Room For Symonds in Aus test side?

[aussie]

Because you don't know what pitches are going to do, and at least a couple of the pitches around Australia normally take a bit of spin. I dislike an all pace attack - I think its worth carrying a spinner who doesn't do much for four days of the test if they are then able to take a bag of wickets and win you the game on the fifth day. I think the option of switching from a quick to a slow and then back, or in different combinations gives captains an additional option to attack batsmen who are comfortable against your quicks, and I think they also let you rest your quicks up a bit by bowling 15-20 over spells. They also help you get through your overs - which probably means squat to any captain trying to win a game or the selectors trying to do the same, but which is a particular bug-bear of mine.

All true, but what if the spinner isn't good enough & when you get on a 4th & 5th pitch that assist them they are instead of being a threat becomes a scoring option for the batsmen a la Giles @ Old Trafford in 2005.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Out to bat?

 

[Matt79]

I find the issue of strike rates interesting in Test cricket.

On the face of it scoring quickly is a big plus. The are definate advantages, it can take the initiative away from the opposition and can impose the will of the batting side.

However, there are downsides.

Firstly, a batsman that scores their runs quickly faces less balls per innings. In these cases a fielding team knows that a wicket is in the offing and on the horizen. Almost as disheartening as getting smashed around the park is not knowing whether you will ever be able to get the guy out. High strike rates means that they lose their wickets in less balls face and there is always a glipse of hope for the bowling team

Secondly, it can lead to smaller partnerships and partnerships are key to success in Test cricket.

If a guy averages 50 at SR 100 (numbers used for ease of calculation) he will last on average 50 balls.

Assuming, equal share of the bowling a partnership between this player and another would on average 100 balls.

If the other player has a strike rate of 50 and a batting average of 50, then he would score 25 runs in that time.

Partnership = 50+25 = 75 run partnership.

Now if both players had SR of 50 and batting averages of 50 then the partnership would last 200 balls (on statistical average).

Each player would contribute 50 runs in that period.

Partnership = 50+50 = 100

Now the same would be true of 2 fast scorers together. However, one fast scorer and a mid/slow scorer = smaller partnerships.

A lot of that would come under the part of my post where I said "other things being equal". So if both batsmen on average face 80 deliveries per innings, and are in for 3 hours, the batsman who, on average, scores 50 in that time is superior to the one who scores 40.

 

[Perm]

Yes, and might also have helped to rectify his record against India. It was a great shame he missed it.

Indeed. Then I suppose people would use the argument 'it was only one game on an absolute minefield'. You can't win

 

[Mister Wright]

At the moment he's the leading contender. Watson is injured and Hodge has failed, while Symonds is building a promising innings atm.

 

[Perm]

Test cricket isn't ODI cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hodge has failed, while Symonds is building a promising innings atm.

We all know he's a good one day player. This innings doesn't even prove that much because it is one innings FFS. I don't see how it is at all relevant.

 

[Mister Wright]

Test cricket isn't ODI cricket.

Tell that to Martyn who got back into the side early this decade on the back of ODI performances. Also, tell that to Michael Clarke who made his debut after impresssive ODI performance. Also, if you've got time, tell that to Michael Hussey who got into the test side after very impressive form in ODIs. Also, if you still have time after that tell that to Andrew Symonds who wouldn't have played his first test if he hadn't of done so well in ODIs.

 

[Mister Wright]

We all know he's a good one day player. This innings doesn't even prove that much because it is one innings FFS. I don't see how it is at all relevant.

Form is form, no matter what form you are playing.

(I tried to fit form in their one more time, but couldn't do it until I made this little comment in brackets).

 

[Perm]

Tell that to Martyn who got back into the side early this decade on the back of ODI performances. Also, tell that to Michael Clarke who made his debut after impresssive ODI performance. Also, if you've got time, tell that to Michael Hussey who got into the test side after very impressive form in ODIs. Also, if you still have time after that tell that to Andrew Symonds who wouldn't have played his first test if he hadn't of done so well in ODIs.

It doesn't matter though, these players all performed at Pura Cup level. Hodge hasn't done anything to warrant being labelled a 'failure'.

 

[Prince EWS]

Form is form, no matter what form you are playing.

(I tried to fit form in their one more time, but couldn't do it until I made this little comment in brackets).

This innings doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, though. Symonds can be the best form of his life but if he isn't good enough, he will fail.

He'll surely get the gig now that Watson is injured, but not because he's on 46* in an ODI because we all knew he could do that.

Your Symonds/Hayden love in the last half hour is making me physically ill, and your Rudd avatar isn't helping matters.

 

[Mister Wright]

It doesn't matter though, these players all performed at Pura Cup level. Hodge hasn't done anything to warrant being labelled a 'failure'.

Those player's Pura Cup form had nothing to do with it. Clarke's first class average at the time he was selected for his test debut was mid 30s, which usually doesn't qualify for test status. Martyn was out of the test setup for a while, but after great form and many runs in ODIs he got back into the test side. If you're there making runs at international level the selectors have shown faith.

 

[Mister Wright]

This innings doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, though. Symonds can be the best form of his life but if he isn't good enough, he will fail.

He'll surely get the gig now that Watson is injured, but not because he's on 46* in an ODI because we all knew he could do that.

Your Symonds/Hayden love in the last half hour is making me physically ill, and your Rudd avatar isn't helping matters.

Oh, boy...I'd love to see Symonds play a test at the 'Gabba. Would make my year - especially if there's a Haymonds partnership.

As far as the love goes, blame it on the 6 Carlton Draught's I've had since the game started, and I'll keep going.

The Rudd avatar is staying until Labor loses the election.

 

[Perm]

Those player's Pura Cup form had nothing to do with it. Clarke's first class average at the time he was selected for his test debut was mid 30s, which usually doesn't qualify for test status. Martyn was out of the test setup for a while, but after great form and many runs in ODIs he got back into the test side. If you're there making runs at international level the selectors have shown faith.

Not when those players obviously don't have the tools to succeed at Test level, which Symonds clearly doesn't. As Prince said, he will most likely play in the first Test against Sri Lanka, but he doesn't deserve to. Shane Watson is a much better all-rounder and going in with six specialist batsman would also be a better choice, unfortunately the selectors want to select an all-rounder and since Symonds is the only one in the frame, he'll be picked.

Clarke and Martyn both had the talent, technique and mental ability to be successful at Test level, so by scoring runs in ODIs they were proving they could handle international bowling. Symonds doesn't have the technique or mental ability, so no matter how many runs he scores in ODIs he won't be a successful Test batsman.

 

[Mister Wright]

Not when those players obviously don't have the tools to succeed at Test level, which Symonds clearly doesn't. As Prince said, he will most likely play in the first Test against Sri Lanka, but he doesn't deserve to. Shane Watson is a much better all-rounder and going in with six specialist batsman would also be a better choice, unfortunately the selectors want to select an all-rounder and since Symonds is the only one in the frame, he'll be picked.

Clarke and Martyn both had the talent, technique and mental ability to be successful at Test level, so by scoring runs in ODIs they were proving they could handle international bowling. Symonds doesn't have the technique or mental ability, so no matter how many runs he scores in ODIs he won't be a successful Test batsman.

Will you eat your computer if Symonds becomes a success at test level?

Because, I've seen him play some wonderful first class innings for Qld in difficult conditions. All he needs is the belief which he now should have after his maiden century.

I'll eat my computer if he isn't.

 

[Prince EWS]

You're pushing it Wright. I'll have a Howard avatar in a minute if you aren't careful.

 

[Johnners]

Will you eat your computer if Symonds becomes a success at test level?

Because, I've seen him play some wonderful first class innings for Qld in difficult conditions. All he needs is the belief which he now should have after his maiden century.

I'll eat my computer if he isn't.

With sauce?

 

[Mister Wright]

With sauce?

Dijon Mustard. Might season with Oregano.

 

[Mister Wright]

You're pushing it Wright. I'll have a Howard avatar in a minute if you aren't careful.

Bring it on. Considering Clapo is a sissy and won't compete in an avatar challenge.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bring it on. Considering Clapo is a sissy and won't compete in an avatar challenge.

Done.