Who were the bowlers they were up against?
Haha, stoked he's getting a mention at all tbh.There's Heal, there's Cullen... heck, I hear some are still talking about Hauritz.
Hodge was injured at the time of Symonds' selection, else he'd have played. That much was specifically stated.
Right, well Symond's over any other batsman that was performing well in the First Class scene at the time.
The likes of Mark Ealham, Neil Killeen, Robin Martin-Jenkins. Proven quality all - proven far better than the Bresnans, Mahmoods, Plunketts etc. But because some clever-aess thought they were cleverer than the game itself, they decided Mahmood et al had more potential and hence picked them and found-out that they were some of the most useless ODI bowlers in history.
Legend.
TBH, I can't immediately think who those might've been. Symonds' domestic record isn't outstanding, but it's not poor either.
Symonds was first selected in 2004.
ODI doesn't make a great test player. Compared to some of the more seasoned performers at first class level he was a risk. I didn't realise they had to be a huge risk to even get a mention.
CMJ may be a better writer than RMJ is cricketer, but he can certainly bowl in one-day cricket, far better than most in this country can.
I'll agree with you on Mahmood, Plunkett and I have no idea who Bresnan is. I can't see how Ealham would be of much use at test level, but anyway...he was a decent one-day player from what I saw. I guess as much use as Mahmood at least. Robin's dad wrote some good books.
Yeah, and that was one of the most stupid pieces of selection in history, dropping Katich who'd just saved a Test.
But Symonds had a decent first-class record and experience and success at some level of international cricket, so it was, theoretically less risky than an uncapped batsman.
Right, I was getting confused as to how they were better test choices, although Mahmood etc weren't great.
Nah, it didn't. It was a risk that fell flat on its face, as it 100% deserved to. It was only later (when it was less of a risk) that Symonds' selection paid-off, and even then it's only paid-off because he basically has immunity from an Umpire giving him out.Maybe so, but it was a risk
Eventually it's paid off a bit.
Theoretically yes, however each tie he was selected earlier in his career (except the first time) it was after not performing to any great level in previous tests while there were batsmen proven in first class cricket not getting a shot. A bloke that scores 200 gets dropped yet Symonds is continually selected...that's somewhat risky. As Richard mentioned, Katich was doing a decent job at Test cricket and got dropped, certainly was going better than Symonds when he started. These guys were still around in 2004.
Hence my saying 'eventually it's paid off a bit'. Would have saved you at least a sentence!