Symonds sent home

[Flem274*]

Play Symonds, just for the entertainment value. If he wasn't injured or dropped or whatever it is this week the CH would be awesome just for the lip Symonds and McCullum would give each other.

 

[social]

What punishment do you think is fitting then social? Nothing so far has deterred Andrew Symonds from drinking, making a fool of himself and putting himself above the team.

They should've suspended him, albeit briefly, in Darwin.

Instead, they chucked him out of the team and he was forced to admit that he needed therapy - your guess is as good as mine as to whether he needed it but the reality is that therapy is far more likely to be successful when the patient submits to it of his own volition rather than as a prerequisite for anything

By taking this route, CA simply added to the sense of abandonment that he had supposedly felt when CA dropped their pants in front of the BCCI at the Harby hearing

Furthermore, a brief suspension suspension had worked before so why the need to change tact?

In this case, fine him - he's injured and cant play so a suspension is irrelevant

Basically, as I've said before, the guy is a professional sportsman so he probably only cares about 2 things (playing and money) and whilst he's still good enough to be picked, it's management's job to get him there in a fit state

As for putting himself above the team, I dont really see that. Some guys like going to the pub, others like having facials and squiring bimbos around town - bottom line is that they are individuals and cant be treated as drones. After all, their job is to perform and that should be the major consideration

 

[Precambrian]

At 33, if he cannot get over a suspension, then he is not fit enough to play cricket at this level.

 

[four_or_six]

Symonds has apologised:

Symonds' apology arrived via an email from his management on Sunday afternoon, referring mainly to McCullum but not the drinking.

"I wish to sincerely apologise to Brendon McCullum for my comments during the radio interview with Roy and HG on Friday afternoon," the statement read.

"My intentions for this interview were light-hearted and my comments no way reflect the respect that I have for McCullum both on and off the field.

"I understand how this has been received differently to the way in which I intended to express myself and for that I am extremely sorry. I wish Brendon nothing but success in his cricket and for the future."

Ponting has had his say:

Even Ponting said he was curious to hear Symonds' views.

"I'd like to have a good conversation with him about the whole situation, as part of the leadership group in the Australian team that's part of my job to do that," Ponting said on Sunday.

"I know at CA, James Sutherland and Michael Brown have been out of the office and I think they're meeting on the whole scenario on Tuesday so by then we'll have a much clearer picture.

"I'd like to consider if I was in that situation I wouldn't have done that, so Andrew's going to have to have a look at that radio interview and work out for himself if he's done something wrong.

"He's not part of our current set-up at the moment, and I don't think there's ever been anything in place to say that he can't actually go out and have a drink.

"Does he need more rehab? That's up to him and his counsellor to work out."

As for Symonds' international future, Ponting was unequivocal.

"Absolutely (he's vital), in all three forms of the games. He has been for us over the last three or four seasons in one-day cricket and the last two in Tests he's been a vital cog in our side," Ponting said.

NZC chief has said he will wait to see what CA do:

His comments have provoked dismay here. New Zealand Cricket chief executive Justin Vaughan said there was no way the comments could be condoned but he would wait to see what action Cricket Australia took before deciding how to approach the matter.

"You can't talk about your fellow players like that," Vaughan said from Sydney where he is taking a brief break. "You can't condone those types of comments. We'd never expect one of our players to talk about anybody like that."

 

[social]

As for Symonds' international future, Ponting was unequivocal.

"Absolutely (he's vital), in all three forms of the games. He has been for us over the last three or four seasons in one-day cricket and the last two in Tests he's been a vital cog in our side," Ponting said.

So basically, they wont suspend him for any lengthy period as that's counter-productive to team performance

Thankyou linesmen, thankyou ball boys

 

[four_or_six]

As for Symonds' international future, Ponting was unequivocal.

"Absolutely (he's vital), in all three forms of the games. He has been for us over the last three or four seasons in one-day cricket and the last two in Tests he's been a vital cog in our side," Ponting said.

So basically, they wont suspend him for any lengthy period as that's counter-productive to team performance

Thankyou linesmen, thankyou ball boys

I'm not sure how hoping that he's okay because he's vital to the side equates to 'we'll play him, no matter what happens'.

 

[TT Boy]

Indeed. If Roy was dispensable CA would have got rid a long time ago. Like Gibbs his only kept onside despite all the stuff he does because he can play. If he was some marginalised guy he would have been told where to go after the Bangladesh escapade.

His radio rant was funny though. His comments about Haydos wife was cringe worthy and I almost thought he was going to say something slightly homophobic when discussing Haydos coffee machine.

 

[Jono]

Why the hell are people bringing up Harbhajan up during this argument? Since when do CA have to do what the BCCI do?

Its the classic eg. of bringing up an irrelevant point of someone worse, and then saying "well if they can do it, we should too!"

 

[BoyBrumby]

Haha, why should CA, James Sutherland and Hilditch be blamed for Symonds acting like a **** again? Clearly they believed the issues were sorted - obviously Symonds is a bigger **** than we all thought.

"Hoped" would've been the verb I'd have gone for. I doubt the Oz board is naive enough to think a piss artist in his mid 30s with a list of recidivism as long as your arm is suddenly going to change, short of admitting he's got a problem and entering the old 12 step program.

Shane Warne took drugs and, at best, took money from a bookie for a weather report

His life is no more than a farce and he was simply a disgrace to the game

The difference between he and Symonds is that Warne was seen as being irreplaceable so now we see people, in a PC environment, getting up on their high horse and wanting to see Symonds axed for acts no more serious than have been committed hundreds of times before

Genius writes its own rules, as they say. However, for all his self-dstructive behaviour, one never really got the impression Warne was out of control. Symonds seems to be on the downward spiral one often sees with addicts. Suspect the bloke's a functioning alcoholic, but that's just my guess from the outside.

The difference is, Harbhajan had provocation and Symonds was simply being himself...

Don't buy that. You can use "provocation" as a defence for pretty much anything. Moreover if everyone slapped an opposing player every time they made a slightly sarcastic comment they'd be two or three dozen fights every game.

Don't see what Harbhajan has to do with the topic at hand tho, unless it's the hoary old "two wrongs making a right" argument. But sir, the BCCI do it too, sir. 'Snot fair...

 

[Precambrian]

Why the hell are people bringing up Harbhajan up during this argument? Since when do CA have to do what the BCCI do?

Its the classic eg. of bringing up an irrelevant point of someone worse, and then saying "well if they can do it, we should too!"

Fully AWTA.

When next Symmo?

 

[Perm]

So basically, they wont suspend him for any lengthy period as that's counter-productive to team performance

So you think management will let him off lightly, even though you've complained about the length and ways of their punishments in regards to Symonds?

Heck, he's got to take some responsibility for himself man. If he wants to make money, then he's still got to retain a sense of professionalism about himself, he can't rely on CA to try and do it all. A little more effort from Symonds, coupled with his personal management and CA officials and then maybe these things wouldn't be an issue.

 

[GIMH]

So **** the IPL?

Yeah,that was clearly what howardj was implying, FFS

 

[honestbharani]

Don't buy that. You can use "provocation" as a defence for pretty much anything. Moreover if everyone slapped an opposing player every time they made a slightly sarcastic comment they'd be two or three dozen fights every game.

Don't see what Harbhajan has to do with the topic at hand tho, unless it's the hoary old "two wrongs making a right" argument. But sir, the BCCI do it too, sir. 'Snot fair...

I didn't say it as a justification... I was replying to a post where someone said what Symonds said was not as bad as what Harbhajan did and therefore I pointed out the reason why I felt what Symonds did was worse....


Provocation should never justify any crime but it should at least make it understandable to an extent... But when stuff happens without provocation, it is almost always worse... IMO anyways.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I didn't say it as a justification... I was replying to a post where someone said what Symonds said was not as bad as what Harbhajan did and therefore I pointed out the reason why I felt what Symonds did was worse....


Provocation should never justify any crime but it should at least make it understandable to an extent... But when stuff happens without provocation, it is almost always worse... IMO anyways.

Well, as others have observed McCullum is something of a **** (apparently, never struck me as such tbh), so this could be considered "provocation", which takes me back to my point about it being a catch-all defence for anything.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think McCullum bastardising himself with an eye on potential Champions League earnings is what ticked Symonds off more than anything else.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

I think McCullum bastardising himself with an eye on potential Champions League earnings is what ticked Symonds off more than anything else.

Sounds pretty hypocritical, don't you think?
All McCullum did was accept an offer.

 

[social]

So you think management will let him off lightly, even though you've complained about the length and ways of their punishments in regards to Symonds?

Heck, he's got to take some responsibility for himself man. If he wants to make money, then he's still got to retain a sense of professionalism about himself, he can't rely on CA to try and do it all. A little more effort from Symonds, coupled with his personal management and CA officials and then maybe these things wouldn't be an issue.

IMO, this is a pretty menial offence for anyone other than Symonds

With his track record, it's not good but because he's still regarded as a valuable playing commodity, I suspect it'll be a slap on the wrist (Ponting has already laid the groundwork - no ban on hiim drinking, etc)

In the bigger picture, as I've said ad infinitum, IF THEY WANT TO GET THE BEST OUT OF HIM AS AN INTERNATIONAL CRICKETER, then the treatment handed out after Darwin was ridiculously over the top and has hurt the team as much as Symonds

There needs to be some sort of compromise where ALL PARTIES (see your last sentence) take responsibility and a compromise is reached or else this will go on with monotonous regularity and the major sufferers will be the team and people like you and I who discuss this nonsense.

If they've had enough of it or dont want to make any effort, DON'T PICK HIM and at the start of next year, don't renew his contract - the media won't care, I won't care etc and in the long run it may be best for the team unless/until another good player comes along that doesnt fit the drone mould

 

[social]

Sounds pretty hypocritical, don't you think?
All McCullum did was accept an offer.

Symonds acknowledged that McCullum was in no way to blame - it was NSW cricket that did the wrong thing by not putting faith in the players that got them to the final

 

[G.I.Joe]

Sounds pretty hypocritical, don't you think?
All McCullum did was accept an offer.

Well, it could reasonably be argued both ways, but it must be kept in mind that the KFC game clashed with a domestic game back home.

 

[Uppercut]

Symonds acknowledged that McCullum was in no way to blame - it was NSW cricket that did the wrong thing by not putting faith in the players that got them to the final

Yeah, this is true. He clearly just doesn't like McCullum and the **** comment was related to that.