End of the Test road for Symonds

[brockley]

Heaven frobid that please symmo couldn't bat out of a waste paper basket in 4/5 day cricket this year.
You have to be joking.
I wouldn't let him play in a domestic 4 dayer even if it was qld,and i lived in brisbane for 3 years too.

 

[Smith]

Some serious misunderstanding of McDonald's role going on here.

Look, it's so easy to bag him. Prima facie, he bowls dibbly meds and sets the pulse racing to marginally above death when he bats. But it misses the point of why he was picked. Ever since his debut, there have been noises all over the place from the other players about how well he fills in the gaps in the team. He's a decent field, can bat well, excellent tactician, brings leadership experience from a successful team domestically and his meds are under-rated (quite dangerous on a deck or conditions offering something).

He's no world-beater but he's not there for that. He's the Swiss Army Knife of the team. There's absolutely no point in complaining that he's no Henckel. The team loves him and they're doing better with him than without him. Reason enough to keep him in the side, let alone that his game seems perfectly suited to English conditions anyway.

Good points.

Adding to this, McDonald would have been useless in an Aussie team pre 2007 WC, because it had some 7 world class batsmen and about 3 or 4 world class bowlers. However, today we have an Australian team that has about 3 world class batsmen in the top 7, one of them out of form and the other one on the decline. And about 2 world class bowlers. Hence McDonald serves as a player who can provide a bit of both worlds without disruption seriously the balance of the team.

 

[Richard]

Adding to this, McDonald would have been useless in an Aussie team pre 1997 WC

2007 WC?
z

 

[Burgey]

No, he would have been useless pre-1997 because he was a kid.

 

[Top_Cat]

No, he would have been useless pre-1997 because he was a kid.

Whereas now, he just looks like one.

 

[aussie]

Good points.

Adding to this, McDonald would have been useless in an Aussie team pre 2007 WC, because it had some 7 world class batsmen and about 3 or 4 world class bowlers. However, today we have an Australian team that has about 3 world class batsmen in the top 7, one of them out of form and the other one on the decline. And about 2 world class bowlers. Hence McDonald serves as a player who can provide a bit of both worlds without disruption seriously the balance of the team.

Nope. The current post McGrath-Warne era isn't that bad, so Australia don't need to be picking useless players like McDonald.

 

[oitoitoi]

Nope. The current post McGrath-Warne era isn't that bad, so Australia don't need to be picking useless players like McDonald.

Indeed.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nope. The current post McGrath-Warne era isn't that bad, so Australia don't need to be picking useless players like McDonald.

Indeed.

Do you guys actually watch the cricket?

 

[inbox24]

aussie is right. We're in a rut but there's no need to hand out baggie greens like they're worthless. There are at least two allrounders (Symonds and Watson) better than McDonald and at least three other specialist batsman (Hodge, Dussey and North) who would do a much better job than him. Note that the latter three can all bowl spin as well if needed.

Once again the selectors are mixing up 'good form' (if we can even call it that relative to any other player in our team) and class. McDonald is bottom feeder and at his absolute peak will still only produce performances that are considered 'handy'. On the other hand the others mentioned above would be able to win games off their own bat.

 

[Richard]

We're in a rut but there's no need to hand out baggie greens like they're worthless.

Why not? Australia were in the anthesis of a rut between 1989 and 2006/07 but BaggyGreens were still handed in that time to:
Greg Campbell
Trevor Hohns
Peter Sleep
Peter Taylor
Wayne Phillips (Jnr.)
Tim May
Brendon Julian
Peter McIntyre
Brad Hogg
Andrew Bichel
Shaun Young (though that's not too representative because it only occured due to exceptional circumstances)
Simon Cook
Gavin Robertson
Paul Wilson
Colin Miller
Scott Muller
Brad Williams
Symonds himself
and Nathan Hauritz

None of whom had anything much to justify their inclusion and all of whom bar Miller (plus Cook who was very fortuitous) were very poor Test players.

Not that the BaggyGreen should be handed-out willy-nilly (though clearly sometimes injuries force hands) but it being so is nothing remotely new.

 

[zaremba]

Why not? Australia were in the anthesis of a rut between 1989 and 2006/07 but BaggyGreens were still handed in that time to:
Greg Campbell
Trevor Hohns
Peter Sleep
Peter Taylor
Wayne Phillips (Jnr.)
Tim May
Brendon Julian
Peter McIntyre
Brad Hogg
Andrew Bichel
Shaun Young (though that's not too representative because it only occured due to exceptional circumstances)
Simon Cook
Gavin Robertson
Paul Wilson
Colin Miller
Scott Muller
Brad Williams
Symonds himself
and Nathan Hauritz

None of whom had anything much to justify their inclusion and all of whom bar Miller (plus Cook who was very fortuitous) were very poor Test players.

Not that the BaggyGreen should be handed-out willy-nilly (though clearly sometimes injuries force hands) but it being so is nothing remotely new.

No-one here was fortuitous. Some may have been fortunate though.

As usual you're sticking your neck out here Richard but disagree with you about May, Bichel and Symonds all of whom were better than "very poor" Test players.

 

[aussie]

Strange post, firstly i am presuming you are trying to limit the peak period of Australia's dominance. Why would you start at 1989?. Best to start @ 91 vs WI.

Secondly now that the post McGrath-Warne era is officially Ponting era after the SA tour. Comparitve selections to McDonald should be from WI 96 - 2006/07 Ashes. So Hohns, Campebll, Sleep & Taylor are irrelevant.

Why not? Australia were in the anthesis of a rut between 1989 and 2006/07 but BaggyGreens were still handed in that time to:.

Tim May.

How was Tim May a useless selection?

Brendon Julian.

Wasn't a useless selection given the circumstances ATT. McDermott, Fleming where injured.

Peter McIntyre Brad Hogg.

Useless yes. But on the 96 tour Australia's spin stocks behind Warne was pretty bad anyway.

Andrew Bichel.

Haa, oh lord how was Bichel useless..

Simon Cook.

Like the Shaun Young selection in the 97 Ashes, wasn't he picked because of injury.

Gavin Robertson.

No way, he is on par with Swann as a spinner...

Paul Wilson.

Poor player, but given the injury woes on that tour Australia where basically forced to pick blokes like & Reifell past his test best, Dale etc..

Colin Miller.

Ha, now you know you talking nonsense now...

Brad Williams Symonds himself.

Definate nonsense..






.

 

[Richard]

No-one here was fortuitous. Some may have been fortunate though.

As usual you're sticking your neck out here Richard but disagree with you about May, Bichel and Symonds all of whom were better than "very poor" Test players.

Symonds was better than very poor in 2007/08, yes (though I've long maintained and will continue to do so that had Umpires been capable of giving him out he'd have averaged closer to 30 than the 90-odd he ended-up doing in said time). But up to 2006/07 (when, yes, an Umpiring reprieve gave him the chance to score something massive) he averaged something like 16, from 8-9 Tests. That's not very poor - that's diabolical. And it was a fair indictment on the calibre of his play too.

May and Bichel, I'll admit, were good Test bowlers for 4-5 matches (May in '93, Bichel in '00/01-'02/03), which is more than the other examples I gave. But that's it. They were both diabolical the rest of the time - and said time was in the considerable majority.

 

[Uppercut]

Symonds was better than very poor in 2007/08, yes (though I've long maintained and will continue to do so that had Umpires been capable of giving him out he'd have averaged closer to 30 than the 90-odd he ended-up doing in said time). But up to 2006/07 (when, yes, an Umpiring reprieve gave him the chance to score something massive) he averaged something like 16, from 8-9 Tests. That's not very poor - that's diabolical. And it was a fair indictment on the calibre of his play too.

Aye. Started off diabolical, became excellent. As do most quality test cricketers, albeit to a lesser extent.

 

[Richard]

Strange post, firstly i am presuming you are trying to limit the peak period of Australia's dominance. Why would you start at 1989?. Best to start @ 91 vs WI.

Nah, best to start at '89. After '89, until '06/07, they were only twice outplayed outside India\SL - WI '91 and Eng '05. Against everyone else they were the better side or at worst equals.

Secondly now that the post McGrath-Warne era is officially Ponting era after the SA tour. Comparitve selections to McDonald should be from WI 96 - 2006/07 Ashes. So Hohns, Campebll, Sleep & Taylor are irrelevant.

The clear watershed Test was the Fifth Test of the 2006/07 Ashes. The last of the truly outstanding teams of that period played together in that Test. The judgement date will be from the start of the 2007/08 season onwards.

How was Tim May a useless selection?

Because there were 4-5 better seam bowlers than him - admittedly, half of whom were injury-prone.

Wasn't a useless selection given the circumstances ATT. McDermott, Fleming where injured.

So? Jo Angel for one was available, and he was a quite patently better bowler. There were probably others - Julian was dreadful. Anyways, Julian was first picked not in WI in '95 but in England in '93... ahead of Reiffel.

Useless yes. But on the 96 tour Australia's spin stocks behind Warne was pretty bad anyway.

So pick seamers. Good seamers > poor spinners, under any circumstances. Granted, Gillespie, Kasprowicz or Bichel would probably have had zero benefit from playing a single Test in India compared to making their debuts at home (as they subsequently did), but it'd still have made less of a mockery of the BaggyGreen than to pick those two no-hopers. Anyway, McIntyre's other game was against England in 1994/95 - when there were again several far superior seamers available.

Haa, oh lord how was Bichel useless..

Because he did nothing whatsoever of note apart from demolish two utterly deplorable West Indies ('00/01) and Pakistan ('02/03) sides.

Like the Shaun Young selection in the 97 Ashes, wasn't he picked because of injury.

To one bowler - Glenn McGrath. Cook was barely even a regular for his state - there were 7 or 8 bowlers who could at the very least say that.

No way, he is on par with Swann as a spinner...

Well... no, he isn't, Robertson was a very poor spinner who should never, ever have played. Apart from anything he was initially picked in preference to MacGill!

Poor player, but given the injury woes on that tour Australia where basically forced to pick blokes like & Reifell past his test best, Dale etc..

They weren't, though. Better players were available - Fleming, Angel, to name just a couple.

Ha, now you know you talking nonsense now...

Nah, Miller was a journeyman pro who'd bowled average seamers for years. That he was going to fluke a year or two of being an effective fingerspinner against terrible batting units could not possibly have been guessed.

Definate nonsense..

Nah, Williams and Symonds were both selected over vastly superior candidates.

 

[Richard]

Aye. Started off diabolical, became excellent. As do most quality test cricketers, albeit to a lesser extent.

Symonds didn't become excellent though - he became OK-ish which was made to look excellent by repeated Umpiring errors. No-one can possibly credit Symonds for that, the way some would try to if it was dropped catches (the usual "he hits it so hard it's difficult to catch" stuff). He simply got outrageously lucky.

This is also irrelevant to whether or not he should have been picked over Katich in 2003/04 and any number of others in 2005/06. Which he plain and simply shouldn't have. What happened 4 years later does not in any way justify him playing over Katich (or for that matter a few others) in 2003/04.

 

[Top_Cat]

Haha, love how Rich can speak with such authority about players he's too young to have seen much of (some at all) and in another country he's never been to.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Haha, love how Rich can speak with such authority about players he's too young to have seen much of (some at all) and in another country he's never been to.

You don't have to see them T_C, you just have to read about them. Jesus!

 

[Son Of Coco]

May and Bichel, I'll admit, were good Test bowlers for 4-5 matches (May in '93, Bichel in '00/01-'02/03), which is more than the other examples I gave. But that's it. They were both diabolical the rest of the time - and said time was in the considerable majority.

I know you're talking about tests, but I'm sure the English team will testify to how 'diabolical' Bichel was in the World Cup when he smashed them with both bat and ball after we were bowled out for not many.

 

[Goughy]

So? Jo Angel for one was available, and he was a quite patently better bowler. There were probably others - Julian was dreadful. Anyways, Julian was first picked not in WI in '95 but in England in '93... ahead of Reiffel.

Before the 93 Ashes, Reiffel had played 4 Tests and had a bowling average north of 40. It wasnt as if an established player with a great record was excluded. Your is based purely on the fact that Rieffel did well when he came into the side. Taking advantage of hindsight there.

Julian was a decent cricketer. Tim May was a good cricketer and I rated Bichel. Symonds was an ordinary selection for Australia but he would have walked into any England team, Miller was an interesting idea. The rest I dont know enough about to comment.