If Symonds had chosen England instead

[Craig]

There is probably an alternative universe where he did choose England instread of Australia and I'm probably in danger of being shoot/hanged/burnt at the stage again, however I will post away anyway.

My question is had he opted to play for England and showing up his shortcomings thus far (if he plays in Perth he will probably blast 145 now) in the Test areana, but given some players England have picked do you think he would been a fixture in the England Test team during the late 90's and now? Would he and Flintoff be too similar of players especially with the bat?

Of course this is hypothetical but I felt like creating some discussion/controversy () anyway.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Personally I think he'd be our regular 7 at the expense of Giles (GoJo dropping down to 8). We all know how Big Dunc's supposed to get a wide-on for multi-dimensional players, so a bloke who is a top fielder, bowls seam & off-spin and can average over 25 in tests is his kinda guy, clearly.

 

[chaminda_00]

He would have made the side as a specialist batsmen and got dropped if he could transfer his One Day Batting to Test Cricket. He would have been given more chances mind you. Also he would have never played as an all rounder, unless Flintoff was injuried or something.

 

[Goughy]

No guarantees that he would have succeeded, but to me he is more of and England player than Aus and I suspect he would have had a long career by now averaging mid-40s.

TBH, England could have used him and Im sure he made the best decision for himself but career wise it would probably have been better if he had played for the country of his birth.

 

[Poker Boy]

He would have played a lot more Tests for us than Australia, but I don't think he'd have done any better. He would have been like Ramprskash, Hick or Crawley - who got a lot of chances because of CC record but never cut it at Test level. Might have improved our ODI team though - especially in '99 WC (tells you how bad we were at the time - I think he'd have got into our ODI team then but he wasn't in Australia's at that time).

 

[age_master]

No guarantees that he would have succeeded, but to me he is more of and England player than Aus and I suspect he would have had a long career by now averaging mid-40s.

TBH, England could have used him and Im sure he made the best decision for himself but career wise it would probably have been better if he had played for the country of his birth.

He would have played alot of test matches i think, he is a better spinner then Giles, and bowls pace as well, he would be the best fielder in England by a fair margin (though Collingwood isn't too far behind - he hasn't been around that long though) and his batting would match up to alot of the English from 10 years ago i think.

 

[PhoenixFire]

That's stretching it a bit too far to call him a better spinner than Giles, he's not that bad.

 

[nightprowler10]

He's definitely a better spinner than Giles, as Giles is more of a slow bowler than anything.

 

[James90]

What if Jaques chose England...would he have initially have been chosen instead of Cook?

 

[PrincePeiterson]

Sad to say, but he made the right choice in chosing to play for Australia. He helped them win a World Cup and it looks like he will probably be involved in another one next year.

 

[Arjun]

If Symonds chose England, he'd add enough value to the team to make them a lot stronger than they are now. Batting duty on Flintoff would be reduced and he could play as a striker. Symonds is more of a proper batsman who can play for a long innings. The stocks of overs he can contribute will help the main strike bowlers quite well, and so will his fielding. He's a better all-rounder than Giles and Jones. If I was in charge, I'd drop both of them, bring in Read and Panesar, then Symonds at six, play one seamer less and you'd have a very strong England lineup.

Anyway, I've got half a mind to start a "what if he played for your team" discussion. Like to join? It will unsettle fans of a few players or teams, though.

 

[The Sticky Dog]

He'd be their best player. That's what.

 

[The Sticky Dog]

He'd be their best player. That's what.

 

[Craig]

If Symonds chose England, he'd add enough value to the team to make them a lot stronger than they are now. Batting duty on Flintoff would be reduced and he could play as a striker. Symonds is more of a proper batsman who can play for a long innings. The stocks of overs he can contribute will help the main strike bowlers quite well, and so will his fielding. He's a better all-rounder than Giles and Jones. If I was in charge, I'd drop both of them, bring in Read and Panesar, then Symonds at six, play one seamer less and you'd have a very strong England lineup.

Anyway, I've got half a mind to start a "what if he played for your team" discussion. Like to join? It will unsettle fans of a few players or teams, though.

Well why not?

My present thread creating form indicates that

 

[mohammad16]

if that happened, england would be nearly as good as australia at the ODI level, they rely on symonds heavily to infalte that run rate at the end, he is remarkable at doing that, he can jus bat other teams out of the game.

 

[The Sticky Dog]

He'd be their best player.

 

[nightprowler10]

We heard you the first two times.