**Official** Australia in West Indies

[Top_Cat]

Would be so nice if Windies won though, wouldn't it?

Hell of a filip for the game too.

Sure although there will be those who'll try to take the shine off the win by pointing out Aus's lack of Haydos and Clarke in the line-up.

The best part, though, is that for the WI to win, they'll have to play out of their skins so you know they'll have absolutely deserved it.

 

[Burgey]

True and history is against them but this is the first time in some time the Aussies are facing a tough ask in a 'live' Test. Against India, the loss in Perth happened after the series was essentially over as a contest and SL presented few problems with big first innings totals. Stuart Magill is many things, most of them not good, but he's a determined bugger too. I'd back him to at least improve on his first innings performance, especially if WI lose a couple of early wickets. If I was in Ponting's ear, I'd be suggesting perhaps Midge be used as more of a shock weapon for the second dig. As soon as he throws a few wide, give him a spell and bring him back later. One thing is for certain, Ponting will be leaning heavily on Lee and Clark for the day.

Symonds might be handy with his offies as well, despite how poorly he bowled in the IPL. Maybe even his medium stuff if the pitch is up and down.

Johnson seems so round arm atm, it's amazing. If he's going to bowl like that, maybe he needs to come around the wicket (as noted earlier int eh thread). He just doesn't seem to be doing enough with the ball, and with w hole day to get th eruns, WI can just let those wide ones go, not as if they have to throw wood to win, is it?

 

[howardj]

One of the big things I've noticed is that you can really bat time now against Australia, and wait for the bad balls. By contrast, with Warne and McGrath in the team, they would just suffocate you and not give you anything. Consequently, when the other bowlers came on, you'd feel as though you just had to attack and, consequently, some soft wickets fell.

Fair play to Chanders in the first innings - digging in, showing some fight and resistance. If the Windies can take two things from this Test, it should be Chanders' application and Powell and Edwards on the 3rd evening, when they concentrated on nothing except pitching the ball up and therefore give themselves a chance.

 

[Burgey]

One of the big things I've noticed is that you can really bat time now against Australia, and wait for the bad balls. By contrast, with Warne and McGrath in the team, they would just suffocate you and not give you anything. Consequently, when the other bowlers came on, you'd feel as though you just had to attack and, consequently, some soft wickets fell.

Fair play to Chanders in the first innings - digging in, showing some fight and resistance. If the Windies can take two things from this Test, it should be Chanders' application and Powell and Edwards on the 3rd evening, when they concentrated on nothing except pitching the ball up and therefore give themselves a chance.

AWTA. Every word.

Andrew Symonds as a test player. Discuss.

Hated by many here, is Symonds starting to get to the point where he can no longer be ignored as a genuine test batsman?

I ask this question based on results, not on technique, artistic beauty or good-or-bad-blokedness. For quite some time it's been suggested he is not and will never be a test class player, and that he's also lucky.

Well, luck's a fortune but his run of form over the past two and a bit seasons cannot just be all luck. He has scored some absolutely vital runs at important times for Australia. Personally, I thought his knock in the first innings in this test was arguably his best test innings, while I didn't see a great deal of the second innings.

So, what's the verdict on Symonds now? Have the haters softened their views? Is he good enough now to be considered a genuine test batsman?

 

[NUFAN]

Symonds has a Test average of 45 now after 20 Test matches.

If he's not Test class, it would mean England for instance only have 1 Test Class player in Pietersen.

Symonds has made a stack of runs at crucial times so he's easily test class.

 

[Top_Cat]

I ask this question based on results, not on technique, artistic beauty or good-or-bad-blokedness. For quite some time it's been suggested he is not and will never be a test class player, and that he's also lucky.

Well, luck's a fortune but his run of form over the past two and a bit seasons cannot just be all luck. He has scored some absolutely vital runs at important times for Australia. Personally, I thought his knock in the first innings in this test was arguably his best test innings, while I didn't see a great deal of the second innings.

So, what's the verdict on Symonds now? Have the haters softened their views? Is he good enough now to be considered a genuine test batsman?

Haters, by definition, won't soften their views because to hate, one requires irrationality and ignorance of the facts. Symonds has had some luck at crucial times in his innings', sure. But he has to be given credit for taking advantage of that luck too; sure there are more technically correct players than Symonds (such as Brad Hodge) but would they have turned some poor officiating early doors in Sydney into a 150+ score? What Symonds lacks in technical correctness he more than makes up for grit and in doing his job for the team when they sorely need it as he did against England too. Without him, Aus wouldn't have had the buffer of 400+ in first innings here and certainly wouldn't have given WI 250+ to chase. In a few knocks, he's looked settled while others around him have looked very nervous. From being grateful for a good contribution, it looks like the Test side has started to depend on one. And, dare I say it, he seems to have tightened his play outside off-stump and in milking the leg-side for easy runs.

Saying he's not Test-class should be dead-in-the-water now. He's done enough to show he can at least compete at Test level. Now it remains to be seen whether he can continue it and start to really excell to become a class Test player, year-in year-out.

 

[howardj]

I don't like Symonds at all, I think he's so unsophisticated, and just plain boorish. The Harbijhan thing also exposed him as someone who is selectively sensitive. However, when judging someone as a cricketer, I pay on results. There can be no argument that he not only deserves a place in the Test team, but it is now an important member.

 

[Days of Grace]

My sentiments, exactly. I respect Symonds the cricketer, but have yet to warm to him as a human being.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't like Symonds, but I have to grudgingly admit that he has become a solid Test batsman. Now it's up to him to be consistant, which I still don't think he will, but I didn't think he'd do as well as he has, so who knows?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Symonds' innings yesterday was really good, I must admit. He's developed a major habit for scoring runs when it's most needed, irrespective of the conditions. He's far from my favourite player to watch but you have to give credit to his performances since the 2006/07 Ashes which have been very consistent.

 

[Jono]

Yeah fair play to him, done well. Scary thing is, you knew he'd do the job, whilst I was pretty sure Hodge wouldn't score much more than 50.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah fair play to him, done well. Scary thing is, you knew he'd do the job, whilst I was pretty sure Hodge wouldn't score much more than 50.

Strongly suspect the selectors knew that too. I remember for many years when Hodge scored well early season, this exact reason was brought up as to why he wasn't getting picked in his early 20's. Looks good for 50 and once past 100, scored big but that 50-100 period is and always has been a danger for him.

 

[Laurrz]

I don't like Symonds at all, I think he's so unsophisticated, and just plain boorish. The Harbijhan thing also exposed him as someone who is selectively sensitive. However, when judging someone as a cricketer, I pay on results. There can be no argument that he not only deserves a place in the Test team, but it is now an important member.

It's interesting, i actually do think he's a gun bloke, if you were mates with him especially..as a stranger, thats something different, and i suppose that is where you get most respect from

Actually agreed on the monkey thing, whilst i always backed him, it did come across sometimes that he was just using a bit of an excuse so he wouldn't be called that name - meh

But yea we'd so be in the ****ter without him, he's definitely surprised me
hopefully can take some wickets with his offies if he does bowl and maybe a runout/great catch

 

[Laurrz]

And I know everyone was complaining that Clark didn't get the new cherry in the first dig and didn't bowl as much as the others. That he took the new ball suggests he'll get plenty of the ball tomorrow. Hope he's limber because, like in the Adelaide Ashes win, he'll be used to bowl a long first session spell to put the brakes on, especially since they'll be starting earlier and there will be some swing about. One gets the feeling Magill is due to step-up too. Key player for the WI will be Bravo for mine. After taking a knock in the first dig and scoring a ton, Chanders will be a bit fatigued so I wouldn't back him to do it all again.

on Clark - boy am i happy, win lose or draw.. from now on this is brilliant for Australia as a bowling unit....not only will he be so effective with the new cherry, but this means he'll bowl more overs + bowl at batsman that are new to the crease (like just started the day or a lunch break etc.)

for MacGill - i feel you have to have close in fielders for him...if he's bowling ****.. bluff the batsmen? make em feel there's pressure with every ball.... and bowl round the wicket for the lefties (Devon and Smith) (bound to be lots of rough outside off stump) ..perhaps round the wicket for right handers too...that actually would not be a bad idea..

 

[Burgey]

Strongly suspect the selectors knew that too. I remember for many years when Hodge scored well early season, this exact reason was brought up as to why he wasn't getting picked in his early 20's. Looks good for 50 and once past 100, scored big but that 50-100 period is and always has been a danger for him.

Wish the 50-100 period had troubled him yesterday!!

 

[social]

I must be one of the few people that think Symonds is technically very good - plays straight, short backlift, and has excellent foot movement when set

His major problem, at least until late 2006, is that he appears to be a very nervous starter who hardly moved his feet when he first came to the crease. He also struggles a bit when the ball is bouncing (precisely why I thought he'd score runs in the WI and, should he handle the spin, will murder attacks on the subcontinent)

IMO, people look at the power, use of bottom hand and see balls hit in the air and think he is little more than a glorified slugger - he's obviously far better than that

BTW, people disliking him for his role in the Harby affair are being really harsh. The guy was racially abused twice by an absolute prat - just unfortunate it didnt happen off the field where he could have beaten some sense into the Weed

 

[Craig]

Fair play to Symonds. I'm no fan, but credit is where it is due. He did what Australia needed of him to do and he did it. Still hope the West Indies can get the money here.

 

[pasag]

Symonds was stunning yesterday. I honestly though we'd get rolled for about 50, the pressure was that insane. For him to come out and score 79 in that situation is about as good as it gets.

I reckon we can win this, with our bowlers fresh and on a fifth day pitch. Getting Sarwan and Chanderpaul early is the key, obviously and if they fall we should be able to win it. Also depends on how much leakage MacGill and Johnson do. Really hope Ponting is on the ball today.

 

[NZTailender]

As good as he has been, and as undeniably good a cricketer he is, he's still my number one choice player in international cricket to get hit by a truck, tbh.

 

[PY]

Harby to be the driver caught on camera and sent down imo.