Andrew Symonds as a Test cricketer?

[bond21]

Despite what you seem to think, Symonds is not proven in test cricket either. One innings where he should have been out five times along with some quickfire declaration not-outs against tired bowlers proves nothing. Have you actually seen the guy bat at test level, or have you just decided that now he averages 40 and happens to be Australian, you'll defend him to the hilt?

Talking about bad techniques... Sinclair has more technique is his socks than Symonds has ever shown. I'll end this now because our opinions are so polarised that this will never get anyway. Reply if you wish but I shan't retort.

and?

Dravid is technically perfect and he couldnt buy a run today.

Symonds is not technically perfect, noone is, not even Ponting but he gets runs. His technique is good enough to be a test batsman.

Batting = getting runs

Batting is not about looking good or being technically perfect.

Sinclair cant even get into the nz team, Symonds is getting runs for fun.

Sure he got given not out, but Ponting was out edging the ball onto his pads...

it all evens out.

 

[bond21]

there are better batsmen in the country than him who arent playing test cricket.

but he is the best fielder of all time and he bowls off spin and medium pace...

 

[Craig]

What makes you so certain he is the best fielder of all-time? Have you watched every game of cricket ever?

 

[Prince EWS]

and?

Dravid is technically perfect and he couldnt buy a run today.

Symonds is not technically perfect, noone is, not even Ponting but he gets runs. His technique is good enough to be a test batsman.

Batting = getting runs

Batting is not about looking good or being technically perfect.

Sinclair cant even get into the nz team, Symonds is getting runs for fun.

Sure he got given not out, but Ponting was out edging the ball onto his pads...

it all evens out.

I don't know why I unignore your posts. A few things though.

* Sinclair has just been picked for NZ
* I disagree with pretty much all of that strongly
* I actually wasn't saying what you think I was with my post, but I agree with what I didn't say anyway
* How does Ponting edging one onto his pads have anything to do with Symonds? That means Ponting was unlucky and Symonds was lucky, FFS
* Ponting was actually out earlier anyway, caught down the leg side not given, so its a mute point

Have fun in ignore-land.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Voted no. Would walk into the WI team though.

Gayle
Symonds
Sarwan
Chanderpaul
Samuels
Bravo
Baugh
Taylor
Powell
Lawson
Edwards

Bravo used to bat at 3. I'd think he'd be the most equipped to open the batting. Decent technique and decent temperament. Regarding Lawson, he has a lot to prove that he's worthy of playing Tests again. I'd have Collymore ahead of him comfortably until he has an excellent FC season.

It amazes me that Collymore was dropped when he was the number 11 ranked bowler in the world at one point in 2007.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It's decent. It's not great, though, and when you consider the pitches he bats on, it doesn't really have a patch on Sinclair's or Fulton's.

I really don't think New Zealand is in any position to reject the services of a guy who has proved that he is capable of scoring Test centuries. He may not be world class, but teams like New Zealand and West Indies aren't spoiled for choice.

 

[Prince EWS]

I really don't think New Zealand is in any position to reject the services of a guy who has proved that he is capable of scoring Test centuries. He may not be world class, but teams like New Zealand and West Indies aren't spoiled for choice.

New Zealand's "new" middle order is under-rated. The fact that they haven't managed to select their best team in their last few series and got aptly belted should not detract from Sinclair, Fulton and Fleming. They still have a lot of question marks over their openers but I have complete faith in their middle order.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Keen on seeing the improvements in Sinclair's game, but at times earlier in his Test career he just didn't look up to it. I'm still certain Symonds would have received a handful of caps for New Zealand by now if he were eligible. And if he managed to do anything of note in that time, he'd be there and thereabouts, if not in the team.

 

[Prince EWS]

Keen on seeing the improvements in Sinclair's game, but at times earlier in his Test career he just didn't look up to it. I'm still certain Symonds would have received a handful of caps for New Zealand by now if he were eligible. And if he managed to do anything of note in that time, he'd be there and thereabouts, if not in the team.

I'm sure Symonds would have been given a game at one point, but I think he'd have been found out and discarded by now. And as much as Sinclair has looked "not up to it" at times in his test career, the same can be said for Symonds, and IMO Symonds has looked much less "up to it" at said junctures. Sinclair's first class record is better in what was generally harded conditions to bat in as well.

And, as I said before, to criticise Sinclair's technique when comparing him to Andrew Symonds would be taking it a bit too far, given Symonds's technique is pretty much disgraceful anyway and much worse than Sinclair's as a whole. I'm not saying everything should be based on technique, at all, but to bring Sinclair's technique into the debate would be silly considering who we're comparing him to, IMO.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Symonds in any other country probably would have been given a game a lot earlier, when he wasn't ready, and wouldn't have been able/allowed to find the time to mature.

 

[Richard]

I don't know why I unignore your posts.

Haha, AWTA. Even I'm not bothering these days, and that's saying something.

 

[aussie]

If the umpiring had been of a decent standard then Symonds would have made 52 and 30 respectively. Good contributions, but hardly convincing. Then when you factor in how much he looked like getting in, then I wouldn't exepect much from Symonds in the future, unless poor umpiring or catching intervenes.

Can't punish a batsmen for the umpire not giving you out thats nonsense IMO. This is where technology can have a bigger impact but thats a different debate altogether. Symonds though did look very good if you look past the bad decisons & cashed in brilliantly, Dravid was dropped in both test so far & hasn't cashed in, so me for Symonds has proven he can be a solid test batsman & even though blokes like Hodge & Katich may be better batsmen than him & Watson potentially would be a better all-rounder (although Watson unfortunately seems to be a liabilty) with his other very valuable contributions in the field & with the ball he could well & be in the team for a while yet.

 

[Richard]

Thing is, many other players can cash-in without Umpiring error. Symonds, to date, still owes pretty much every notable deed in his Test career to Umpiring.

This makes him a wholly average player to date. And if he continues to play in the same manner, he can expect to fail lots.

Also, while you don't punish him for the Umpire not giving him out, you should (and mostly people are) punished for getting into the eventuality where an Umpire should give you out.

 

[Jono]

Can't punish a batsmen for the umpire not giving you out thats nonsense IMO. This is where technology can have a bigger impact but thats a different debate altogether. Symonds though did look very good if you look past the bad decisons & cashed in brilliantly, Dravid was dropped in both test so far & hasn't cashed in, so me for Symonds has proven he can be a solid test batsman & even though blokes like Hodge & Katich may be better batsmen than him & Watson potentially would be a better all-rounder (although Watson unfortunately seems to be a liabilty) with his other very valuable contributions in the field & with the ball he could well & be in the team for a while yet.

You don't punish the batsman, but you put the knocks into perspective in the same way you do it if it was done on a flat deck, or against a poor bowling attack, or when the team was already in a dominant position etc.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Personally, as I argued at the time, I don't think Symonds was out LBW at all in his Boxing Day innings last year. There was enough doubt IMO. He was definitely out at least once and probably up to three times in his most recent century though.

I still think he played some very good cricket, but I think there's a question mark over his performance nevertheless.

What can't be denied is that Symonds is playing better right now in test cricket than most expected him to, and that as it stands he deserves his spot. Regardless of the letoffs, he still had to make the runs, and 150+ from that position is an achievement anyway. I still can't enjoy watching him bat though.

 

[Pratters]

I still can't enjoy watching him bat though.

It is interesting how many people don't like watching him, particularly in tests. It annoys me so much when I see him bat in tests.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It is interesting how many people don't like watching him, particularly in tests. It annoys me so much when I see him bat in tests.

He's just not a stylish batsman and his technique annoys me as something of a purist. He can play some lovely shots at times, I thought one over in particular where he murdered three cover drives off Sharma (I think) was great, when he was on about 110. Still, he's probably my least favourite batsman to watch right now, in tests. I enjoy him in ODIs sometimes.

 

[Pratters]

He's just not a stylish batsman and his technique annoys me as something of a purist. He can play some lovely shots at times, I thought one over in particular where he murdered three cover drives off Sharma (I think) was great, when he was on about 110. Still, he's probably my least favourite batsman to watch right now, in tests. I enjoy him in ODIs sometimes.

Yeah agree completely and share the same sentiments. Annoying watching in tests but can still play fabulous shots and can be good to watch in ODIs.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Can't wait too see Symonds in the next Twenty20 match on the 1st of Feb. He will unleash big-time.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Definitely cemented his spot for some time now, unfortunately for the likes of Watson and those of us who don't much like watching him play.

Batted well again in the second innings, and his bowling was absolutely crucial. Clearly outbowled Hogg on the 5th day, and aside from the Dravid dismissal which wasn't out he really earned his wickets. He's obviously not going to be a dangerous spinner all the time, but the fact that he can get sharp, dangerous turn against quality players on the 5th day as well as bowl useful seamers the rest of the time does significantly increase his value as a player. This will be especially true if Australia are without a specialist spinner any time in the near future and get stuck on a wearing pitch or simply one that turns.

And you can't question his batting record of late at all, or his efforts in the field. He's simply turning into a really valuable test cricketer.