Shane Watson vs Andrew Symonds (ODIs)

[harsh.ag]

v

 

[Gob]

poll

 

[harsh.ag]

The last poll option is: Can't Split as batsmen, Symonds better AR
Please vote for "v" if you think that.

 

[vcs]

I feel like Watson was actually better, but Symonds struck more fear in me.

 

[sledger]

Who is better at fishing would be a better question

 

[Burner]

Watson all the way for me. Criminally under rated player.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Symonds was better in world cups, so Symonds.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Watson

 

[Red]

It's hard to split them as all rounders or batsmen imo. Watson always seemed a more reliable bowler, and he bowled an average of 6 overs per game, as opposed to Symond's 5. If Watson was in bowling form i'd have less reservations about him bowling at the death than Symonds.

As batsmen they played very different roles. Watson became a force at the top of the order, one of the best openers of all time imo, and Symonds played the floating role perfectly, spending considerable time in all batting slots and basically coming in ideally at around the 30-35 over mark to accelerate. Once again, there aren't many if any who were better at this than Roy.

Symonds does have the fielding string to his bow, he was a truly phenomenal fielder in the inner ring- most likely the best I have seen, and when we had Ponting, Clarke, Symonds and Hogg all in the inner ring it was something else.

Very difficult to split them, if I could only take one, I would usually take Symonds all things considered, but if the one you chose was required to bowl a full ten overs, I might pick Watson instead.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Too hard to compare, completely different roles with bat and ball.

About the same level IMO

 

[thierry henry]

Surely there's a pretty big gap in the bowling? Symond's stats are fairly poor, but I actually recall him as a poorer bowler even than his stats show. Like he really wasn't much of a bowler, right? Nude spin and gumby 125kph filth.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Symonds was a better bowler at the start of his career. He was a much more useful ODI bowler than Tests, predominantly with his off-spin.

Also keep in mind Watson didn't even bowl for about half the games he played, maybe more, because he was constantly injured.

 

[thierry henry]

Still reckon a fit Watto was a proper international medium-fast bowler of "proper all-rounder" standard whereas Symonds was a batsman who could bowl a bit if required.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's a fair statement. There was a period where Watto would almost have made the ODI team purely on his bowling

 

[marc71178]

The last poll option is: Can't Split as batsmen, Symonds better AR
Please vote for "v" if you think that.

The Chris Hinton option?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Watson by quite a comfortable margin imo

 

[Red]

Was a shame Watson was constantly injured. I remember when he first came into the test team he was bowling 140kms.

He would have been amazing in the test team as the third seamer behind McGrath and Dizzy which would have allowed us to play Warne and MacGill more, maybe. Especially with Gilly batting at 7.

 

[stephen]

I think Watson is a bit overrated actually. He was very good but there have been a lot more openers who did what Watson did than there have been middle order batsmen who did what Symonds did.

Symonds really would have loved playing more matches in Asian conditions I think. Australian grounds were a bit too big for his style.

 

[Gob]

I think Watson is a bit overrated actually. He was very good but there have been a lot more openers who did what Watson did than there have been middle order batsmen who did what Symonds did.

Symonds really would have loved playing more matches in Asian conditions I think. Australian grounds were a bit too big for his style.

What?

 

[stephen]

What?

Symonds averaged 29 in Australia and 50 overseas. His game was definitely suited to small grounds where he could clear the rope more frequently and safely.