It's funny, but Australia never collapsed so dramatically when Symonds was in the team. Remember when you were 84/5, 134/6 or 18/5? Symonds pulled you out of the mire.
Yeah he did that, but there were numerous umpiring decisions that went his way when he did all that, but more often than not, you would expect him to perish in face of a collapse, because the brand of cricket that he plays makes him too much of a hit and miss player in the longer form of the game.
Who isn't a hit and miss player? Every batsman scores sometimes and doesn't score other times. He might have struggled a little against swing, but I don't really agree with the Richardism that aggressive cricket can never work when the ball moves in the air. It's not exactly a given but I think it's pretty likely that Symonds could have turned one of Australia's three horrendous innings around.
Yeh, often when a player like Symonds comes in and smacks everything, regardless if it's moving in the air, it can have a negative impact on the bowlers who often try something different when they probably should keep pitching it up.
Yeah, I actually voted for Gilchrist in the poll. I'm just arguing the case for Symonds because I think everyone already knows what Gilchrist could have done.
