Symonds sent home

[howardj]

The guy is a tool, thats a given, so I wouldn't be inclined to give him the benifit of any doubt

I agree, the guy is bad news. Several journalists, within the last 12 months, have written about the real Andrew Symonds. He just appears to me to be a nasty, unsavoury person. I don't think you need a 33 year old senior player like this around the squad, particularly with all the new faces in the Australian team. It would be for the best if this serial offender had his contract torn up. No doubt he's emboldened by the fact that he has a lucrative IPL contract to fall back on.

The Queenslander, who these days carries himself with such an arrogant swagger that even his team-mates sometimes shake their heads, has become too big for his boots.

Symonds treats just about everyone with disdain - rival players, journalists, his employers and even some of his team-mates.

Link

 

[chaminda_00]

Watson > Symonds

Waste of space really.

Mosies > Symonds

 

[SJS]

There is a thing called team discipline and an accepted behaviour model for each team which is known to the players even if it is not written down in a small handbook given to you along with your cap.

When you transgress that line, you get to know it. Someone will tell you. Maybe politely at first but you will get a sense of having done something that is not quite the 'done thing'. It doesn't have to be your idea of what should be the 'code of conduct'. It can never be. Each player cant decide for himself what is the limit. It is always there - a given (even if unwritten) and if you are a regular transgressor as Clarke has indicated he was, then you know it.

After that it is a question of time before the **** heats the roof.

There is no sympathy for such 'rebels' be their last name Singh or Symonds. No sympathy and no defense. Their talent and deeds as players dont have anything at all to do with it. To even suggest that a player's misdemeanors should be condoned keeping in view what he has done for his country is to put oneself up to ridicule. I suppose Bradman could actually be allowed to get away with murder.

 

[Top_Cat]

I dunno, I still reckon there's more to this. Under the cover of a disciplinary action, I think this is a power play by Clarke. He wasn't drunk (CA have said so), he just didn't attend an optional training session and team meeting. Yes, it's lacking in discipline and I can understand the 'no I in team' argument so they have grounds to discipline him. This, however, will stand as a message to the rest of the team. I reckon Clarke's trying to let everyone know who'll be in charge when Punter gives it away.

EDIT: That earlier article by Ben Dorries, geez...... can't believe someone pays him to do that. Shocking article.

 

[SJS]

I dunno, I still reckon there's more to this. Under the cover of a disciplinary action, I think this is a power play by Clarke. He wasn't drunk (CA have said so), he just didn't attend an optional training session and team meeting. Yes, it's lacking in discipline and I can understand the 'no I in team' argument so they have grounds to discipline him. This, however, will stand as a message to the rest of the team. I reckon Clarke's trying to let everyone know who'll be in charge when Punter gives it away.

That maybe so. One doesn't know.

I did think that it may have something to do with the new captain and something between the two of them. It would be terrible if that was the case. I doubt if it could be solely that because Clarke wouldn't be so reckless.

I suppose we will have to let the story unfold over the next few days.

 

[SJS]

Even if this Clarke-Symonds bit of the issue is true, it may not, necessarily, show Symonds in favourable light. Senior players showing resentment towards the 'anointed heirs' is nothing new. But one needs to accept the decision, put it behind and move on. If there was an overt display of 'hostility towards the new arrangement, the new leader could react in a number of different ways. Often how he reacts will define how his leadership is perceived by others and have an effect on it in the long run. Its possible Clarke decided to show he was a 'no-nonsense' type of a guy in this action.

 

[Top_Cat]

That maybe so. One doesn't know.

I did think that it may have something to do with the new captain and something between the two of them. It would be terrible if that was the case. I doubt if it could be solely that because Clarke wouldn't be so reckless.

Well, I dunno about that (as in, whether it's a reckless move). If Symonds is so disliked, even if they're good mates, no-one in the team will give a crap if he's been targeted. Some may secretly be happy about it!

It'd be more reckless if Clarke targeted someone who's more popular, for example. As you said, though, we don't know for sure.

 

[Top_Cat]

Even if this Clarke-Symonds bit of the issue is true, it may not, necessarily, show Symonds in favourable light. Senior players showing resentment towards the 'anointed heirs' is nothing new. But one needs to accept the decision, put it behind and move on. If there was an overt display of 'hostility towards the new arrangement, the new leader could react in a number of different ways. Often how he reacts will define how his leadership is perceived by others and have an effect on it in the long run. Its possible Clarke decided to show he was a 'no-nonsense' type of a guy in this action.

Yeah, reckon you're right.

 

[Jono]

Surely Ponting would have had some say in this decision? Or you guys reckon it was all Clarke?

 

[Sanz]

Cricket Australia is an expert in ignoring such issues. IMO it is a lot more serious than what some are saying here. CA have ignored Symonds' behaviour for so long now in the name of 'Aussie' way of playing 'Aggressive' cricket.

And I dont believe a single word that comes of Michael Clarke's mouth. If he is going to be the future captain of Australia, then I must say, this is the beginning of the end of a Glorious era for Aussie Cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

Surely Ponting would have had some say in this decision? Or you guys reckon it was all Clarke?

Depends. Ponting might want to give Clarke full control over the team and might think he'd be stepping on toes if he jumps back into the leadership dynamic at the first sign of trouble. One gets the feeling if he had the deciding vote, Symonds would have been able to stay.

 

[Jnr.]

Surely Ponting would have had some say in this decision? Or you guys reckon it was all Clarke?

Ponting definitely had a say in this decision. The disciplinary meeting took place with Clarke, coach Neilsen, team manager Bernard and Ponting via teleconference. Source.

 

[Perm]

What a load of crap!

How many of the guys who have been "presenting themselves" have dug Oz out of as many holes as Symonds has?

And? In this day and age of professionalism you expect a higher standard of behaviour from these players, especially one who has been around as long as Symonds. His performances on the field are irrelevant when team discipline is being discussed.

 

[Jnr.]

And? In this day and age of professionalism you expect a higher standard of behaviour from these players, especially one who has been around as long as Symonds. His performances on the field are irrelevant when team discipline is being discussed.

Agree, especially with such a young team around, missing the good influence of other seniors, who are ultra-profession on and off the field.

 

[Pratters]

At least show some consistency. If it were Harbhajan, you would have been giving your usual dose of Bible Preaching.

Haha yeah. Biased bull crap from social but then what's new there. No one else even bothered to reply him.

 

[Xuhaib]

Hadn't seen that, thanks for the info.

Oh! you're welcome my friend

 

[pup11]

Cricket Australia is an expert in ignoring such issues. IMO it is a lot more serious than what some are saying here. CA have ignored Symonds' behaviour for so long now in the name of 'Aussie' way of playing 'Aggressive' cricket.And I dont believe a single word that comes of Michael Clarke's mouth. If he is going to be the future captain of Australia, then I must say, this is the beginning of the end of a Glorious era for Aussie Cricket.

What??? You seriously think CA has been lenient with Symonds think again, they have always taken the apt decision whenever any player has broken discipline including Symonds.
Secondly don't give me this bull**** that only Australian players say things on-field, that might have been true a decade ago but in the present times no team backs away from having a bit of verbal-volley whenever they get a chance, so stop just singling out Australia.
Btw all this talk that Clarke is trying to shown everyone that he is the next leader by taking such a bold stand against Symonds, i think Clarke would be the last person to be this harsh on Symonds, considering the fact how many times Clarke has saved Symonds' arse in the past, and let's be honest Symonds had this coming, the other players aren't stupid to be there for the team or board the team-bus on time, just because Symonds is a senior and important player in the Aussie set-up, doesn't make him any more special than any other player, and that would have got through to him now (hopefully).

 

[pup11]

Pathetic!!
What a pathetic article, seriously Symonds is not the greatest guy on the earth, but even he doesn't deserve this, when this guy Ben Dorries knew so much was wrong with Symonds, then why couldn't he just come up with something like this before, or was he waiting for Symonds to get in some sort of trouble first so he can make full use of the situation and write whatever he feels like writing and get away with it.

 

[duffer]

Pathetic!!
What a pathetic article, seriously Symonds is not the greatest guy on the earth,but even he doesn't deserve this, when this guy Ben Dorries knew so much was wrong with Symonds, then why couldn't he just come up with something like this before, or was he waiting for Symonds to get in some sort of trouble first so he can make full use of the situation and write whatever he feels like writing and get away with it.

I see nothing wrong or groundbreaking about that article. Many other people have said similar or worse about him before. When a guy goes about his life thinking he's Kingsh*t he should be able to take all this in his stride, it'd be hilarious for him to be acting selectively sensitive again.

 

[social]

Pathetic!!
What a pathetic article, seriously Symonds is not the greatest guy on the earth, but even he doesn't deserve this, when this guy Ben Dorries knew so much was wrong with Symonds, then why couldn't he just come up with something like this before, or was he waiting for Symonds to get in some sort of trouble first so he can make full use of the situation and write whatever he feels like writing and get away with it.

Sounds like the jouno has got his nose out of joint because Symonds has told him where to go in the past

Anyway, Symonds is paid to play cricket and, in that regard, he is one of the best in the world - END OF STORY

On the other hand, members of CA, team management and even the captain are also paid to manage and have, in Symonds' case, done a **** job and some should be sacked immediately

For example, wtf has Steve Bernard been doing for the last decade whilst this has been going on?

Furthermore, if Symonds is so out of control (pretty freakin' doubtful IMO) then just what good will it do to send him home?

He'll be inundated by the media and chances are, to escape them, (and this is the classic) HE'LL GO FISHING!!!!

Then, in a couple of weeks time, he'll be summonsed before the leadership group where he'll declare undying loyalty to the cause, all will be forgiven and the show will go on

Here's a tip guys, management is not just a job title