Shane Watson vs Andrew Symonds (ODIs)

[srbhkshk]

I dont think one single person who is advocating for Symonds has said anything about his bowling being anything more than a bit of a bonus in this context, have they?

But if he is playing , he is playing as the 5th or at least the partial 5th bowler - if the bowling is irrelevant why not pick Hussey or Dhoni to go with Bevan.

 

[Red]

Symonds would always be my sixth bowler in any of these scenarios.

I'm not going to begrudge anyone picking Dhoni, Bevan or Hussey over Symonds in an ATG world XI. I might not always pick him, and when I do it'd be the most contentious choice I make. But I think he brings a lot to the table, he's of equal value (imo) with the bat, especially at #5/6, he can bowl a few jammy little overs, and he is legit the best fielder I've seen.

Tendulkar
Gilchrist +
Richards
Kohli
DeVilliers
Symonds
Kapil/Flintoff/Cairns/Shakib
Wasim
Garner
Murali
McGrath

 

[srbhkshk]

Symonds would always be my sixth bowler in any of these scenarios.

I'm not going to begrudge anyone picking Dhoni, Bevan or Hussey over Symonds in an ATG world XI. I might not always pick him, and when I do it'd be the most contentious choice I make. But I think he brings a lot to the table, he's of equal value (imo) with the bat, especially at #5/6, he can bowl a few jammy little overs, and he is legit the best fielder I've seen.

Tendulkar
Gilchrist +
Richards
Kohli
DeVilliers
Symonds
Kapil/Flintoff/Cairns/Shakib
Wasim
Garner
Murali
McGrath

This side does not need Symonds bowling at all and both Hussey and Dhoni were vastly superior batsman to Symonds.

 

[Red]

This side does not need Symonds bowling at all and both Hussey and Dhoni were vastly superior batsman to Symonds.

Which part of my post are you arguing with?

 

[srbhkshk]

Which part of my post are you arguing with?

None, I am just saying that a simple substitution of Hussey for Symonds makes the side you posted clearly better.

 

[Red]

None, I am just saying that a simple substitution of Hussey for Symonds makes the side you posted clearly better.

And my whole point has been I don't think it's that simple when you factor all of Symond's skills in. But once again, as I said, "I'm not going to begrudge anyone picking Dhoni, Bevan or Hussey over Symonds in an ATG world XI"

 

[mr_mister]

Your top 7 is nearly all aggressive batsman. Bevan or Hussey would be the perfect fit in case of collapse

 

[stephen]

Symonds went for 6 or more per over in roughly 1/3 of the innings' he bowled in.

That's not great but it's probably better than a lot of the 3rd bowlers going around in his day.

Not that anyone would pick him for his bowling. He makes my Australian side one his batting and fielding and is pushing the world side on those merits as well. Klusener was probably better for a world team but a case could be made for both of them if you don't like Bevan/Dhoni at 6 for whatever reason.

 

[TheJediBrah]

both Hussey and Dhoni were vastly superior batsman to Symonds.

false

and Symonds is 100x better fielder

 

[stephen]

World XI for SENA conditions:

Tendulkar
Gilchrist+
Richards
Kohli
De Villiers
Bevan
Klusener/Kapil
Akram
Warne
Garner
McGrath

For Asian/WI conditions:

Tendulkar
Jayasuriya
Richards
Kohli
De Villiers
Dhoni+
Symonds
Akram
Saqlain
Garner
McGrath

 

[CricAddict]

morgieb doing his best impression of the ICC pandering to the BCCI by pandering to the Indian posters with this comment

Not fair to club all Indian posters. Just like few posters from other countries, few of us Indian posters also are in awe of those great Aussie and WI teams and do like a fair few of them.

 

[CricAddict]

This side does not need Symonds bowling at all and both Hussey and Dhoni were vastly superior batsman to Symonds.

Disagreed. Both Hussey and Dhoni are very good fits, ATG fits at 5 but not that great at 6. Symonds is better at that position. Yes, both of them have played some quickfire innings but not as frequently as Symonds.

 

[srbhkshk]

false

and Symonds is 100x better fielder

What does 100x better mean - if Hussey saves 2 runs in the field - Symonds would save 200?

 

[srbhkshk]

Disagreed. Both Hussey and Dhoni are very good fits, ATG fits at 5 but not that great at 6. Symonds is better at that position. Yes, both of them have played some quickfire innings but not as frequently as Symonds.

Dhoni has 5K runs in the 6-7 position, Symonds has 800 - at an average of 30. But don't let facts come in the discussion.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What does 100x better mean - if Hussey saves 2 runs in the field - Symonds would save 200?

it means I picked a random number that sounds big

Dhoni has 5K runs in the 6-7 position, Symonds has 800 - at an average of 30. But don't let facts come in the discussion.

because Symonds batted at no. 5. It's quite sensible if your ATG team players to be spot or 2 below where they played for their country

 

[srbhkshk]

it means I picked a random number that sounds big

yeah - random being the key part obviously.

 

[cnerd123]

Symond's bowling was trash but the kind of trash that was common place in the middle overs through the 90s and early 00s. He was the 5th highest wicket-taker for Australia over his career, and went at a decent enough economy (5.01) for a part time bowler in that era. For comparison - during Symond's career, the likes of Chris Cairns, Sachin Tendulkar, Paul Collingwood, and Yuvraj Singh all had similar economies. Watson's (4.86) wasn't significantly better, tho he clearly was more of a wicket-taking threat.

A lot of Symond's poor economy rate is also down to the fact that he got targeted a lot more by opposing batsmen. They weren't about to score runs against McGrath, Bracken, Gillespie, Lee, Warne or Hogg, so they chanced their arm against Symo, and he did a decent enough job to ensure that he didn't consistently got a 6s and 7s. He finished 75% of his spells with an economy of 6 or under, and in the process allowed Australia to field batting right down to 7, and added a ton in the field.

I'd be interested in seeing his bowling stats for overs 15-40 only, or when he came on to bowl with the opposition side in a bad position. Couldn't find a way to filter for all that though. Maybe later.

In the context of an ATG team, it really does depend on what ruleset the game is played under. In modern-day ODIs, he would get slaughtered. Just 4 men out in the deep during the middle overs and he has to work with a newer harder ball. We've got smaller boundaries now too. If you're picking an ATG side for modern day ODIs, you need 5 proper bowlers. No way around it. But for ODIs of the 90s to the 00s, Symonds was a legit asset. Batsmen who can bowl filth and got at less than run a ball were all the rage.

Hussey is a good shout for the ODI/Aus ATG XI too btw. Slightly superior all-conditions batsman to Symonds, and you don't lose much in fielding. If you've got enough bowling options in your side already, then he slots in well.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Symond's bowling was trash but the kind of trash that was common place in the middle overs through the 90s and early 00s. He was the 5th highest wicket-taker for Australia over his career, and went at a decent enough economy (5.01) for a part time bowler in that era. For comparison - during Symond's career, the likes of Chris Cairns, Sachin Tendulkar, Paul Collingwood, and Yuvraj Singh all had similar economies. Watson's (4.86) wasn't significantly better, tho he clearly was more of a wicket-taking threat.

A lot of Symond's poor economy rate is also down to the fact that he got targeted a lot more by opposing batsmen. They weren't about to score runs against McGrath, Bracken, Gillespie, Lee, Warne or Hogg, so they chanced their arm against Symo, and he did a decent enough job to ensure that he didn't consistently got a 6s and 7s. He finished 75% of his spells with an economy of 6 or under, and in the process allowed Australia to field batting right down to 7, and added a ton in the field.

I'd be interested in seeing his bowling stats for overs 15-40 only, or when he came on to bowl with the opposition side in a bad position. Couldn't find a way to filter for all that though. Maybe later.

In the context of an ATG team, it really does depend on what ruleset the game is played under. In modern-day ODIs, he would get slaughtered. Just 4 men out in the deep during the middle overs and he has to work with a newer harder ball. We've got smaller boundaries now too. If you're picking an ATG side for modern day ODIs, you need 5 proper bowlers. No way around it. But for ODIs of the 90s to the 00s, Symonds was a legit asset. Batsmen who can bowl filth and got at less than run a ball were all the rage.

Hussey is a good shout for the ODI/Aus ATG XI too btw. Slightly superior all-conditions batsman to Symonds, and you don't lose much in fielding. If you've got enough bowling options in your side already, then he slots in well.

That'd be pretty much the only time he bowled so I'd guess it'd be about the same as his career

ftr Hussey was nowhere near as good a fielder as Symonds. He didn't make mistakes but he didn't do much special either

 

[stephen]

I have fond memories of a ring that included Ponting, Symonds, Clarke and Hussey. Such an incredible set of fielders.