-rounders (a fast-bowling one too) & opening the batting is a very tough task. It hasn't been done in history so really even if Watson has potential to do it is a very tough task. His role definately should bat no higher than 6 & maybe in the future if his game really improves he could be Australia's Kallis...

Surely you're forgetting the legendary Manoj Prabhakar?

 

[Richard]

Agreed, being an all-rounders (a fast-bowling one too) & opening the batting is a very tough task. It hasn't been done in history so really even if Watson has potential to do it is a very tough task. His role definately should bat no higher than 6 & maybe in the future if his game really improves he could be Australia's Kallis...

Surely you're forgetting the legendary Manoj Prabhakar?

IIRR Syed Abid Ali - and possibly Solkar too - did such a thing too.

Ravi of course did it as a batsman-spinner.

 

[Richard]

[/B]

When you look back at it now based on Symonds performances then you could say it was a stupid decison but at the time it would not have been so clear cut to judge.

For that series Australia were looking for a bit of variation in their attack & based on how well Symonds was doing in ODI cricket, his all-rounder ability seemed like it could be very useful in Sri Lanka & at the time many were backing Symonds to take his ODI form into test cricket but it wasn't to be.

Regardless of anything, you do not drop someone who's scored 125 and 77* in their last Test, unless they were dropped like 3 times in each innings. Especially if those innings were the largest reason the game was not lost, which they were.

If Katich could not bowl, at all, that'd have turned the decision from unutterably stupid into merely pretty stupid. But Katich can bowl, barely worse than Symonds. And his fielding, while not in Symonds' class, is not remotely incompetent.

There was no excuse to ditch Katich for Symonds. Never - never mind when he'd just scored 125 and 77* and saved Australia from a home series defeat.

 

[Bodyline]

Symo

Surely Symo's haircut counts for something?

In the off season Symo performs in a Fine Young Canibals tribute act.

 

[Malleeboy]

I wonder how much Symonds knocking back England helps him. The selectors feel like they have to give him a decent shot at it since he choose this country. He is one of those players we'd all like to see come off in the Test arena. Remember that he really struggled in ODI until he finally came good, and now he is an automatic selection into the OCI side. Maybe the selector are hoping that one big knock will settle him.

Anyway for me(it should be) Watto at 6 and probably try Hodge as an opener. (As Langer showed if your good enough batsman, and you want it bad enough, you can make a success batting in a different position.)

 

[Richard]

I wonder how much Symonds knocking back England helps him. The selectors feel like they have to give him a decent shot at it since he choose this country. He is one of those players we'd all like to see come off in the Test arena. Remember that he really struggled in ODI until he finally came good, and now he is an automatic selection into the OCI side. Maybe the selector are hoping that one big knock will settle him.

I think it's almost inconceivable that such a thing has any bearing whatsoever on the equation TBH.

Anyway for me(it should be) Watto at 6 and probably try Hodge as an opener. (As Langer showed if your good enough batsman, and you want it bad enough, you can make a success batting in a different position.)

But why do either if you have Hussey in the team?

The only reason Hussey not opening makes any sense is if you bring in a previously-unpicked specialist opener.

 

[Malleeboy]

Richard,

Are you saying selectors don't ever rely on sentiment? I hope it doesn't either but people make decisions on more than just the facts, sometimes they have impressions and feelings that sway their perceptions even if they are unaware of them. Just look at this board there are people who hold views that defy all logic, prefer or dislike certain players despite the reality of what they've achieved. Selectors are human and subject to normal biases, presumptions and unreasoned tendencies.

As for Hussey, I think there is a reluctance to change what is a very successfully middle order. He would make the obvious choice as an opener but the selectors have already talked to Hodge about opening, so using Hodge there is obviously on their minds. I'm a Vic, so getting Hodge into the team is something I'd be keen on.

 

[Richard]

Richard,

Are you saying selectors don't ever rely on sentiment? I hope it doesn't either but people make decisions on more than just the facts, sometimes they have impressions and feelings that sway their perceptions even if they are unaware of them. Just look at this board there are people who hold views that defy all logic, prefer or dislike certain players despite the reality of what they've achieved. Selectors are human and subject to normal biases, presumptions and unreasoned tendencies.

Oh undoubtedly so, but I think going that far would be stretching it really.

As for Hussey, I think there is a reluctance to change what is a very successfully middle order. He would make the obvious choice as an opener but the selectors have already talked to Hodge about opening, so using Hodge there is obviously on their minds. I'm a Vic, so getting Hodge into the team is something I'd be keen on.

I'd be keen on it too, but only if he was going to be batting at four (or five if needbe). Having him open just screams at me "repeat Ramprakash case".

(Or hopefully, if it's tried, the next Fleming case)

 

[Malleeboy]

I don't think it is the only reason for their choices (about Roy) but it may play a small part in their prejudices. I think taunting the Poms with the fact he could have been yours type sentiment is very tempting for Aussies.

So you would never have put Langer in as an opener? Or put Hussey in the middle order? When playing teams that are unlikely to challenge us, does a little testing and order changing hurt, so as to get the correct order when facing real competition?

 

[iamdavid]

So you would never have put Langer in as an opener? Or put Hussey in the middle order? When playing teams that are unlikely to challenge us, does a little testing and order changing hurt, so as to get the correct order when facing real competition?

To be fair I think India and particularly Sri Lanka are about as real as the competition gets at the moment.

 

[shortpitched713]

To be fair I think India and particularly Sri Lanka are about as real as the competition gets at the moment.

Didn't you know? England is the only real competition.

 

[Richard]

I don't think it is the only reason for their choices (about Roy) but it may play a small part in their prejudices. I think taunting the Poms with the fact he could have been yours type sentiment is very tempting for Aussies.

Frankly, though, I don't think Symonds is good enough to play for England in Tests, never mind Australia.

So you would never have put Langer in as an opener? Or put Hussey in the middle order? When playing teams that are unlikely to challenge us, does a little testing and order changing hurt, so as to get the correct order when facing real competition?

No, I wouldn't. And if Langer had come back at three and Hussey continued at the top, yes, I do indeed believe they'd still have been successful.

Heck, I was loosely wondering whether when Langer returned from injury in 2005\06 he might bat at five and Hussey stay at the top. And I reckon that'd have worked, too.

I don't really think there's any point picking players to bat in unfamiliar positions unless you're really stretched. And just because "it works sometimes" I don't believe that justifies it. It very often works if you bat players in their favoured slots too, which is often overlooked.

 

[Richard]

To be fair I think India and particularly Sri Lanka are about as real as the competition gets at the moment.

Didn't you know? England is the only real competition.

TBH, it changes every 5 minutes or so (or at least every series) doesn't it?

How anyone can expect England to challenge Australia when they can't beat Lanka or India at home (and lose to the latter), though, is beyond me.

 

[Prince EWS]

How anyone can expect England to challenge Australia when they can't beat Lanka or India at home (and lose to the latter), though, is beyond me.

It's not as if England were at full strength though, nor did they play to the best of their ability. If England field the team they did against India, they will get smashed by Australia indeed, but if they have a full compliment and perform at their best, they will challenge Australia at home. Australia in Australia is a totally different matter though.

 

[Prince EWS]

Frankly, though, I don't think Symonds is good enough to play for England in Tests, never mind Australia.

He's not good enough to play for any of the top 7 countries, really. Australia seem to think they can carry him anyway though, which they probably can at home.