View Full Version : has symonds done enough?
will symonds be playing the next time australia play a test (november 2007) ?
has he done enough to maintain his spot or does he need to produce in sydney??
the selectors lovechild and injury prone watson may well be their preferred choice come november and he has years on his side.
i'm not so sure whether both of them could fit into a test XI.
roy needs to produce now and throughout 2007 in the odi's to keep his name up there for a test spot in november.
your thoughts ???
Andrew Mc
3 Jan 2007, 19:26
I'll let you know this time tomorrow - another ton from Roy and he's in for some time.
I didnt see any of the play today so my question is - does he look in good touch from what you ahve seen so far? I know its early days yet, but sometimes you can get a sense of how a batsmen is going to do pretty quickly.
You've got to feel for Watson, one of the best young players we've got, gets injured and leaves the door wide open for symonds.
The horse has bolted, can't drop Symonds now... for the time being anyway.
He's just got to sit and wait.
left it open for symonds? yeah true, however i thought he left the door wide open for Michael Clarke, as he came in for him didnt he?
clarkey aint going nowhere i reckon
symonds, well, i think the jury is still out
I didnt see any of the play today so my question is - does he look in good touch from what you ahve seen so far? I know its early days yet, but sometimes you can get a sense of how a batsmen is going to do pretty quickly.
And Symonds is the best example of that.
I have seen Roy play for years and he always looks shaky when he gets in - state games, ODIs and test matches. But you can tell how he is going to play from his first hour at the crease. If he makes 30, look out. That's why it is a shame he has to come out and do it all tomorrow. If he stays in, i expect the first 15 or 20 runs to be fairly slow going, but all he needs to do is get his eye in.
He was looking very good. He was timing the ball very nicely and most of his defensive shots were decisive and hitting the middle of the bat. He was playing with a lot more confidence - he wasn't getting stuck on the crease like he does when he is underdone or nervous. He was a little lucky in the last over, but that was never going to be caught.
If he makes it to lunch, the game will be Australia's.
Cassius_Clay
3 Jan 2007, 19:35
will symonds be playing the next time australia play a test (november 2007) ?
has he done enough to maintain his spot or does he need to produce in sydney??
the selectors lovechild and injury prone watson may well be their preferred choice come november and he has years on his side.
i'm not so sure whether both of them could fit into a test XI.
roy needs to produce now and throughout 2007 in the odi's to keep his name up there for a test spot in november.
your thoughts ???
Of course he's done enough. The century was all the was required.
He's still not good enough though.
He was looking very good. He was timing the ball very nicely and most of his defensive shots were decisive and hitting the middle of the bat. He was playing with a lot more confidence - he wasn't getting stuck on the crease like he does when he is underdone or nervous. He was a little lucky in the last over, but that was never going to be caught.
Cheers mate! THats all i wanted to here :thumbsu: :thumbsu:
come on roy and huss, lets get a great 1st innings total up and then warney and pidge can clean them up on day 4 :)
Coin_Toss
3 Jan 2007, 20:15
Hmmm... not sure. He has peformed well in the series, but another big score wouldn't go astray, either. His athleticism creates run out chances and saves a few runs in the field, and he has also proved more than useful with the ball.
The selectors have made it clear that their preferred choice is infact Shane Watson. He needs to fight to cement Test spot by scoring runs in the odi's, so, baring injuries, he should earn it rather than selected on reputation. If he does everything right between now and November I don't see why he shouldn't have sewn up the all rounder spot.
It is a privilege to wear The baggy green - we shouldn't have any 'list fillers' that don't deserve to play for Australia, I hope the selectors make the right call come decision time.
davey_magik
3 Jan 2007, 20:22
Of course he has for the time being. Though I'd say if he makes low scores in this Test he may be a small chance of not playing in our next Test, but our selectors are foolish enough to take ODI results into account when selecting the Test team and he may get in as he is a superb ODI player.
I just don't think he'll be a good enough prospect for a long period of time (i.e 3+ years) at no.6, but then again IMO he's a better option than Watson.
Gunnar Longshanks
3 Jan 2007, 20:45
Of course he has for the time being.
We don't play another Test for 10 months, so "the time being" doesn't count for much.
Jury is still out, more so if he fails in this test match.
Will be present, injury aside, in the 1st test next season regardless
eddiesmith
3 Jan 2007, 23:07
Yep Warwick is right, if Symonds gets to 30, look out, he will probably make another 20 or so runs and get out, well he does at State level, one player that state teams dont fear making a big score in the Pura Cup as he only had the 1 f/c century in Australia in more than 6 years before the Boxing Day test
Jeeze mate, give it a rest. I mean I'm as Victorian as they come, but you gotta give this bloke credit, he's pretty good.
Bombers_Forever
4 Jan 2007, 05:36
Jaques or Rogers are certainities just to take Langers position.
The selections might move Hussey to opener, play Symonds and Watson.
That is, if Watson is fit to start with.
There is a long time to go and plenty of first class cricket to play
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 06:02
Jeeze mate, give it a rest. I mean I'm as Victorian as they come, but you gotta give this bloke credit, he's pretty good.
Really? Why? Because he made one century? A double century doesnt earn you anything but 1 century in about 50 innings is enough for him to be a superstar?
Fact is he sure as hell didnt get into the side on first class form
Partridge
4 Jan 2007, 06:48
You've got to feel for Watson, one of the best young players we've got, gets injured and leaves the door wide open for symonds.
The horse has bolted, can't drop Symonds now... for the time being anyway.
He's just got to sit and wait.
I'm not convinced about Symonds just yet, but in fairness to him he's grabbed his chance and made a good hundred. No way can you drop him now.
Coin_Toss
4 Jan 2007, 07:32
Fact is he sure as hell didnt get into the side on first class form
I understand what you're trying to say, but if Watson was fit to begin with Symonds would have had to wait in line, like he usually does. The selectors have made it clear that Watson and Symonds are the best all-rounders in both forms of cricket.
If you're so anti-Symonds, Eddie, tell me this;
Who's capable of filling the all-rounder hole at Test level other than Symonds (say Watson's unfit)?
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 15:01
I dont see why the hell Australia needs an all rounder when they have more than enough batsman to fill the top 6 and his bowling is hardly threatening
RoosterLad
4 Jan 2007, 15:05
Eddie... Symonds is better than Collingwood
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 15:06
One has a test average well over 40, averaged over 50 last year and has a few centuries, the other has an average in the 20's and is some gun because after 50 innings he finally made 1 century? :rolleyes:
RoosterLad
4 Jan 2007, 15:11
One is a total gun, gun batter gun fielder gun all round nice guy
One is named after a crappy footy team
collingwood hasnt done much since that double ton on the road though has he, after a good start to the series hes fallen into a hole
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 15:12
Yet still has a series average over 50
Why do you think most players dont average more than 50? Its because they often struggle after a big score for a few games but keep making the big scores each series and they are earning their spot
The Australian cricket team is as political as they come. Captains want to stamp their blueprint onto the side. Steve Waugh gunned for the recall of Langer, Hayden and Martyn, and now Punter is doing likewise for Symonds. For as long as Ponting is captain, then Symonds will be given many more opportunities to cement his place than he may have deserved.
Yet still has a series average over 50
So does Symonds.
RoosterLad
4 Jan 2007, 15:29
Yet still has a series average over 50
Why do you think most players dont average more than 50? Its because they often struggle after a big score for a few games but keep making the big scores each series and they are earning their spot
Warwick summed it up well, and im not sure but does warnie have an average of 49 or something?
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 15:32
So does Symonds.
Wouldnt be able to sustain an average that high if he played the whole series, besides he was only facing the England bowlers, Collingwood did it against the best in the world
Yet still has a series average over 50
Oh Dear :D
RoosterLad
4 Jan 2007, 15:40
brilliant innings by the dud
Wouldnt be able to sustain an average that high if he played the whole series, besides he was only facing the England bowlers, Collingwood did it against the best in the world
No he didn't.
See ya hack! Caught by the old hack in the gully.
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 15:42
Oh Dear :D
What? 48 is still a good series against the world's no1 test nation especially for a bloke who everyone says is a hack. Funny he got abused non stop yet improved his test average against the Aussies :D
But perhaps I should do what the QLDers do and keep saying he has a test average over 50, well they all bumped Symonds average up by alot last test claiming it was over 30 and rising :D
RoosterLad
4 Jan 2007, 15:43
He only had 2 decent knocks though edwardo, the rest he was crap, infact since adelaide he is rubbish... he is just a specialist fielder ;)
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 15:44
He only had 2 decent knocks though edwardo, the rest he was crap, infact since adelaide he is rubbish... he is just a specialist fielder ;)
Yet you defend someone with 1 decent knock in his entire career?
Collingwood has been much better than Symonds this series.
I love how Collingwood and Bell are called absolute duds, when they have both had pretty decent series.
Symonds didn't deserve to be picked for this series, but he made the most of the opportunity. I still doubt he'll be much of a test player.
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 15:47
Collingwood has been much better than Symonds this series.
I love how Collingwood and Bell are called absolute duds, when they have both had pretty decent series.
Symonds didn't deserve to be picked for this series, but he made the most of the opportunity. I still doubt he'll be much of a test player.
what I find funniest is anyone who makes a test double century these days is considered a hack yet those who never get close are praised because apparently making a hundred is harder than a double century
what I find funniest is anyone who makes a test double century these days is considered a hack yet those who never get close are praised because apparently making a hundred is harder than a double century
Because it has to be a road to make 200, silly.
Ashes averages (so far)
The Hairy Hack: 58
Warne: 49
The other pink handled hack: 48.75
Collingwood: 48
Bell: 33.1
Flintoff: 30.86
Cook: 27.6
Strauss: 24.7
Oh, and:
Australia >>>> England
Qld Bulls >>>> Victoria Bushrangers
Brisbane Lions >>>> Collingwood Magpies
Love your work Ed. :)
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 15:50
Not including Pietersens average?
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 15:53
Because it has to be a road to make 200, silly.
Yet when everyone is making hundreds its a better effort apparently, really its a total lack of concentration to get out between 150-200 yet the players did well to get there, however any player who isnt stupid enough to get himself out in that area often gets labelled boring, slow or ******** because they kept going and didnt play the stupid shot :confused: I find I am more critical of players who get out between 160-200 because they usually get out to a stupid shot, Vaughan last year, Colly against the Pakis etc
Funniest thing about Hodgeys double was no other Aussie could even make a hundred on that so called 'road' yet his efforts get dismissed
Not including Pietersens average?
No, because he is the one batsmen in your team who is talked up, but actually produces.
Let's talk about the others first.
No, because he is the one batsmen in your team who is talked up, but actually produces.
Let's talk about the others first.
Wouldn't you say an average of 48 is good enough to be classified as producing?
Of course England's batsman would be averaging very little, they are down 4-0 and probably 5-0. You will find it hard to find any player in a team that gets beaten so badly that averages over 45. Anyone who does has played very well.
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 15:57
No, because he is the one batsmen in your team who is talked up, but actually produces.
Let's talk about the others first.
You want to talk about them? Fine
Well Collingwood has exceeded everyones expectations except mine it seems as he sure as hell aint talked up
Bell is not a no3, Cook has been ordinary most of the time but how often does a kid in his first year of test cricket come to Australia and suceed?. Those that do are probably the greats and Cook is never going to be a great and no one would claim otherwise
Freddie has done well once he started to gain some match fitness and they got a real bowler in to take some of the workload in Monty, if only he didnt get injured, could have been a much better series as his batting is finally getting up to what we expect the last 4 completed innings he has done well in 2 of them which is good for him, should be at no7 however
Strauss is the biggest disappointment
Wouldn't you say an average of 48 is good enough to be classified as producing?
Yes it's pretty good.
As is 58.
Yet one of them is labelled a complete and utter hack.
Of course England's batsman would be averaging very little, they are down 4-0 and probably 5-0. You will find it hard to find any player in a team that gets beaten so badly that averages over 45. Anyone who does has played very well.
Yes, and the rest have been horrendous.
Who should we start on. Strauss?
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 16:01
Yes it's pretty good.
As is 58.
Yet one of them is labelled a complete and utter hack.
Yes, and the rest have been horrendous.
Who should we start on. Strauss?
Well 1 f/c century in Australia in over 6 years and a test average of 26 is hardly the stuff of a superstar middle order batsman
Well 1 f/c century in Australia in over 6 years and a test average of 26 is hardly the stuff of a superstar middle order batsman
And who is claiming otherwise?
Yes it's pretty good.
As is 58.
Yet one of them is labelled a complete and utter hack.
Well, its only eddie who is labelling Symonds as a hack, while everyone seems to think Collingwood is a hack.
Neither of them are, but I think Collingwood has the ability to be more successful at test level.
Well, its only eddie who is labelling Symonds as a hack, while everyone seems to think Collingwood is a hack.
Neither of them are, but I think Collingwood has the ability to be more successful at test level.
Well Ed is very quick to write-off Symonds in any way possible. Now he is including first class records. :confused:
Symonds 202 FC matches: 39 centuries and 54 half-centuries for an average of 42.59.
Collingwood 137 FC matches: 17 centuries and 37 half-centuries for an average of 35.65.
Collingwood will probably be more successful at test level - we will wait and see. But the gap between them is a lot smaller than what eddie thinks. The main reason why he hates Symonds so much is because he is so very bitter.
Symonds is taking White or Hodge's supposedly fully deserved places in the team. He plays for the bulls (and as stated before Bulls >>>> Bushrangers). He also plays for Australia (Australia >>>> England). And he is a Queenslander, and anything remotely associated with the state grinds eddie's gears so much (including Brisbane Lions >>>> Collingwood).
I hope you don't follow the basketball as well ed. :o
this is a bizarre thread even for one involving you, eddie :confused:
how can anyone say symmo is a hack after scores of 156 and 48 against the team rated (by you and some conspicuous others on BF at least) as the 2nd best Test side in the world and the 'no.1 pace attack in the world' :eek:
Blues_Man
4 Jan 2007, 17:37
Symmo has done plenty enough to hold his spot..made runs and taken wickets :thumbsu:
He would be one of the first picked if the poms had of succeeded in luring him away from his home country . he a very lucky boy to be able to play in a dominating cricket team and live in the sunshine of Queensland rather than play in a spineless cricket side and reside in the fog and rain of dreary old england . ;)
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 18:27
this is a bizarre thread even for one involving you, eddie :confused:
how can anyone say symmo is a hack after scores of 156 and 48 against the team rated (by you and some conspicuous others on BF at least) as the 2nd best Test side in the world and the 'no.1 pace attack in the world' :eek:
Hasnt faced our no1 pace attack
Well, its only eddie who is labelling Symonds as a hack, while everyone seems to think Collingwood is a hack.
Neither of them are, but I think Collingwood has the ability to be more successful at test level.
Symonds has got more ability in his left nut than Collingwood has completely.
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 18:47
Well Ed is very quick to write-off Symonds in any way possible. Now he is including first class records. :confused:
Symonds 202 FC matches: 39 centuries and 54 half-centuries for an average of 42.59.
Collingwood 137 FC matches: 17 centuries and 37 half-centuries for an average of 35.65.
Collingwood will probably be more successful at test level - we will wait and see. But the gap between them is a lot smaller than what eddie thinks. The main reason why he hates Symonds so much is because he is so very bitter.
Symonds is taking White or Hodge's supposedly fully deserved places in the team. He plays for the bulls (and as stated before Bulls >>>> Bushrangers). He also plays for Australia (Australia >>>> England). And he is a Queenslander, and anything remotely associated with the state grinds eddie's gears so much (including Brisbane Lions >>>> Collingwood).
I hope you don't follow the basketball as well ed. :o
I reckon Symonds is the perfect example of the Aussie player boosting his stats in England, I think that makes it over 20 of his centuries were in England and his Australian hundreds were pretty much all before 2000, hasnt made one against the mighty Bushrangers in 9 years and been 11 since he made one against the Blues :thumbsu:
Coin_Toss
4 Jan 2007, 19:23
Hasnt faced our no1 pace attack
Cry me a river. It's not our fault Harmison was under-prepared, and doesn't give a stuff about whether he's touring with The English team, Panesar was introduced 2 tests too late, Jones is currently injured, Hoggard has been up and down. You play with what you have available.
Let's face it - Australia have owned England, even the tail have made England's bowling stocks look silly. The only positive you can take out of the series is Monty Panesar. He has proved he can do the job against the best cricket team in the world on their soil... you can't teach this!
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 19:24
Yet when Australia miss 1 bowler its a perfectly fair excuse to blame injuries on a loss and bag the opposition for not winning in Australia because you were missing a bowler of 2
I reckon Symonds is the perfect example of the Aussie player boosting his stats in England, I think that makes it over 20 of his centuries were in England and his Australian hundreds were pretty much all before 2000, hasnt made one against the mighty Bushrangers in 9 years and been 11 since he made one against the Blues :thumbsu:
So you're saying that Collingwoods FC average is even worse than it would appear when we first look at it?
I reckon Symonds is the perfect example of the Aussie player boosting his stats in England,
So you admit the standard is lower in England than Australia? What about all the Englishmen who boost their stats by playing in England? That says to me a player who averages 42 in FC cricket by playing primarily in Australia, is superior to a player who averages 35 by playing in inferior England.
And why do you just make up stats? Symonds has scored 3 FC centuries, and 1 test century since 2002, not 1.
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 21:51
So you admit the standard is lower in England than Australia? What about all the Englishmen who boost their stats by playing in England? That says to me a player who averages 42 in FC cricket by playing primarily in Australia, is superior to a player who averages 35 by playing in inferior England.
And why do you just make up stats? Symonds has scored 3 FC centuries, and 1 test century since 2002, not 1.
Its actually 1 fc, 1 test century and a couple of practice game hundreds since 2000
3 FC centuries and 1 test century.
So you agree the standard of first class cricket is lower in England?
Would that also tend to indicate the standard of the second division in County cricket is lower than first division? Second division being the standard Collingwood has plundered most of his FC centuries.
eddiesmith
4 Jan 2007, 22:22
3 FC centuries and 1 test century.
So you agree the standard of first class cricket is lower in England?
Would that also tend to indicate the standard of the second division in County cricket is lower than first division? Second division being the standard Collingwood has plundered most of his FC centuries.
Most English players have poor county records, all seem to do better on the International scene and Collingwood is one of them with a much superior test record to Symonds
Yes the standard is poorer which is why its a bit suprising that those who do well at Test level dont do so well yet alot of those who have superb county records struggle at Test level
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
4 Jan 2007, 22:36
I reckon Symonds is the perfect example of the Aussie player boosting his stats in England, I think that makes it over 20 of his centuries were in England and his Australian hundreds were pretty much all before 2000, hasnt made one against the mighty Bushrangers in 9 years and been 11 since he made one against the Blues :thumbsu:
Then why hasn't Collingwood got great stats.
IF your going to say Symo has taken advantage of county attacks then why hasn't collingwood?
Yet when Australia miss 1 bowler its a perfectly fair excuse to blame injuries on a loss and bag the opposition for not winning in Australia because you were missing a bowler of 2
ummm...mcgrath's injury easily made the few runs difference in the tests we lost...narrowly!
i hardly think that even both vaughan and jones would bridge the gulf between the sides in this series
that said, i would love to see a close series on pommy soil in 2009 - if panesar, cook and bell continue to develop and jones returns to the attack we might get just that :eek:
dan warna
4 Jan 2007, 23:02
Yet when Australia miss 1 bowler its a perfectly fair excuse to blame injuries on a loss and bag the opposition for not winning in Australia because you were missing a bowler of 2
McGrath is one of the great bowlers of all time.
england don't have a bowler anywhere near that quality.
stickman11
5 Jan 2007, 12:16
No. With the bat perhaps but he isn't a test bowler which makes him a test batter. Couldn't bowl to save his life.
Andrew Mc
5 Jan 2007, 12:39
I reckon Symonds is the perfect example of the Aussie player boosting his stats in England...
No, the perfect example would be Cameron White.
okay back to the topic fella's :D
last test v bangladesh april 2006
hayden, jaques, ponting, hussey, m clarke, gilchrist, warne, lee, gillespie, cullen, macgill (clean sweeped the series 2-0)
first test v england november 2006 (4 changes)
hayden, langer, ponting, hussey, m clarke, martyn, gilchrist, warne, lee, s clark, mcgrath
last test v england january 2007
hayden, langer, ponting, hussey, m clarke, symonds, gilchrist, warne, lee, s clark, mcgrath (clean sweeped the series 5-0)
first test v sri lanka november 2007 ???
*9 genuine contenders for a top 6 spot (hayden, jaques, rogers, ponting, hussey, m clarke, hodge, symonds, watson)
*warnie and mcgrath's spots up for grabs.
we probably now need 5 bowlers now that warne and mcgrath have departed.
i can't see watson and symonds in the test side as the 4th and 5th bowlers.
so if they are in the same test side it'll be as the 5th and 6th bowler meaning they'll both bat in the top 6 (unless gilly comes up they'll bat in the top 7).
this would also mean holding back jaques and rogers and hodge missing out as the others pick themselves. it would also mean hussey moved back to opening or trying watson.
i'm still not convinced they can both be there for the first test against the sri lankans in november. interesting times ahead and symonds is no certainty to hold his spot.
Gunnar Longshanks
26 Jul 2007, 21:23
will symonds be playing the next time australia play a test (november 2007) ?
has he done enough to maintain his spot or does he need to produce in sydney??
the selectors lovechild and injury prone watson may well be their preferred choice come november and he has years on his side.
i'm not so sure whether both of them could fit into a test XI.
roy needs to produce now and throughout 2007 in the odi's to keep his name up there for a test spot in november.
your thoughts ???I agree that Watson will be preferred.
I don't think Symonds made the most of his chances.
pluga_4
22 Sep 2007, 11:24
symonds may well have done enough just by able to be out on the park on a regular basis.
OzBomber
22 Sep 2007, 12:56
You've got to feel for Watson, one of the best young players we've got, gets injured and leaves the door wide open for symonds.
The horse has bolted, can't drop Symonds now... for the time being anyway.
He's just got to sit and wait.
It actually left the door open for Clarke originally. Then he score a 50 in the 1st test, followed by a ton in the 2nd test, and a ton in the 3rd test.
I can't remember how Roy got in. Oh that's right. He got in because Marto retired.
pluga_4
22 Sep 2007, 13:46
It actually left the door open for Clarke originally. Then he score a 50 in the 1st test, followed by a ton in the 2nd test, and a ton in the 3rd test.
I can't remember how Roy got in. Oh that's right. He got in because Marto retired.
how though...m clarke was in the test team in bangladesh before last summer? it was only rumored that watto would be selected for the first test last summer.
OzBomber
22 Sep 2007, 16:38
how though...m clarke was in the test team in bangladesh before last summer? it was only rumored that watto would be selected for the first test last summer.
Watto was pretty much a dead certainty to get the spot, but through injury, Pup kept his spot in the team.
Gunnar Longshanks
24 Sep 2007, 19:50
No player with an average of 27 should be considered an automatic selection in the Australian Test side.
No player with an average of 27 should be considered an automnatic selection in the Australian Test side.
Well, with Watson out Symonds becomes a certainty anyway.
His 150 was in only his second last test innings and he outperfomed some of his teammates in his 3 tests vs England, held his position well once recalled.