Symonds sent home

[duffer]

He's the 3rd journalist, along with Malcolm Conn and Jon Pierek, to write that Symonds is an unsavoury character off the field. So, Dorries is hardly the lone ranger in thinking that Symonds is a moron.

Andrew Moore is another one who's been particularly scathing about Symonds on many occasions on air. Like you said, there's plenty of people with an equally poor opinion of Symonds out there.

 

[Goughy]

You said that if young children look up to international cricketers they are idiots, which is why I wanted to know if you would call your own children idiots if they looked up to KP or Flintoff the way that many young Australian kids look up to Symonds.

I dont know how Aussie kids look upto Symonds but Id have no issues thinking of my own kids idiots it the situation called for it.

If my kids were behaving like idiots then I would think that they were idiots. Thats the point of good parenting. You recognise problems and respond to problems. Bad parenting is just being a rubberstamp to the whims of a child.

I want the best for my kids, and they mean the World to me, but Im not stupid enough to think that they will be perfect and avoid being morons just because they are the fruits of my loins. It requires hard work from all parties.

 

[Precambrian]

There are choices. A sportsman can chose to rein in his 'wilder' instincts and lead a model lifestyle, or jus be a freak show boat. But time and again it's proved that while the latter might garner more headlines initially, it's the former who's longlasting in appeal.

A big case in point in that of myself, who's been fortunate to be brought up on the dramatically similarly talented however diametrically different in approach to lives, pals, Sachin Tendulkar and Vinod Kambli. One was ascetic like in his life, monk and focussed in his passion to cricket, the other was playboy. Look where they stand today?

 

[Mister Wright]

I've served Symonds when I used to work at Subway. He was a top bloke. Anything but arrogant. Of course this was before he was a regular fixture in the Australian side. But, I've found it hard to believe he's a wanker. I'm just basing this on meeting him for 5 minutes and all the times I've seen him interviewed. But, then I guess, people can change.

 

[Uppercut]

I've served Symonds when I used to work at Subway. He was a top bloke. Anything but arrogant. Of course this was before he was a regular fixture in the Australian side. But, I've found it hard to believe he's a wanker. I'm just basing this on meeting him for 5 minutes and all the times I've seen him interviewed. But, then I guess, people can change.

Based on Ed Smith's testimony from 2003 he's big, arrogant and fiercely competitive but an absolute gentleman nonetheless. Suffers from perceived persona syndrome, a bit like Matt Prior.

 

[Uppercut]

There are choices. A sportsman can chose to rein in his 'wilder' instincts and lead a model lifestyle, or jus be a freak show boat. But time and again it's proved that while the latter might garner more headlines initially, it's the former who's longlasting in appeal.

Why do they have to choose a personality from a supermarket shelf, why can't they just be themselves (within reason) off the field and let their cricket do the talking on it? Who's to say Symonds is a playboy anyway. Going fishing isn't the sign of a wild, wild life.

 

[Precambrian]

Why do they have to choose a personality from a supermarket shelf, why can't they just be themselves (within reason) off the field and let their cricket do the talking on it? Who's to say Symonds is a playboy anyway. Going fishing isn't the sign of a wild, wild life.

Ah i wish if one could buy personalities!

I think you've lost my point completely here. I was not refering to a particular individual. And going fishing on the eve of an international cricket match hardly talks discipline, right?

 

[Uppercut]

Ah i wish if one could buy personalities!

I think you've lost my point completely here. I was not refering to a particular individual. And going fishing on the eve of an international cricket match hardly talks discipline, right?

Yeah, but it's nothing to base a judge of his character on either. As a general point you may be right, but it's difficult to tell if a player's failure is based on poor attitude or not because public persona is based so heavily on perception. As an example, Ryan Sidebottom is always cast and seen by many as a hard-working professional, but who really knows how much work he does on his game in the nets, how hard he's trying in practice or how much he actually cares about his game?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Everyone is missing the big picture here.

If he retires. WATTO FOR TESTZ.

 

[social]

Ah i wish if one could buy personalities!

I think you've lost my point completely here. I was not refering to a particular individual. And going fishing on the eve of an international cricket match hardly talks discipline, right?

Symonds goes fishing!

Oh, that wild and crazy fool!

I'm just relieved he wasnt fishing from a pedalo - now that would be irresponsible

BTW, in response to your earlier reply, Kambli is not in the Indian team because he couldnt play fast bowling (i.e. not good enough).

It has absolutely ZERO to do with his personality or character

 

[Uppercut]

Everyone is missing the big picture here.

If he retires. WATTO FOR TESTZ.

In light of this reminder, I'd like to retract all earlier posts on Symonds. He's a model idiot, the root of all evil, and should never be allowed to play for Australia again, lest he coax them into invading Poland.

 

[Precambrian]

Symonds goes fishing!

Oh, that wild and crazy fool!

I'm just relieved he wasnt fishing from a pedalo - now that would be irresponsible

BTW, in response to your earlier reply, Kambli is not in the Indian team because he couldnt play fast bowling (i.e. not good enough).

It has absolutely ZERO to do with his personality or character

Better do not comment on things you are unsure about and appear a complete fool. Even his Cricinfo profile refers to his indiscipline. There have been more players who've been terrible against pace bowling than him and still survived. And surely, 4 hundreds in 17 test matches at 55 average including 2 double 100s couldn't have been just anything but indicator of what he had in him.

A terrible series against West Indies did him in, agreed that he had problems against short pitched stuff, but tell me, which Indian test batsman of that time barring Sachin did'nt have that? And with the talent he had, and age on his side, hardly 23, he could've worked hard and sorted it out, instead he lost focus, started hitting night clubs, fell into messy relationships, marriage, divorce, etc, etc. I still remember my teacher advising us to follow Sachin's lifestyle and focus and avoid being a Kambli. And Sachin, when captain, tried to bring him back, by that time, the fire had subsided.

 

[social]

I've got absolutely nothing against you as a poster but the above two comments are absolutely cringe-worthy.

Firstly, Symonds is paid to play cricket but there also comes a large amount of responsibility with representing your country. You are supposed to act as a role model for young kids who look up to and admire these top level sportsmen, and as I said earlier, in this age of professionalism there is a certain code of conduct that players must adhere to if they are selected to play international cricket. It is even more disappointing in this case because Symonds is 33, a grown man, and a senior member of the side. Not only are little kids looking up to him, but in the current Australian team there are a lot of younger players who will look to the 'leaders' for advice, guidance and the likes.

Secondly, your point about team management is ridiculous. Symonds is an adult and should be responsible for his own actions. Are you trying to suggest that Michael Clarke and Steve Bernard need to, or should have babysat Symonds? They both have roles which require them to take part in management decisions, but you can't have an entire group of people designated to looking after one guy who, it appears, seems to think he is bigger than the game.

Symonds is responsible for his own actions but are you seriously suggesting that the punishment fits the crime?

He missed a meeting FFS

Drop him to 12th man and fine him his wages for the 3 games for all I care but sacking him is an overreaction in the extreme and a frank admission that they have admitted defeat when it comes to man managementin relation to Symonds

But hey, what the hell, they'll now have 100% attendance at their meetings and everyone will have shiny shoes.

Oz will lose matches as a result, but at least we'll have conformity and that should be every cricket team's primary objective

 

[social]

Better do not comment on things you are unsure about and appear a complete fool. Even his Cricinfo profile refers to his indiscipline. There have been more players who've been terrible against pace bowling than him and still survived. And surely, 4 hundreds in 17 test matches at 55 average including 2 double 100s couldn't have been just anything but indicator of what he had in him.

A terrible series against West Indies did him in, agreed that he had problems against short pitched stuff, but tell me, which Indian test batsman of that time barring Sachin did'nt have that? And with the talent he had, and age on his side, hardly 23, he could've worked hard and sorted it out, instead he lost focus, started hitting night clubs, fell into messy relationships, marriage, divorce, etc, etc. I still remember my teacher advising us to follow Sachin's lifestyle and focus and avoid being a Kambli. And Sachin, when captain, tried to bring him back, by that time, the fire had subsided.

HE COULDNT PLAY BOUNCERS AND EVERY INTERNATIONAL BOWLER IN THE WORLD KNEW IT

 

[Precambrian]

Symonds is responsible for his own actions but are you seriously suggesting that the punishment fits the crime?

He missed a meeting FFS

Drop him to 12th man and fine him his wages for the 3 games for all I care but sacking him is an overreaction in the extreme and a frank admission that they have admitted defeat when it comes to man managementin relation to Symonds

But hey, what the hell, they'll now have 100% attendance at their meetings and everyone will have shiny shoes.

Oz will lose matches as a result, but at least we'll have conformity and that should be every cricket team's primary objective

Having Symonds as 12th man adds any better chances of winning?

 

[Precambrian]

HE COULDNT PLAY BOUNCERS AND EVERY INTERNATIONAL BOWLER IN THE WORLD KNEW IT

Typing in Caps won't make a one of the reasons the only reason, and it's pretty indecent.

 

[Uppercut]

Having Symonds as 12th man adds any better chances of winning?

Holy **** yes, have you seen that man field?

 

[Perm]

Symonds is responsible for his own actions but are you seriously suggesting that the punishment fits the crime?

He missed a meeting FFS

Drop him to 12th man and fine him his wages for the 3 games for all I care but sacking him is an overreaction in the extreme and a frank admission that they have admitted defeat when it comes to man managementin relation to Symonds

But hey, what the hell, they'll now have 100% attendance at their meetings and everyone will have shiny shoes.

Oz will lose matches as a result, but at least we'll have conformity and that should be every cricket team's primary objective

Perhaps if this was a one-off incident I would understand your point of view, but Symond's is a repeat offender with his lack of discipline and behaviour, so he was dismissed for the series. Fair enough in my books.

 

[Perm]

HE COULDNT PLAY BOUNCERS AND EVERY INTERNATIONAL BOWLER IN THE WORLD KNEW IT

And every international cricket follower or journalist with well respected opinions, plus first-hand accounts knew that Kambli was un-done by his attitude.

 

[Precambrian]

Holy **** yes, have you seen that man field?

!!! I mean, he would take field only if one of the guys had to take a break rite? And then a catch, a really tough one at that, had to come to him in that interval, or a run out, now what's the probability? Be realistic! Theoritically, one can argue Murray mints led to Australia losing the Ashes.