Andrew Symonds as a Test cricketer?

[Craig]

He came through today when Australia were under pressure but he shouldn't of got that far had Bucknor gave him out caught behind. But that is history and he got the runs, he scored two unbeaten fifties against Sri Lanka but in the context of it Australia did have a big total up and then there was his ton against England at the 'G. However he was shown up by Zaheer Khan in Melbourne in the second innings when he would of been bowled if it weren't for the no-ball and it was a pathetic shot he did play. I mean he just didn't move his back foot.

So the question is he starting to become an important player for Australia in the Test team or is he just riding the like of umpires and bowling errors (eg Zaheer Khan in the 2nd innings)?

 

[Evermind]

He came through today when Australia were under pressure but he shouldn't of got that far had Bucknor gave him out caught behind. But that is history and he got the runs, he scored two unbeaten fifties against Sri Lanka but in the context of it Australia did have a big total up and then there was his ton against England at the 'G. However he was shown up by Zaheer Khan in Melbourne in the second innings when he would of been bowled if it weren't for the no-ball and it was a pathetic shot he did play. I mean he just didn't move his back foot.

So the question is he starting to become an important player for Australia in the Test team or is he just riding the like of umpires and bowling errors (eg Zaheer Khan in the 2nd innings)?

All that matters is that he scores when it counts and has been extremely effective in his role. Does it really matter how ugly his shots look when he's bailing his team out of tough situations and contributing to bowling (effective dibbly-dobbly) and fielding (one of the best in the world)?

 

[Perm]

He did his job perfectly against Sri Lanka, two unbeaten fifties scored at a good clip and some impressive bowling. I still don't rate him as a Test class cricketer, you just need to watch his innings to see how poor he starts off, has virtually no idea about anything. A walking wicket if I ever saw one. Granted that he batted well after those umpiring mistakes, but I can't see him consistently performing.

 

[Steulen]

If ever Richard's first chance average had relevance, it's now

Still i did vote 'yes' because I think Symonds has matured into a genuine Test allrounder, although not of the Kallis or Flintoff-in-prime variety, but more someone like Dwayne Bravo or Jacob Oram: a useful member of the team and occasional matchwinner. A good enough batsman for the lower middle order and a good enough bowler to chip in as the fifth.

 

[Pratters]

Don't rate him highly as a test cricketer. He has been a great one day player but shouldn't be any where near the Australian test team. Can't drop him while he is making runs though.

 

[pasag]

Yeah, would certainly keep him there as long as the runs are flowing, wouldn't think of dropping him, but as soon as the runs dry up I'd have him out of there pretty quickly (if there are other options) as I don't think he has the Test skill/ technique to fall back on once the confidence goes (although he does seem to be getting better with time (agree/disagree?)). Very pleased with his progress since his return though, despite the fact he's been pretty lucky at times.

 

[haroon510]

i voted yes cuz i like his aggrasive bating style..

 

[sideshowtim]

His 2 centuries have come when the team has been under IMMENSE pressure. Not just pressure. Immense pressure. A guy like that who performs when the chips are down is invaluable. His fielding is wonderful and is worth about 20 or more runs and his medium pacers are strongly underrated. Unless he does something terrible, he can't be dropped.

 

[Richard]

If ever Richard's first chance average had relevance, it's now

It always has relevance, but yes, Symonds' 2 centuries have both involved significant Umpiring let-offs and would not have happened but for them.

 

[Laurrz]

yes i think so

he was lucky..but the important thing was his application to his knock..he has found a happy medium between going too fast and too slow...

 

[Goughy]

The poll question itself is interesting.

"Is Andrew Symonds now good enough at Test level?"

I think the answer has been 'Yes' for a while. Ive long said he would have been a quality cricketer for England. But that he was a notch or 2 below the expected standard of a long-term member of the Aus middle order.

I dont think that will ever change.

I have higher standards for Aus cricketers than others and so whilst undoubtably he is capable of playing Test cricket and doing a reasonable job the question I would ask is "Is Symonds good enough to be an established long-term fixture in the Australian Test middle order?"

 

[nibbs]

Can someone tell me why Andrew Symonds wears zinc in games played indoor?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I think he has a sponsorship deal with the zinc company.

 

[James90]

He has no lips so has to paint them on and pass it off as zinc.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I answered no because I don't think he'll be particularly successful in the long term. Saying that, he's not a dismal failure and he does a job at this point in time.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I don't see the point of Symonds being in the team unless he is one of the best six batsmen in the country atm. He's never going to provide penetration with the ball outside of very helpful conditions and thus provides the same bowling option as Sourav Ganguly. But Ganguly is picked because he's one of India's best choice batsmen. Unless Andrew Symonds is one of his country's best choice batsmen - which he arguably is, I suppose - I don't see the point of him playing Tests. He's not a Test quality allrounder. If Australia wants part-time bowling, give Clarke the ball. Part-time seam? Ponting.

 

[Laurrz]

I don't see the point of Symonds being in the team unless he is one of the best six batsmen in the country atm. He's never going to provide penetration with the ball outside of very helpful conditions and thus provides the same bowling option as Sourav Ganguly. But Ganguly is picked because he's one of India's best choice batsmen. Unless Andrew Symonds is one of his country's best choice batsmen - which he arguably is, I suppose - I don't see the point of him playing Tests. He's not a Test quality allrounder. If Australia wants part-time bowling, give Clarke the ball. Part-time seam? Ponting.

Pup - meh.. Roy can bowl med pace
Ponting - doesnt bowl nowadays

but yea agreed with that post (i believe Symo is top 6 batsmen in this country yes i do.. obviously there are some very good fringe players as well that keeps him honest tho.. )

 

[Craig]

When was the last time Ponting bowled? When Laxman and Dravid batted all day in 2001 that even Michael Slater, Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer all had a trundle? IWT Ponting bowling would be about as rare nowadays as it was for Brian Lara to bowl. IIRC the commentators have mentioned something about that Clarke has a issue with his back and doesn't want to upset it by bowling, but I could be wrong with that though. Mind you with his bowling figures, he may not want to ruin it too much

I think his role is there if Australia post a big total, then he will have carte blanche along with Gilchrist to rub it into the wounds of the opposition and pretty much knock the stuffing out of them and make the game unbeatable for said opposition, unless a miracle took place.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

When was the last time Ponting bowled?

In the Ashes 2005. Got Vaughan.

 

[NUFAN]

It always has relevance, but yes, Symonds' 2 centuries have both involved significant Umpiring let-offs and would not have happened but for them.

Happens to so many Aussie batsmen. The thing is though, often other countries batsmen get let offs but get out soon, so it doesn't really matter..

Australia are the best team in the world at converting 2nd chances..

You should do a Performing after first chance average, I call it PAFCA