Andrew Symonds: Specialist Batsman in test cricket?

[Prince EWS]

I know, I know. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. However it is being suggested at another forum (admittedly a forum dedicated to the production of a rugby league computer game and various other games made by that company) that Andrew Symonds made the Australian test side based soley on his batting, and that if he couldnt bowl he still would have picked.

I know it's a rather stupid poll question, but I thought I'd ask it anyway, at an actual cricket forum, to settle an argument.

Also feel free to post in here regarding Symonds's future test cricket career (or lack thereof).

[Pedro Delgado]

Yeah I think of him as a batsman who bowls a bit if needed.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Pedro Delgado

Yeah I think of him as a batsman who bowls a bit if needed.

But you seriously think he would have made the side if he couldn't bowl? There were several better batsmen available - he was picked as an allrounder.

[Pedro Delgado]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

But you seriously think he would have made the side if he couldn't bowl? There were several better batsmen available - he was picked as an allrounder.

He was potentially talented enough with the bat afaic. He rolls his arm over like Bell, Collingwood et al, and like them can be a handfull in extreme conditions.

[Johnners]

The fact that he isn't in the test team even WITH his bowling, and isn't looking anywhere close to getting another chance should answer that question... he was tried, tested and failed badly!!

[GIMH]

Never a Test Cricketer

[benchmark00]

I recall Hughes coming out and saying he was selected in the test side for his batting alone, and the fact that he could bowl a few overs was just an added bonus.

Personally, I was an advocate of him never wearing the baggy green.

[Pedro Delgado]

Originally Posted by Clapo

The fact that he isn't in the test team even WITH his bowling, and isn't looking anywhere close to getting another chance should answer that question... he was tried, tested and failed badly!!

Indeed he was but that doesn't mean he wasn't selected as a potential # 5 or whatever. His bowling has never been good enough to enable him to have been selected as a pure AR, IMO, though as I said in extreme conditions he can be very difficult to score off of and can get the odd wicket too.

A chap that talented with the bat (see his hundred in the WC) certainly deserved a go in the Test team fmpov, many as good if not better than he have tried and failed before and will do so again, it's not everyones cup of tea this Test lark.

[andyc]

Oh thank god. I thought you were saying that he got reselected, purely as a batsman.

[Johnners]

If he was chosen on batting alone ahead of Brad Hodge, Michael Clarke, Simon Katich, Phil Jaques, David Hussey, some of whom have had a chop at Test Cricket aalready (and did so more successfully that Symmo did) it was a poor decision.

He has talent with the bat of that there is no question, but his game is simply not good enough for test cricket, unlike the pajama version of the game.

[Autobahn]

No matter that the selectors said he was selected just for his batting, there where far better candidates in aussie cricket and Symonds only got a couple of games because they where chasing an all-rounder and watson was injured.

[ClownSymonds]

He won't make the test team as it is.

[alternative]

He shouldn't be a Test Cricketer.. Simple!!

[Pedro Delgado]

Originally Posted by andyc

Oh thank god. I thought you were saying that he got reselected, purely as a batsman.

I'm assuming we're talking about his first bout, at the time I thought that he warranted a blast at it, others didn't of course.

Obviously I was wrong and so were the selectors.

[Prince EWS]

The guy has decided to leave you all a message. He's the typical new-age cricket follower who can't tell the difference between ODI ability and test ability. He also thinks it is perfectly fine for Symonds to play about ten tests and perform disgracefully in all bar one of them.

Anyway, here is his message:

"Why hello forumers cricketweb.net forumers, who apparently know nothing about cricket in general. I attent the forum that Prince EWS mentioned and he showed me this thread he made. I'm a huge Symonds supporter, both for ODI's AND TESTS. I seriously think that some of you are blind! Symonds is a one of a kind player and pwns all over Watson. Symonds is a world class batsmen in one dayers and if given time he can transfer he brilliant ODI form into the test arena. Also his ability to bowl both medium pace AND off spin makes him a very handy bowler who can bowl on any pitch in the world. Symonds is also regarded as the worlds best fielder. And who could disagree? He can can not only change a match with the bat and ball (Boxing Day Test Match) but he can do likewise whilst fielding (VB Series) I guess you could say he is the complete player, and complete allrounder. If given time, I'm more then positive Symonds can produce his brilliant ODI form in the test arena. For all you Symond haters, I suggest you go and watch the Boxing day test and come back onto this forum and re-write your opinions on him because as far as I know, Watson hasn't done anything like that in both the TEST or ODI levels. Thank-you for your time and I muchly anticipate your responses."