Prince EWS

[Midnight]

Will you get a hold of this guy? He won't quit being so stubborn. Now we all know he's been a Symonds hater for a long time. He's said things (and I quote) like "He is the worst test cricketer in the history of test cricket" and "He has no batting technique what so ever".

What I found so interesting is that he describes Symonds's innings today (his 152 not out) as trashy, and still described him as the worst test cricketer of all time.

What are all your opinions on PrinceEWS and his Symond's bashing, and more importantly, what are all your opinions on Symonds himself after his efforts today?

[pasag]

1) Who the hell are you?
2) He's entitled to his opinions.

[Midnight]

Originally Posted by pasag

1) Who the hell are you?
2) He's entitled to his opinions.

I'd appreciate it if we stayed on topic. Answer the question(s) or piss off.

[Prince EWS]

Oh my, I have my own thread on a forum which you barely ever even visit. Great stuff.

Let this be a warning to other members about the dangers of trying to talk about cricket on predominantly non-cricket forums.

Anyway Midnight, unlike at Sidhe where anyone who could deposit the ball into the stands occasionally is crowned as a god by amateur cricket fans, I'm not actually known for my "Symonds-hating" here because it is not altogether uncommon for members here to not think he is test standard.

So I guess I should try to make this thread somewhat useful and focus on Midnight's last question. IMO, this one innings does not prove Symonds as a test cricketer. I still don't think he will succeed and I do not actually think the innings itself was very impressive. He looked like a walking wicket early on, then was out plumb lbw not given, and then batted beautifully between 10 and 40. Once he hit 40 though, he took it too far and played some risky strokes.

Now regardless of whether Symonds succeeds in test cricket or not, I will never be a fan. Quite simply, I dislike watching him bat. He is all power - no technique and he often lacks match awareness. He could prove me wrong and turn out to be a decent test cricketer but even if he does, I will never be a fan. And despite what you think, this has nothing to do with Watson - but merely the type of player Symonds is.

Oh, and your quotes are wrong. Close to what I have said before, but they are still wrong.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Midnight

I'd appreciate it if we stayed on topic. Answer the question(s) or piss off.

Yeah, because starting a topic about a forumer is completely in the spirit of the Ashes section and all.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Midnight

I'd appreciate it if we stayed on topic. Answer the question(s) or piss off.

Can't see you lasting long tbh.

[Midnight]

Anyway Midnight, unlike at Sidhe where anyone who could deposit the ball into the stands occasionally is crowned as a god by amateur cricket fans, I'm not actually known for my "Symonds-hating" here because it is not altogether uncommon for members here to not think he is test standard.

That is quite un true. You and I both argued about Symonds place in the test side. You argued and argued about Symonds not having the ability to play test cricket. I argued that he can. Today he proved that he has the technique and mind set to play test cricket.

So I guess I should try to make this thread somewhat useful and focus on Midnight's last question. IMO, this one innings does not prove Symonds as a test cricketer. I still don't think he will succeed and I do not actually think the innings itself was very impressive. He looked like a walking wicket early on, then was out plumb lbw not given, and then batted beautifully between 10 and 40. Once he hit 40 though, he took it too far and played some risky strokes.

It's quite hilarious that even though Symonds has made a brilliant innings in the Test arena, you still persist that Watson is the better player, even though he's done nothing on the Test or ODI arena.

Now regardless of whether Symonds succeeds in test cricket or not, I will never be a fan. Quite simply, I dislike watching him bat. He is all power - no technique and he often lacks match awareness. He could prove me wrong and turn out to be a decent test cricketer but even if he does, I will never be a fan. And despite what you think, this has nothing to do with Watson - but merely the type of player Symonds is.

No technique. What a load of bull****. Go and tell that to the Australian selectors. You'd be shot for making such a bull**** accusation.

[Midnight]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Yeah, because starting a topic about a forumer is completely in the spirit of the Ashes section and all.

It's about two things. Peoples opinions on you and your Symonds bashing and peoples opinions on Symonds's innings today in the fourth Ashes test at the MCG.

[Midnight]

Originally Posted by pasag

Can't see you lasting long tbh.

I've been here since September.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Midnight

Today he proved that he has the technique and mind set to play test cricket.

Not really. He proved he is capable of scoring a test hundred. Big whoop. Agit Agarkar has one. Test cricket is about consistency - and consistency comes as a result of having an effective technique and high levels of mental toughness.\

Originally Posted by Midnight

It's quite hilarious that even though Symonds has made a brilliant innings in the Test arena, you still persist that Watson is the better player, even though he's done nothing on the Test or ODI arena.

I think you'll find that many here would have Watson in front of Symonds as far as tests go. If you really want to find out, create a thread in Cricket Chat that isn't just slagging off another forumer - people might take it seriously.

Originally Posted by pasag

Can't see you lasting long tbh.

I concur.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Midnight

It's about two things. Peoples opinions on you and your Symonds bashing and peoples opinions on Symonds's innings today in the fourth Ashes test at the MCG.

People won't have opinions on my so-called Symonds bashing because it actually hasn't become an issue here. Unsurprisingly, he isn't highly rated as a test cricketer on this forum.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by pasag

Can't see you lasting long tbh.

I reported the post, no need to speak to an established poster like that, or any poster tbh.

[Midnight]

Not really. He proved he is capable of scoring a test hundred. Big whoop. Agit Agarkar has one. Test cricket is about consistency - and consistency comes as a result of having an effective technique and high levels of mental toughness.

And Symonds showed today that he has an effective technique and has mental toughness. At the start of his innings he toughed it out, and showed mental toughness.

I think you'll find that many here would have Watson in front of Symonds as far as tests go. If you really want to find out, create a thread in Cricket Chat that isn't just slagging off another forumer - people might take it seriously

Well I might let you do the honours then.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Midnight

And Symonds showed today that he has an effective technique and has mental toughness. At the start of his innings he toughed it out, and showed mental toughness.

He showed today that he had the ability to do it. To do it consistently is a totally different story though. Agit Agarkar has a test century.

[Midnight]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

I reported the post, no need to speak to an established poster like that, or any poster tbh.

I reported you, for generally being an idiot. *Points at your location*