View Full Version : Should Clarke replace Symonds for the Perth Test?
Gunnar Longshanks
1 Dec 2005, 16:38
After the 2nd Test, this board was basically unanimous in its opinion that Clarke should be dropped.
After Symonds' inauspicious return to Test cricket, there is a growing groundswell that Symonds should now be dropped.
After Clarke's innings for NSW this week, there is talk of Clarke returning to the Test side sooner rather than later.
What a fickle bunch...
MJ just needs time to develop against the best in the world. He has shown in his last few hits for NSW that he is a class above australia first class cricket (which is by far the best in the world!)
Sure he had to be dropped to show him he needs to keep working harder on his game, and from listening to him and hearing bout his knock the other day. He is willing to work hard.
Put him back in.
Fickle bunch - nothing wrong with rewarding good performances and getting rid of those in bad form and letting them re gain form in domestic cricket!!! mr hussey would of played alot sooner in that case!!!
Give Roy 1 more go. But if he scores <30 in both innings, he's gone.
Hodge will get to his MCG test, but 4 very low scores (<20) will probably see him gone too. Problem is that Clarke and Katich won't get an opportunity to play for NSW in a PC game in that time.
I wonder if they'll consider playing 3 quicks & 2 spinners at the WACA (ie bring in Bracken for Symonds) and hope that Gilly gets back some form and Warne and/or Lee can do something down the list.
dee_molisher
1 Dec 2005, 17:09
Symonds is just plain crap.
just maybe
1 Dec 2005, 17:20
No, one score does not a cricketer make.
Woodstock..
1 Dec 2005, 17:26
Why not put clarke back in symonds is useless in the test arena
At least Ponting is being fair, trying to put the kiss of death on both blokes by talking them up and mentioning how much he'd like to have them in the side for the next Test (ala Katich).
I wonder if they'll consider playing 3 quicks & 2 spinners at the WACA (ie bring in Bracken for Symonds) and hope that Gilly gets back some form and Warne and/or Lee can do something down the list.
Why would you bother playing 2 spinners at the WACA? (unless you're Greg Shippherd)
Cooldude
1 Dec 2005, 18:33
In a word no
But Symonds shouldn't be retained either
ManWithNoName
1 Dec 2005, 18:41
I say bring in Boof Jr, aka Mark Cosgrove.
Gunnar Longshanks
1 Dec 2005, 19:29
No, one score does not a cricketer make.
I agree.
But there has been a fair bit of anti-Symonds sentiment on these boards following his low scores against the West Indies:
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212235
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=210949
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212111
Personally, I think he should be retained. I was just curious about what the consensus is given the near-unanimous support for Clarke's axing.
I reckon a lot of the people who supported Clarke's omission are now calling for Symonds' head. Who do they want in the side?
Gunnar Longshanks
1 Dec 2005, 19:30
Why not put clarke back in symonds is useless in the test arenaDo you think Clarke deserved to be dropped?
If so, there must have been reasons.
Have those reasons been erased due to one innings by Clarke, or the fact that Symonds has made a couple of low scores?
Gunnar Longshanks
1 Dec 2005, 19:31
In a word no
But Symonds shouldn't be retained eitherThis is the dumbest kind of comment.
You're basically drawing a line through the two leading contenders for the #6 spot without offering any suggestion of an allternative.
Should we go in with 10 men?
Pointless post.
No, Bring in Bracken or Gillespie for Perth. Symonds could always bowl pace so I think we can keep him in anyway. He has only played a few tests give him a little time to get going and he will fire... Hopefully
Gunnar Longshanks
1 Dec 2005, 19:52
No, Bring in Bracken or Gillespie for Perth. Symonds could always bowl pace so I think we can keep him in anyway. He has only played a few tests give him a little time to get going and he will fire... HopefullyMacGill will most likely be replaced by Bracken in Perth. I'd pencil that in already.
Are you suggesting that we should play 2 spinners and 3 quicks, or 1 spinner and 4 quicks?
Either way, the Australian selectors have been reluctant to play 5 bowlers in recent years.
Do you really think it's necessary? It's our middle order that has sucked. The bowling has been pretty good.
Woodstock..
1 Dec 2005, 20:02
Do you think Clarke deserved to be dropped?
If so, there must have been reasons.
Have those reasons been erased due to one innings by Clarke, or the fact that Symonds has made a couple of low scores? No i didnt think Clarke deserved to be dropped there was 1 game remaining against the West Indies and with the series all wrapped up give him another go if he suceeds retain him if he doesnt then well drop him. As for Symonds he has never looked comfortable in the test arena isnt a test player but a he is a One day professional
Cooldude
1 Dec 2005, 20:56
This is the dumbest kind of comment.
You're basically drawing a line through the two leading contenders for the #6 spot without offering any suggestion of an allternative.
Should we go in with 10 men?
Pointless post.
Play 5 bowlers, best solution, don't even need to mention it, very obvious choice
Hey, it's as dumb as people suggesting Pup should be retained after one double ton, a week after he was dropped
Sidey_87
1 Dec 2005, 21:19
Damien Martyn should be bought back, infact should never have been dropped in the 1st place.
Home ground, bring him back for his last series.
A proper way to say goodbye to international cricket.
One score, even though a massive one, isnt good enough to warrant selection back into the side
Gunnar Longshanks
1 Dec 2005, 22:23
Play 5 bowlers, best solution, don't even need to mention it, very obvious choice.You're saying you want Bracken to replace Symonds.
Our bowling has been very good, while our batting has been suspect.
How is it the obvious choice to bolster the bowling while diminishing the batting?
Your comments are getting dumber.
Cooldude
1 Dec 2005, 22:34
You're saying you want Bracken to replace Symonds.
Our bowling has been very good, while our batting has been suspect.
How is it the obvious choice to bolster the bowling while diminishing the batting?
Your comments are getting dumber.
Are you like just maybe? Can't go by a single discussion without throwing childish insults?
Our batting's been fine, Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, all in good form. Don't know where the illusion comes from that our batting's struggling, Gilly perhaps yes, but that's about it. The two that struggled have been dropped back to NSW
Symonds has done nothing, with bat or ball, what's the point?
Might as well play the extra quick at the WACA, Symonds doesn't look like making runs, so any silly comment about him boosting our batting is mute
Gunnar Longshanks
1 Dec 2005, 22:48
Are you like just maybe? Can't go by a single discussion without throwing childish insults?
Our batting's been fine, Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, all in good form. Don't know where the illusion comes from that our batting's struggling, Gilly perhaps yes, but that's about it. The two that struggled have been dropped back to NSW.Our batting has been fragile since the Ashes. We're prone to middle order collapses.
Hodge has yet to cement his spot in a middle order relatively inexperienced at Test level, and with Gilly struggling, an extra batsman/all-rounder is clearly the preferred option.
Dropping the extra batsman while Gilly is out of form and we have a #4 and #5 with 5 Tests between them would be a strange move. Not the obvious choice like you claim by any stretch.
Symonds has done nothing, with bat or ball, what's the point?
Might as well play the extra quick at the WACA, Symonds doesn't look like making runs, so any silly comment about him boosting our batting is muteWhy do we need to play 2 spinners at the WACA?
Even Warne has struggled there in years gone by. 26 wickets from 10 matches at 39.15. Why would we double up on spinners at a ground that clearly doesn't suit it?
With Warne, McGrath and Lee all in great form, there's really no need for a 5th bowler. The Australian selectors have always been loathe to pick a 5th bowler anyway.
Bracken will replace MacGill and Symonds will be retained. If he's dropped it will be for another bat.
I can guarantee you that we won't be going in with 6 batsmen and 5 bowlers. That would be stupid and unnecessary.
You're making a dumb comment by suggesting that 5 bowlers is an obvious choice. It's something that Australia have rarely done in the past, and have no need to do at present, especially when the batting is in much worse shape than the bowling.
A 5th bowler would anything but obvious. It would actually be against the pattern, and completely from left-field.
SaintsSupporter
1 Dec 2005, 23:05
No. Symonds can bowl a bit as well, and just needs to find rhythm. As far as I'm concerned, Clarke is just a middle order pinch-hitter and bowls more sporadically than Michael Bevan.
Alkaline
2 Dec 2005, 00:37
Leave Clarke in the NSW side for a bit longer to find a bit more form and then bring him back in. There a few people that can take his place.
apollo_creed
2 Dec 2005, 01:14
MJ just needs time to develop against the best in the world. He has shown in his last few hits for NSW that he is a class above australia first class cricket (which is by far the best in the world!)
Sure he had to be dropped to show him he needs to keep working harder on his game, and from listening to him and hearing bout his knock the other day. He is willing to work hard.
Put him back in.
Fickle bunch - nothing wrong with rewarding good performances and getting rid of those in bad form and letting them re gain form in domestic cricket!!! mr hussey would of played alot sooner in that case!!!
So on that you'd be perfectly happy for Jason Gillespie to come back into the side.
Note - If you're not then you're a hypocrite.
apollo_creed
2 Dec 2005, 01:17
I say bring in Boof Jr, aka Mark Cosgrove.
Yep.
If bringing in a batsman theres not a more inform domestic batsman going around at the moment.
And yes J-Man that includes J-Q.
Crooked Rain
2 Dec 2005, 02:31
Clarke needs to go back and score some consistent runs in first class - his current average suggests he is yet to do that.
If he gets a recall so quickly after producing a whole year of test match tripe then it's a disgrace.
Give Simmo another chance.
dee_molisher
2 Dec 2005, 05:57
Clarke needs to go back and score some consistent runs in first class - his current average suggests he is yet to do that.
If he gets a recall so quickly after producing a whole year of test match tripe then it's a disgrace.
Give Simmo another chance.
Kick simmo out. He is a shocker and provides very little value to the team.
dee_molisher
2 Dec 2005, 06:02
Our batting has been fragile since the Ashes. We're prone to middle order collapses.
Hodge has yet to cement his spot in a middle order relatively inexperienced at Test level, and with Gilly struggling, an extra batsman/all-rounder is clearly the preferred option.
Dropping the extra batsman while Gilly is out of form and we have a #4 and #5 with 5 Tests between them would be a strange move. Not the obvious choice like you claim by any stretch.
Why do we need to play 2 spinners at the WACA?
Even Warne has struggled there in years gone by. 26 wickets from 10 matches at 39.15. Why would we double up on spinners at a ground that clearly doesn't suit it?
With Warne, McGrath and Lee all in great form, there's really no need for a 5th bowler. The Australian selectors have always been loathe to pick a 5th bowler anyway.
Bracken will replace MacGill and Symonds will be retained. If he's dropped it will be for another bat.
I can guarantee you that we won't be going in with 6 batsmen and 5 bowlers. That would be stupid and unnecessary.
You're making a dumb comment by suggesting that 5 bowlers is an obvious choice. It's something that Australia have rarely done in the past, and have no need to do at present, especially when the batting is in much worse shape than the bowling.
A 5th bowler would anything but obvious. It would actually be against the pattern, and completely from left-field.
Actually, it was our top order that really crumbled in the Ashes. Hayden and Langer were found wanting when it came to an agressive bowling attack with some substance. I think the West indies has been a bit of a smoke screen. Their bowlers were really rubbish most of the time which make you wonder just how we will go against South Africa.
Theseventhhamster
2 Dec 2005, 08:46
Yep.
If bringing in a batsman theres not a more inform domestic batsman going around at the moment.
And yes J-Man that includes J-Q.
Yeah lets give a test cap to a bloke who takes his cricket so seriously that he gets suspended for being a lazy fat bastard.
Partridge
2 Dec 2005, 09:23
No. Symonds can bowl a bit as well, and just needs to find rhythm. As far as I'm concerned, Clarke is just a middle order pinch-hitter and bowls more sporadically than Michael Bevan.
Symonds is a classic case of one day marketing generating a test spot. The work "limited" applies very nicely to one day cricket. It also applies to the skills required compared to the test arena.
Symonds is a clown. Might be able to hit a length but does not look like taking wickets. His batting has looked terrible against a toothless West Indies attack on perfect batting wickets - how will he fare against superior bowling?
sportznut
2 Dec 2005, 09:24
I didn't really think Clarke should have been dropped in the first place. I just thought he should have been dropped DOWN to number 6. He's not a number 4 at test level. But if they play two spinners, they like to play an all-rounder who can trundle down some medium pacers. My advice to Clarke. Learn how to bowl medium pace.
I'm pretty sure they'll only play one spinner in Perth and that means they won't need their "all rounder", so Clarke might get another go.
So on that you'd be perfectly happy for Jason Gillespie to come back into the side.
Note - If you're not then you're a hypocrite.
If he does it two games in a row, then YES!!! Gillespie at his best ********s all over bracken, and if he gets his body right still has 5 years left in him.
His second innings bowling wasnt as good as his first, so not just yet - not hypocritical, just want a few consistent performances at the top level.
IE: Clarke's first class form atm
Gunnar Longshanks
2 Dec 2005, 11:26
Actually, it was our top order that really crumbled in the Ashes. Hayden and Langer were found wanting when it came to an agressive bowling attack with some substance. I think the West indies has been a bit of a smoke screen. Their bowlers were really rubbish most of the time which make you wonder just how we will go against South Africa.I think you'll find that Langer was our best performed batsman during the Ashes.
I don't know how you can point the finger more at our top order than our middle order.
Most of the batsmen struggled, but Langer, Ponting and Hayden all made centuries. Meanwhile Martyn, Katich and Gilchrist were all consistently awful, while Clarke wasn't much better.
Like I said, our middle order has been fragile since the Ashes.
Cooldude
2 Dec 2005, 11:30
Our batting has been fragile since the Ashes. We're prone to middle order collapses.
Rubbish, our top 4 were ********e in the Ashes, a lot more so than the middle order.
Hodge has yet to cement his spot in a middle order relatively inexperienced at Test level, and with Gilly struggling, an extra batsman/all-rounder is clearly the preferred option.
Rubbish, Hussey struggling? Where? Hodge has plenty of experience in his belt, just because it's his first couple of Tests makes no difference to him, and he certainly doesn't bat like a rabbit in the headlights.
And Gilly will be fine.
If you're gonna include an allrounder to strength the batting, you gotta make sure he actually strengthens it. Symonds doesn't.
Dropping the extra batsman while Gilly is out of form and we have a #4 and #5 with 5 Tests between them would be a strange move. Not the obvious choice like you claim by any stretch.
Why do we need to play 2 spinners at the WACA?
Who said Macgill has to play? Might play 4 quicks plus Warne
You are still yet to use any reasonings on why you think Symonds would strengthen the batting.
Even Warne has struggled there in years gone by. 26 wickets from 10 matches at 39.15. Why would we double up on spinners at a ground that clearly doesn't suit it?
You love using stats as your argument point don't ya?
WACA's the hardest ground to bowl spin on in the world, and I never said Macgill would keep his spot.
With Warne, McGrath and Lee all in great form, there's really no need for a 5th bowler. The Australian selectors have always been loathe to pick a 5th bowler anyway.
Rubbish, with the batting obviously in good nick despite your baseless claims that they're out of form, why do we need an extra bat? Or an allrounder for that matter?
South Africa's batting is far superior to the Windies'.
Bracken will replace MacGill and Symonds will be retained. If he's dropped it will be for another bat.
Or another quick...
I can guarantee you that we won't be going in with 6 batsmen and 5 bowlers. That would be stupid and unnecessary.
Only in your world
You're making a dumb comment by suggesting that 5 bowlers is an obvious choice. It's something that Australia have rarely done in the past, and have no need to do at present, especially when the batting is in much worse shape than the bowling.
And Australia has rarely done it in the past, because of Warne, Gillespie and McGrath at their prime. Pige and Warne need their workload lessened, particularly Pige, who is struggling at present. Lee is nowhere near the bowler Dizzy was in his prime. 4 bowlers might work against a ********ehouse Windies team, but if we stay complacent, they'd be exposed again like they were in the Ashes.
A 5th bowler would anything but obvious. It would actually be against the pattern, and completely from left-field.
No it's not, it's only not obvious to you, but it's something that's been suggested for a long long long time and it makes perfectly good sense.
Cooldude
2 Dec 2005, 11:33
I think you'll find that Langer was our best performed batsman during the Ashes.
I don't know how you can point the finger more at our top order than our middle order.
Most of the batsmen struggled, but Langer, Ponting and Hayden all made centuries. Meanwhile Martyn, Katich and Gilchrist were all consistently awful, while Clarke wasn't much better.
Like I said, our middle order has been fragile since the Ashes.
Langer was the best, but he was the only one who made any consistent runs in the top 4
Hayden might've made a century but that's the last Test, before that he was ******** ********ing poor
Punter made one match saving innings, apart from that, he was very very very average
Marto, enough said
Clarke was our second best bat for the series in terms of making consistent 30s and 40s. Katich was ******** but at times servicable, Gilly did nothing.
The middle order was nowhere near as bad as the top 4 were during the series
Gunnar Longshanks
2 Dec 2005, 11:47
Rubbish, our top 4 were ********e in the Ashes, a lot more so than the middle order.Take a look at the series averages:
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Series/SeriesAnalysis.asp?SeriesCode=0532&Scope=01
Even though Hayden had the worst series of his career, our top 3 were the only players who scored centuries.
Look at the averagses of Katich, Gilchrist and Martyn, and then tell me that our middle order performed better than our top 3 in the Ashes.
Are you basing your comments on anything or just making stuff up as you go?
Rubbish, Hussey struggling? Where? Hodge has plenty of experience in his belt, just because it's his first couple of Tests makes no difference to him, and he certainly doesn't bat like a rabbit in the headlights.
And Gilly will be fine.
If you're gonna include an allrounder to strength the batting, you gotta make sure he actually strengthens it. Symonds doesn't.I don't recall saying that Hussey was struggling.
Hussey adds something to the middle order. No doubt. But we're still short on Test experience, and that part of the order is still fragile. Look at the way we collapsed in Adelaide.
OK Gilly will be fine. Whatever. That's not really an argument. Why put more pressure on him by promoting him to #6 and dropping the extra batsman?
I think Symonds will retained because there aren't really any other batsmen opushing for his spot. If there were he might be in trouble.
What remains the important part of my argument is that there's no way he'll be dropped for a 5th bowler.
Our batting, our middle order especially, has been letting us down more than our bowling. I don't know how you can argue with that.
Symonds will be given more opportunitities to contribute. He's only played 2 innings. There's no reason to further weaken our middle order when that is the part of the side that is struggling.
You are still yet to use any reasonings on why you think Symonds would strengthen the batting.I'm not claiming that Symonds is a superstar. If there was a specialist lower order bat demanding selection, then I'd be hoping Symonds was replaced. But at present, Symonds should be given a couple more chances to make an impact.
Dropping him for a bowler would be counter-productive and totally unnecessary.
You love using stats as your argument point don't ya? You mean evidence? I can see how you would object to actually backing an argument up with facts.
The bottom line is that events will prove you wrong.
What are you going to say when Bracken replaces MacGill and Symonds is retained? What are you going to say when I'm proven right?
You better start thinking about it because I'm going to be rubbing your nose in it for a while.
The only possible deviation from this situation is Symonds being replaced by Clarke. It's unlikely, but not nearly as unlikely as Symonds being replaced by a 5th quick.
Gunnar Longshanks
2 Dec 2005, 11:50
The middle order was nowhere near as bad as the top 4 were during the seriesI would consider the middle order to be batsmen 4-7.
Langer and Ponting were our best two batsmen, while Gilly, Katich and Martyn were our worst.
Hayden clearly struggled during the Ashes, but made a century under immense presure in the 5th Test and still finished with a better average than Martyn, Katich and Gilly.
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Series/SeriesAnalysis.asp?SeriesCode=0532&Scope=01
Look at the averages of Katich, Martyn and Gilchrist and tell me again how they performed better than Langer, Hayden and Ponting.
I think Symonds will retained because there aren't really any other batsmen opushing for his spot. If there were he might be in trouble.
You dont think Clarke is pushing for selection at all, or if we want to really go left field Cosgrove. Both have been making big scores at first class level.... how else do u push for selection.
Cooldude
2 Dec 2005, 12:10
Take a look at the series averages:
http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Series/SeriesAnalysis.asp?SeriesCode=0532&Scope=01
Show me a man who consistently uses stats to prove his points and I'll show you an idiot
Stats are misleading, and totally pointless.
Hayden and Langer only made centuries when the Ashes was virtually lost, bears no relevance.
Even though Hayden had the worst series of his career, our top 3 were the only players who scored centuries.
Have you listened at all?
Look at the averagses of Katich, Gilchrist and Martyn, and then tell me that our middle order performed better than our top 3 in the Ashes.
I said top 4, so please, get your facts right.
Katich and Clarke fared better than Martyn and Hayden did at the top of the order, and Ponting wasn't all that good either. Don't just use stats to prove your point, actually go watch the series, will ya?
In fact, all batsmen bar Lang, Ponting and Clarke were ********ing ********ehouse.
Are you basing your comments on anything or just making stuff up as you go?
That's more of your speciality so I wouldn't dare copying you :D
I don't recall saying that Hussey was struggling.
You said the middle order's struggling, merely pointing out that he's in the middle order, surely you are at least intelligent enough to see that
Hussey adds something to the middle order. No doubt. But we're still short on Test experience, and that part of the order is still fragile. Look at the way we collapsed in Adelaide.
Add "something"? Oh yes, 130 odd in the red ink is certainly only something
Test experience is totally overrated, Hussey and Hodge are seasoned campaigners in first class cricket, and they certainly don't bat like they're out of experience. So stop using such an idiotic point.
In Adelaide, it was due to some very good bowling and fielding, look nothing into it.
OK Gilly will be fine. Whatever. That's not really an argument. Why put more pressure on him by promoting him to #6 and dropping the extra batsman?
I'm sure Gilly himself would be devastated by that :rolleyes: And only idiots doubt champions, Gilly will bounce back.
I think Symonds will retained because there aren't really any other batsmen opushing for his spot. If there were he might be in trouble.
And my opinion is that he shouldn't be retained, because he offers nothing, with bat or ball. Don't you get that by now?
What remains the important part of my argument is that there's no way he'll be dropped for a 5th bowler.
Hello Trevor Hohns, I don't know that you post in Bigfooty
Our batting, our middle order especially, has been letting us down more than our bowling. I don't know how you can argue with that.
Hey, I don't know how anyone can argue the middle order's out of form in the first place, so there ya go.
Symonds will be given more opportunitities to contribute. He's only played 2 innings. There's no reason to further weaken our middle order when that is the part of the side that is struggling.
But wait, going by your moronic arguments of people not playing a lot of Tests, therefore inexperienced, so on your logic, shouldn't Symonds be dropped for a more experienced batsman?
And dropping Symonds doesn't weaken the batting whatsoever, you'd weaken it if you drop a bloke who's been scoring runs, he hasn't been
I'm not claiming that Symonds is a superstar. If there was a specialist lower order bat demanding selection, then I'd be hoping Symonds was replaced. But at present, Symonds should be given a couple more chances to make an impact.
And he shouldn't be, he has done nothing to warrant his selection.
Dropping him for a bowler would be counter-productive and totally unnecessary.
As unnecessary as playing allrounders who do nothing with both bat and ball
You mean evidence? I can see how you would object to actually backing an argument up with facts.
Oh the irony, you don't have much facts in your way either, apart from hopeless stats. Would you tell me if Pollock's a better bowler than Lillee because his bowling average's better, or that Murali's better than Warne because his stats are better? Yep, sure, "facts"
The bottom line is that events will prove you wrong.
It's just my opinion, this is an opinionated forum, I'm entitled to my opinion, I never said it would happen, surely you're smart enough to understand that?
What are you going to say when Bracken replaces MacGill and Symonds is retained? What are you going to say when I'm proven right?
Now you're just being a kid, again, do you understand the word opinion ? My opinion is that Symonds shouldn't be retained, doesn't mean he wouldn't be. Get that in your pea brain, will ya?
You better start thinking about it because I'm going to be rubbing your nose in it for a while.
Now you're just being a childish kid
When have I ever said that what IMO opinion should happen would actually happen? Quote me please. I never said what I want to happen will happen, hey, in the Ashes I wanted Macgill to play since the 3rd Test, never happened.
Maybe you should ask your mummy about the meaning of the word opinion.
The only possible deviation from this situation is Symonds being replaced by Clarke. It's unlikely, but not nearly as unlikely as Symonds being replaced by a 5th quick.
Again, opinion
Go learn about that word before replying
I'm sorry that you're too young to tolerate and respect a different opinion, but I'm sure as you grow older you'll understand that
Gunnar Longshanks
2 Dec 2005, 14:08
It's just a stream of waffle from you. You can't even argue in astraight line. You've introduced some many irrelevant elements, when really, the issue is quite simple.
Symonds has played two bad innings. That doesn't mean he can't bat. That doesn't mean that he doesn't add anything to the batting line-up. He'd better show something soon, but he is not finished just yet.
Symonds is lucky that no other batsmen are really pushing hard for his spot. Clarke will be expected to platy more than one good innings, while Cosgrove has only just put it together. Martyn and Katich are probably finished. Jaques is an opener.
I think in time Symonds will be replaced by another batsman. Probably Clarke.
But he won't be replaced by a 5th bowler. Regardless of whether you think it is the obvious choice, it just won't happen. That's the only argument I'm interested in making here.
Incidentally, you said you wanted us to play 4 quicks and Warne. Would you be wanting to play Bracken and Gillespie?
No, Bring in Bracken or Gillespie for Perth. Symonds could always bowl pace so I think we can keep him in anyway. He has only played a few tests give him a little time to get going and he will fire... Hopefully
I would be tempted to bring in Gillespie also. Id go with five bowlers unless they keep symonds, but i find it pointless for an all rounder to not bowl that often. With Australias decent tail you may aswell play the 5 pure bowlers.
Cooldude
2 Dec 2005, 20:33
It's just a stream of waffle from you. You can't even argue in astraight line. You've introduced some many irrelevant elements, when really, the issue is quite simple.
I wonder who's the one who's talking out of his backside? What I said was very simple: Forget about an allrounder, forget about an extra batsman, and play 5 bowlers.
If you can't handle a different opinion and have to act like an immature brat by attacking it, then that's your problem.
Symonds has played two bad innings. That doesn't mean he can't bat. That doesn't mean that he doesn't add anything to the batting line-up. He'd better show something soon, but he is not finished just yet.
That's your opinion, my opinion is he's ******** at Test level, end of story.
Can you handle that different opinion?
Symonds is lucky that no other batsmen are really pushing hard for his spot. Clarke will be expected to platy more than one good innings, while Cosgrove has only just put it together. Martyn and Katich are probably finished. Jaques is an opener.
Who's bringing different elements into this again? Cosgrove, HA, to even bring up his name now is laughable.
I think in time Symonds will be replaced by another batsman. Probably Clarke.
But he won't be replaced by a 5th bowler. Regardless of whether you think it is the obvious choice, it just won't happen. That's the only argument I'm interested in making here.
It was my opinion that a 5th bowler should come in, did you even read my previous post? I never said it will happen, I said that's what I want to happen . Do you get that now? Do you want me repeating that slowly again so you might finally understand it?
Incidentally, you said you wanted us to play 4 quicks and Warne. Would you be wanting to play Bracken and Gillespie?
Yes
apollo_creed
2 Dec 2005, 20:39
Cooldude.
Is it possible for me to read a thread these days and NOT find you arguing with someone? ;)
Cooldude
2 Dec 2005, 20:42
Cooldude.
Is it possible for me to read a thread these days and NOT find you arguing with someone? ;)
Speak for yourself, AC, I used to go to every thread and you'd be arguing with someone ;)
I didn't start the arguments, these kids kept bugging me :D
Symonds is a classic case of one day marketing generating a test spot. The work "limited" applies very nicely to one day cricket. It also applies to the skills required compared to the test arena.
Symonds is a clown. Might be able to hit a length but does not look like taking wickets. His batting has looked terrible against a toothless West Indies attack on perfect batting wickets - how will he fare against superior bowling?
sorry mate, i think you're way off track
he is the 5th bowler - the all-rounder...he is there to be economical and grab the odd wicket...or 'hit a length' as you say
he can bowl mediums or offies and is a fantastic fielder - perhaps in the top few in the world - he adds class into a Test side whose declining fielding standards were a significant factor in the Ashes loss
batting?
2 matches would be a pretty short apprenticeship - clarke (quite deservedly) got 12-18 months of patience - Symonds is a proven match-winner in ODIs - he has a huge upside and I believe the selectors believe it can be translated to the Test arena
but besides all of that, Symonds will not be replaced by Clarke in the forseeable future for one overriding reason - he will be replaced by Watson or even James Hopes if at all
make no mistake, the all-rounder trend is here to stay - after the Ashes Australia's selection policy appears to be to choose one and they will continue to invest in that role until it bears fruit
i think clarke could be forgiven for being a little concerned - if hodge and hussey settle in at 4 and 5, then the next available spot might be Langer's or Haydo's.....whenever that might be
MacGill will most likely be replaced by Bracken in Perth. I'd pencil that in already.
I agree
Either way, the Australian selectors have been reluctant to play 5 bowlers in recent years.
true but they have also been very eager to play an all-rounder in recent months
they will stick at it with Simmo - they're not the panicky types and will want to see themselves proven right
Do you really think it's necessary? It's our middle order that has sucked. The bowling has been pretty good.
good point also - but it is really Gilly and Symonds who are struggling at the moment
this might seem a bit radical but I'd move Symonds up the order to number 5, put Gilly to 6 and Hussey to 7
even if you don't agree, there is an interesting argument the SImmo would improve his Test batting by being promoted in the order, same as when he was promoted in the ODIs to such devestating effect
let Simmo bat with the top order blockes so there is not the pressure on him to guide the tail - strokemakers are there to play strokes and if he gets set, he can turn a game in a session like Gilly...so I reckon get him in there when there's some hardness still in the ball
if he doesn't get going then i reckon hussey is very similar to Bevo and would draw so many runs out of the tail - he is the sort of guy who will bat out the innings and squeeze every last run out of a tiring attack
just a thought...
peace
Gunnar Longshanks
2 Dec 2005, 22:40
It was my opinion that a 5th bowler should come in, did you even read my previous post? I never said it will happen, I said that's what I want to happen . Do you get that now? Do you want me repeating that slowly again so you might finally understand it?
I don't have a problem with you having an opinion.
I have a problem with you claiming that what you're advocating is the obvious choice.
It clearly breaks from a previous selection pattern and would actually be fairly left-field.
Don't claim that playing 5 bowlers is an obvious course of action. It would be massively out of step with selection policies the selectors have pursued over the last decade.
Do you acknowledge that?
Gunnar Longshanks
2 Dec 2005, 22:44
Play 5 bowlers, best solution, don't even need to mention it, very obvious choice.It's actually the least obvious course of action if you pay any heed to long-held selection policies. I think you should concede that.
Hey, it's as dumb as people suggesting Pup should be retained after one double ton, a week after he was dropped.
How can someone be retained after they've been dropped?
Look up 'retained' in the dictionary.
Dullard.
Your condescension mocks you.
Cooldude
3 Dec 2005, 11:27
I have a problem with you claiming that what you're advocating is the obvious choice.
Which is also my opinion
You haven't learnt anything
Cooldude
3 Dec 2005, 11:28
It's actually the least obvious course of action if you pay any heed to long-held selection policies. I think you should concede that.
How can someone be retained after they've been dropped?
Look up 'retained' in the dictionary.
Dullard.
Your condescension mocks you.
You make just maybe look mature :D
Gunnar Longshanks
3 Dec 2005, 12:37
You make just maybe look mature :D
You make Sidey87 look like a serious, relevant commentator on all matters cricket.
Btw, adding a smiley face at the end of every post doesn't make your arguments any more compelling.
Gunnar Longshanks
3 Dec 2005, 12:39
Which is also my opinion
You haven't learnt anythingIs "opinion" some lame disclaimer which means nothing you say needs to be supported by any kind of evidence?
It's just a pathetically transparent way for you to protect yourself from being proven wrong.
It's my "opinion" that the sky is green. It's my "opinion" that dogs can fly.
Does that mean people should just accept those arguments?
I've learnt that your opinion and reality are on different horses galloping in opposite directions.
Owned. Repeatedly.
crazy_big_al
3 Dec 2005, 13:02
no i dont think so