Andrew Symonds

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

symonds is a better player than katich ever will be.

Hence Katich's superior domestic record in both forms and Test average of 41.10 right?

 

[PY]

don't you read the other threads PY lol, around 90% of them in CC have gone OT

Back when I first joined, it was the way things were done so I guess I've never bothered changing my ways.

I don't read many of the threads kicking about to be honest as most of them lack substance but certain individual posters usually get me interested as do the official threads.

 

[Richard]

It must have been stated 100 times - threads of any real length don't stay on title-topic for very long.
Titles are simply a conversation-starter - it's not something that must be adhered to or else.

 

[Richard]

If Pietersen does fail it won't be thru lack of self-belief, that's for damn certain!

No, but it may be through trying a few shots too many.

 

[Richard]

Butcher's definitely a number 3

Or rather he's an opener who's - like plenty of openers - capable of batting at three.

 

[Richard]

Slightly OT, but if Pietersen is a no 4 or 5 then is he going to replace Thorpe?

If so, then we shouldn't have any problems scoring runs with Vaughan, Pietersen and Flintoff at 4,5 and 6 but what happens if the chips are down? I'm of the belief we need a world-class grafter in the middle-order to balance up the batting.

All that matters is scoring the runs - doesn't matter how fast or slow you score them.
As the Australian line-up has shown, it's every bit as possible to blast your way out of trouble as to graft it.
Whoever scores most runs - not whoever scores slowest or fastest - is what matters.
Though I do think Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen, Flintoff would be a better line-up than anything else currently apparent.

I think Symonds would have found it quite easy to get into the England side of the mid-90s to be honest. Wasn't exactly the golden era of English cricket was it? Pity he didn't because it does seem like the Aussies are wasting him.

Nope, he'd not have had a problem getting in the side, I do think he'd have symbolised the mediocrity every bit as well as most of the non-Gooch-Atherton-Smith-Hussain-Stewart-Thorpe clan.

 

[Richard]

And key, what about his knock in Perth, and you cant do much better than score a double hunderd in your first game back.

Like most of his innings when he's had to bat at five, he's done nothing besides it.
Key at one and three has done pretty well and he may or may not be the long-term answer.

 

[Josh]

Well I tried to laugh off the first few posts from you that were tripe...

and I try to laugh of the fact that you're judging someone you don't even know.

 

[Mr Casson]

and I try to laugh of the fact that you're judging someone you don't even know.

I'm not judging you. I'm judging your posts given a pattern I've noticed.

 

[Mr Casson]

All that matters is scoring the runs - doesn't matter how fast or slow you score them.

Oh I see, so when chasing 350 in a limited overs match, scoring 120 off 150 deliveries is more important than 119 off 70?

 

[marc71178]

Or rather he's an opener who's - like plenty of openers - capable of batting at three.

As of course shown by the large disparity between his averages opening and at 3...

 

[Mister Wright]

Don't even bother Kyle, everything he says is absolute crap. Find me a sensible post from Josh and I'll find you a golden mule.

Two matches is enough for the selectors to know some things, for example whether Symonds has a lack of application or simply isn't test standard. The fact of the matter is that in the Australian set up, there are so many quality players snapping at the heels of the incumbents that you can't afford not to perform. You get a limited chance to show your worth; it's rough, but that's the way it works.

Symonds' situation has to be put into context. IIRC two of those four innings he was told to get the run-rate moving, and in another he got a shocker of a decision. He also bowled some testing overs of medium pace, but didn't have any luck. I still don't think he should have been shafted so far back in the batting order queue.

 

[Mister Wright]

symonds is a better player than katich ever will be.

While I don't think anyone in their right mind would prefer to see Katich bat instead of Symonds, I have seen too much of Katich to disregard his obvious talent, doesn't mean I have to like watching him bat. I would say Symonds is easily a better all-rounder, but Katich is the better batsman.

 

[Josh]

They are pretty even, but Katich has performed when given his opportunities.

 

[Mister Wright]

They are pretty even, but Katich has performed when given his opportunities.

What, as all-rounders? If so, it is a no contest Symonds eats Katich for breakfast in the all-round stakes. But if we were judging straight batting ability, I would go for Katich.

 

[vic_orthdox]

"you eat pieces of katich for breakfast?"

but in all seriousness, in essence mister wright is correct, that symonds never really got a fair chance, but it was never really fair that katich got the "lemon and sars" either. if the selectors are going to take a gamble like they did, they want it to come off with instant results. it didnt, so they went back to what was previously working. symonds should, and probably will, play test cricket again, as long as he's still in form as the haydens and langers of the game get older, and here's hoping that he plunders runs.

 

[Mr Casson]

"you eat pieces of katich for breakfast?"

I think he meant the whole thing, actually.

 

[Josh]

I was talking about batting. Symonds is certainly the better all-rounder. I personally think Katich is a dud bowler.

 

[Richard]

Oh I see, so when chasing 350 in a limited overs match, scoring 120 off 150 deliveries is more important than 119 off 70?

And I mentioned limited-overs cricket where exactly?
If you read carefully you might have seen that we were talking specifically about Test-cricket.

 

[Richard]

As of course shown by the large disparity between his averages opening and at 3...

A disparity which in the two periods of his career currently stands at:
18 (18 more as an opener that is) in 1997-1999\2000.
and
4 (in favour of three)
Personally I'd say the small disparity suggests he's quite clearly equally at home in either position.