Stuart MacGill announces his retirement

[Richard]

But Symonds's selection in 2004 didn't pay-off. Never, not once, in no way at all. When the "gamble" (read: "crass error") was made, it did not pay-off.

It was a later selection, which was less of a gamble and less of a stupid piece of selection, that paid-off.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

I've always been of the opinion that the selection of Symonds was motivated by the search for an allrounder. If that's the case, Hodge and Symonds really can't be compared. That said, I don't rate Symonds bowling, but some do.

 

[Son Of Coco]

But Symonds's selection in 2004 didn't pay-off. Never, not once, in no way at all. When the "gamble" (read: "crass error") was made, it did not pay-off.

It was a later selection, which was less of a gamble and less of a stupid piece of selection, that paid-off.

Eventually indicates over a period of time since then. At some point...after his initial selection...persistence with Symonds paid off. I can't make it any clearer than that.

I don't think I said 'Symond's selection in 2004 immediately paid off'. It took Symonds quite a while to make a decent score...If I recall correctly it wasn't in the first test of the new series when he was back in the team. I don't think it was a case of being a risk until he scored and then all of a sudden no risk at all. He was persisted with for a while because others backed his ability.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've always been of the opinion that the selection of Symonds was motivated by the search for an allrounder. If that's the case, Hodge and Symonds really can't be compared. That said, I don't rate Symonds bowling, but some do.

It was as far as I know. And going with a player who is inferior because you want an allrounder is a risk.

 

[Richard]

Eventually indicates over a period of time since then. At some point...after his initial selection...persistence with Symonds paid off. I can't make it any clearer than that.

I don't think I said 'Symond's selection in 2004 immediately paid off'. It took Symonds quite a while to make a decent score...If I recall correctly it wasn't in the first test of the new series when he was back in the team. I don't think it was a case of being a risk until he scored and then all of a sudden no risk at all. He was persisted with for a while because others backed his ability.

Picking him in 2006/07 is completely different to when they picked him in 2003/04. Because they didn't even persist with him. He was dropped for superior batsmen, several times, then recalled when a place had justifiably opened-up.

And as Camps has said, really, given his bowling has unquestionably been a part of his continued re-selection, he's not directly comparable to better batsmen.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Picking him in 2006/07 is completely different to when they picked him in 2003/04. Because they didn't even persist with him. He was dropped for superior batsmen, several times, then recalled when a place had justifiably opened-up.

And as Camps has said, really, given his bowling has unquestionably been a part of his continued re-selection, he's not directly comparable to better batsmen.

Hodge bowls. At the time he took the place of a recognised batsman. Who is he comparable to then? Only all-rounders in Australia? Is the number 6 spot reserved for an allrounder or the best person for the position? He's directly comparable to whoever he was competing with for the spot at the time.

They persisted with picking him Richard. Each time they did up until he finally made some runs a little more consistently there were other options. They picked him at times when his spot wasn't justified as well as a time when maybe it was. Picking him consistently when a spot is available is persisting with him.

 

[pasag]

I don't know, but I can think of a few players who have better test records than first class. I'm not comparing Casson to Warne by the way, I don't think he'll follow the same path! How will Noffke or Johnson go against India or SA? Who knows? At the moment we have two test class bowlers who are performing regularly. Who do you select from the rest of the bunch here at home? Tait?...he's special at a lower level but hits anything from the square leg umpire through middle stump to point. Bichel? Noffke? If he doesn't take any wickets at least he can bat.

Noffke please.

 

[Richard]

Hodge bowls. At the time he took the place of a recognised batsman. Who is he comparable to then? Only all-rounders in Australia? Is the number 6 spot reserved for an allrounder or the best person for the position? He's directly comparable to whoever he was competing with for the spot at the time.

They persisted with picking him Richard. Each time they did up until he finally made some runs a little more consistently there were other options. They picked him at times when his spot wasn't justified as well as a time when maybe it was. Picking him consistently when a spot is available is persisting with him.

Of course there were other options, there always are. But were any of them obviously as having-a-case as Symonds?

They didn't persist with him. They recalled him twice having dropped him twice when he did not produce the goods. The only time I'd say he had zero case and was selected was 2003/04, and that failed dismally.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Of course there were other options, there always are. But were any of them obviously as having-a-case as Symonds?

They didn't persist with him. They recalled him twice having dropped him twice when he did not produce the goods. The only time I'd say he had zero case and was selected was 2003/04, and that failed dismally.

Christ...so what do you call giving him a number of chances when a position became available? In my language it's persisting with him.

Did Katich have a case? You seem to think he did about 10 posts back. Did Hodge have a case? Martin Love? Was there anyone else batting well in first class cricket at the time with some experience? He replaced a batsman.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Noffke please.

I'd certainly go for Noffke over Tait...even if the latter had been playing recently.

 

[Richard]

Christ...so what do you call giving him a number of chances when a position became available? In my language it's persisting with him.

Giving him multiple chances. Persisting with him would be continuing to pick him for lots of games in a row.

Did Katich have a case? You seem to think he did about 10 posts back. Did Hodge have a case? Martin Love? Was there anyone else batting well in first class cricket at the time with some experience? He replaced a batsman.

Katich had an irrefutable case in 2003/04. In 2005/06, though, his position had become untenable as he'd scored nothing for 5 or 6 Tests. So he had to go. Hodge was already in the team at that point, and Symonds was recalled. Katich in 2006/07? Dunno, but I think Symonds probably had a better case. As I say, Hodge would have played at that point if he'd been fit.

Love? Think the last time he actually scored for Qld was about 2004/05 or so. He's been a no-chance ever since then.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Giving him multiple chances. Persisting with him would be continuing to pick him for lots of games in a row.

Katich had an irrefutable case in 2003/04. In 2005/06, though, his position had become untenable as he'd scored nothing for 5 or 6 Tests. So he had to go. Hodge was already in the team at that point, and Symonds was recalled. Katich in 2006/07? Dunno, but I think Symonds probably had a better case. As I say, Hodge would have played at that point if he'd been fit.

Love? Think the last time he actually scored for Qld was about 2004/05 or so. He's been a no-chance ever since then.

We obviously speak a different language then.

I'm obviously not talking about them all each time Symonds was selected. I think there were other batsmen playing in Australia at those times too.

 

[pasag]

I'd certainly go for Noffke over Tait...even if the latter had been playing recently.

He should be there before any other bowler besides Lee and Clark atm.

 

[Richard]

We obviously speak a different language then.

I'm obviously not talking about them all each time Symonds was selected. I think there were other batsmen playing in Australia at those times too.

Yeah, but as I say - Symonds wasn't completely hopeless for Qld. It's not like every single First-Class player had a better case than him.

Aside from those three - Katich, Hodge and Love - I'm struggling to think of anyone else with more impressive domestic performances than Symonds?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah, but as I say - Symonds wasn't completely hopeless for Qld. It's not like every single First-Class player had a better case than him.

Aside from those three - Katich, Hodge and Love - I'm struggling to think of anyone else with more impressive domestic performances than Symonds?

Bevan

 

[gwo]

Watson...

 

[Richard]

Watson's been unfit more often than he's been fit. And Bevan was last a serious contender for Test selection in, what, 1999/2000? Maybe even earlier.

Bevan was dropped from the ODI team at the time Symonds was making his Test debut.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bevan was dropped from the ODI team at the time Symonds was making his Test debut.

And he responded to that dropping by averaging 100 (or close to) in consecutive First Class seasons, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Richard]

Yeah but let's be realistic - he was never, ever remotely likely to get a Test recall in either 2004/05 or 2005/06 was he? He'd failed too many times.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It was as far as I know. And going with a player who is inferior because you want an allrounder is a risk.

Not when you think that you're getting an allrounder. If you're looking for an allrounder it's far riskier to pick a batsman than an allrounder.