Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
We're talking about ODIs here. Facing the new ball in 90% of matches means 4 or 5 of swing and 20 overs with the field up. You certainly don't need a particularly good technique against pace bowling to succeed as an ODI opener - look at Chris Gayle for instance.
Anyway, I don't really see how it's even close between these players, but as Jono said if you think Trescothick is as good as Symonds just because he faces the new ball, then surely that argument would mean that every half-decent opener is better than a great middle order batsman.
Facing the new ball also generally means facing the best bowlers (against Aus, WI, SA, NZ, Pak at least) and having to bat for a longer period of time in addition to facing those few overs of swing. The benefit Symonds has is that he genuinely comes in against the backup bowling attack on a surface that has properly flattened out, without the prospect of batting for as long as Trescothick does.
There's a reason why middle order batsmen in ODIs tend to average more than openers.
Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."