Room For Symonds in Aus test side?

[NUFAN]

Obviously. Greg Matthews was tremendously under-rated as a test player (except by himself. )

Yep. In seriousness though I wouldn't expect Symonds to have any better figures then Matthews did. Agree or disagree?

Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

33 1849 130 41.08 4 12 61 5/103 48.22 2 17 0

 

[Prince EWS]

Yep. In seriousness though I wouldn't expect Symonds to have any better figures then Matthews did. Agree or disagree?

Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St

33 1849 130 41.08 4 12 61 5/103 48.22 2 17 0

If Symonds averages over 40 with the bat at the end of his test career, I rate my chances of becoming a test bowler.

 

[Richard]

TBU on Matthews, he only averaged 34 during Australia's rubbish period. An overrated batsman.














(IN JEST!!!!!!!!!!)

 

[aussie]

If Symonds isn't an allrounder, then what the hell is he? He certainly isn't a specialist test batsman.

Not ATM no, but as i just said have a gut feeling Symo will make the same transition to test cricket as he did in ODI's. Plus the fact that with Ponting captain once that transition is made he be the first name of the team sheet..

 

[Julian87]

The problem with Symonds is that he is the most useless test bowler I have ever seen. He can not be classed as an all rounder because he has no bowling technique, does nothing with his medium pacers and his off spin is terrible in one day cricket let alone test matches. His batting is not good enough for him to make the team either. We all now know the selectors want him to concentrate on his spin bowling to lessen the loss of Warne, but **** me, I can see this backfiring.

If we want a number six who can bowl a bit of spin, it is Cameron White. Everyone hates his bowling, but he actually has a decent FC bowling record for someone who bowls on some of the roads in Australia to blokes like Lehmann, Elliott, Rogers, Jaques and Voges etc who tbh, would make most other test sides in the world. On fourth and fifth day pitches, as a fifth option, he would be gun imo. I also think a combo of Brad Hodge and Michael Clarke would be a better bowling option in test matches than Symonds.

A while back I was all for Watson opening for Australia and I wouldn't be too annoyed now if that is what happens. But Phil Jaques and Chris Rogers just had the A tour and Jaques was magnificent from all reports and really does deserve a shot at the vacant opening spot. More so than Rogers anyway. My top six would actually depend on where we are playing and whether it is a spinners track or not:

1 Matt Hayden
2 Phil Jaques
3 Ricky Ponting
4 Mike Hussey
5 Michael Clarke
6 Cameron White/Shane Watson

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Don't particularly want Symonds in the team. Though as I've said a number of times, I think his bowling in test cricket has actually been vaguely useful, which is more than I expected. He's done well keeping the runs down at times, and he bowled a telling spell at the MCG two seasons back.

I just don't think he's one of the best test batsmen in the country, simple as that. He's not the worst, and I can actually see him maintaining a passable test average, but as an all-rounder there's no doubt Watson is a better choice with both bat and ball, and guys like Hodge are obviously far better batsmen. Symonds simply shouldn't be in the test side, though I can see why they favour him given how much he contributes in ODIs.

He probably can't be left out now though, especially given Watson's lack of fitness.

 

[Gowza]

i don't think he should be there, though i don't really think australia need an allrounder in our test team. for whatever reason the selectors are set on an allrounder and with that being the case symonds probably is the best option. watson is too easily injured, he's just too much of a risk imo to be picked for the test side, but if he didn't have that problem he'd probably be a better choice over symonds. other than those 2 players there are no other allrounders who are really ready for test cricket imo. maybe white but from what i've seen of his bowling i don't even consider him an allrounder, he's a batsmen who bowls a bit (and not very well imo).

being that symonds doesn't really do much with the ball, and even if he gets the overs he's not that effective in the longer version of the game (especially at test level) we probably should go for a specialist batsman who will probably be more consistent with the bat and bowl almost or as effectively as symonds. and those options would include players like hodge, clarke, david hussey, especially if they're going to be using symonds' spin more than his pace bowling.

 

[brockley]

I expect symmo to play the first test.
Don't expect many wickets this season his bowling is getting worse,hope mcdonald has a good season to put pressure on symmo.
Watson is not a viable test player he has trouble playing one dayers/20 20 let alone 5 days of intensive cricket.

 

[SJS]

i don't think he should be there, though i don't really think australia need an allrounder in our test team.....

If Symonds was truly an all rounder and not a bits-and-pieces player, I would have said, sure Australia need a genuine allrounder - anyside does. But his bowling is no better than that of a bits and pieces player and his batting is of limited over lower middle order level.

If he is an allrounder for test matches so is Clarke. A better one since he bats so much better.

 

[iamdavid]

Don't particularly want Symonds in the team. Though as I've said a number of times, I think his bowling in test cricket has actually been vaguely useful, which is more than I expected. He's done well keeping the runs down at times, and he bowled a telling spell at the MCG two seasons back.

I just don't think he's one of the best test batsmen in the country, simple as that. He's not the worst, and I can actually see him maintaining a passable test average, but as an all-rounder there's no doubt Watson is a better choice with both bat and ball, and guys like Hodge are obviously far better batsmen. Symonds simply shouldn't be in the test side, though I can see why they favour him given how much he contributes in ODIs.

He probably can't be left out now though, especially given Watson's lack of fitness.

Agree with everything you say, I think people overstate the mediocrity of Symonds bowling, his approach and action look very ungainly and he dosent look awfully threatening, but he is capable of bowling to a plan and given helpful conditions he can nip out a wicket or two. And really thats all thats expected of him, a 5th bowler who will build a bit of pressure and be steady for 5-15 overs a day.
Tbh dont think his bowling would be any less effective at test level than either Watson or White atm.

Its just that, as has been said, he's holding down a middle order batting spot and there are so many more capable and deserving batsman going round atm who he is keeping out of the side, Hodge, D Hussey, Watson, Katich and others all look like they'd be more substantial contributors with the bat.
And while his bowling is handy, the job it does is only to bowl those few overs of backup per day, and its quite likely David Hussey, Watson, Michael Clarke, Hodge or hell even Ponting would be capable of doing that.

Symonds selection is not the calamity some people treat is as, its not like he's way out of his depth or anything, there are just better options which are being ignored.

 

[Matt79]

On the plus side, he is a dynamite fielder and probably saves some runs there. But I'd have Hodge at 6.

 

[Gowza]

for me the issue with having an allrounder in the aussie side is that atm australian standards and their performance is so high that the allrounder coming into the side needs to be comparable to a specialist batsman, specialist bowler and be pretty good in the field. someone like kallis would fit in, though kallis still needs to improve his bowling stats slightly to be that good. as said symonds isn't that bad just that there are a few more better options which are being ignored atm (though finding a better fielder is probably impossible). personally i'd like to see david hussey given ago.

 

[pup11]

I think in the absence of Watto its really important that Australia sticks with Symonds, without Warne and McGrath it won't be too easy for Australia to do well in test cricket with just 4 frontline bowlers so Roy can chip in with seamers and offies.
But from what i can see is Roy's bowling standard (which was never too high anyway) has gone down a bit after his bicep surgery so that could be a problem.
A lot depends on how well he can bat in test cricket, i hope his 150 odd at the MCG could trigger his test career in the same way his 140 odd in the first game of 03 world cup triggered his Odi career.

 

[Matt79]

I think in the absence of Watto its really important that Australia sticks with Symonds, without Warne and McGrath it won't be too easy for Australia to do well in test cricket with just 4 frontline bowlers so Roy can chip in with seamers and offies.
But from what i can see is Roy's bowling standard (which was never too high anyway) has gone down a bit after his bicep surgery so that could be a problem.
A lot depends on how well he can bat in test cricket, i hope his 150 odd at the MCG could trigger his test career in the same way his 140 odd in the first game of 03 world cup triggered his Odi career.

Although if four good-to-very good bowlers can't get the job done, its hard to see what a fifth average-to-terrible bowler is going to bring to the party. Unless the Aussies want to make someone follow on, they should be able to get through two innings worth of bowling without getting too shagged...

 

[Matt79]

for me the issue with having an allrounder in the aussie side is that atm australian standards and their performance is so high that the allrounder coming into the side needs to be comparable to a specialist batsman, specialist bowler and be pretty good in the field. someone like kallis would fit in, though kallis still needs to improve his bowling stats slightly to be that good. as said symonds isn't that bad just that there are a few more better options which are being ignored atm (though finding a better fielder is probably impossible). personally i'd like to see david hussey given ago.

Good point, although I'd be tempted to say that Kallis' batting alone would get him a starting slot in the Aussie team. Once you added his bowling, he'd be a certainty. Especially given they've previously selected Symonds and Watson for their ability to bowl a bit.

 

[Perm]

Good point, although I'd be tempted to say that Kallis' batting alone would get him a starting slot in the Aussie team. Once you added his bowling, he'd be a certainty. Especially given they've previously selected Symonds and Watson for their ability to bowl a bit.

I don't think there is any doubt that Kallis would make the Australian XI as a batsman alone. He's better than Hussey, Clarke and Watson/Symonds.

 

[Steulen]

If the Aus Test side needs an allrounder, isn't the first question what he would bring to the bowling attack?

I guess Stuart Clark is a certainty, and in all probability he'll continue to be excellent. But then there's Brett Lee, who simply doesn't take his wickets quickly enough to be a genuine opening strike bowler, and the third seamer will probably be someone like Tait (if fit) or Johnson who could be successes but have proven little at Test level so far (As an aside, the idiot selectors should of course revert to Gillespie, but they won't). MacGill as specialist spinner, I guess?

That attack doesn't strike me as being overly formidable. Is there a case then for selecting an allrounder who is primarily a bowler who can bat a bit, say someone in the Pollock / Vaas mould? I know England have suffered from tailitis going down this road, but Australia have the Gilchrist insurance, which should make all the difference.

No idea who that'd be, btw. Maybe give Andy Bichel a call, eh

 

[Matt79]

I don't think there is any doubt that Kallis would make the Australian XI as a batsman alone. He's better than Hussey, Clarke and Watson/Symonds.

Agree re Watson/Symonds. He's probably better than Clarke. He's not better than Hussey in the time that Hussey has been playing tests.

Since the start of season 2005/6:
Hussey: 16 Matches, 1597 Runs, 79.85 Average, 5 Centuries, 8 Half-Centuries
Kallis: 14 Matches, 1093 Runs, 45.54 Average, 2 Centuries, 7 Half-Centuries

Plus there's the difference in strike rates between Hussey and Kallis.

 

[Perm]

Agree re Watson/Symonds. He's probably better than Clarke. He's not better than Hussey in the time that Hussey has been playing tests.

Since the start of season 2005/6:
Hussey: 16 Matches, 1597 Runs, 79.85 Average, 5 Centuries, 8 Half-Centuries
Kallis: 14 Matches, 1093 Runs, 45.54 Average, 2 Centuries, 7 Half-Centuries

Plus there's the difference in strike rates between Hussey and Kallis.

Strike rate is largely irrelevant in Test cricket. I thought Kallis would have been better than that TBH, but I think he would make the team ahead of Hussey as a batsman anyway, regardless of being in inferior form.

 

[Matt79]

Strike rate is largely irrelevant in Test cricket. I thought Kallis would have been better than that TBH, but I think he would make the team ahead of Hussey as a batsman anyway, regardless of being in inferior form.

Strike rate isn't irrelevant when it is as markedly different as Hussey and Kallis' would be AND when other aspects are at least roughly equal. Other things being equal, its better to score your runs quickly. And rather than other things being equal, other things also point to Hussey being a better batsman over this period.