Would Andrew Symonds have made a difference in India?

[Prince EWS]

Because I'm a n00b and will ask out of ignorance, what is with the Sarah Palin avatar? Revealing a new 'thing' for mid-40 Alaskan women?

He lost an avatar bet. He reckoned Jason Krejza would fail to take a top order wicket in the series.

 

[Top_Cat]

He lost an avatar bet. He reckoned Jason Krejza would fail to take a top order wicket in the series.

Besides which, she's freakin' fine. Not as fine as my 21-year-old blonde hottie but still...

And dammit, I was on track until he got selected in the last Test. If he'd gotten selected earlier, I still reckon he'd have been pumped and not selected again.

 

[GIMH]

Agree with the 'a difference but not the difference' theory

 

[IndGunner]

Big difference for me, He has his light off spin and His batting is top notch. His fielding unbelievable. and the one that would have got the draw or win for aust would have been his luck he has some unquantifiable amount. i think his off spin would have help out.

 

[Uppercut]

Agree with the 'a difference but not the difference' theory

Me too. You can't be sure though, because his incredible fielding can come into play at the most crucial of times (or not at all). Just say he had run out Zaheer or Harbhajan in the first innings of the series, for example. India were better throughout by enough of a margin to say they'd almost certainly have come out on top anyway, but Australia sure do look a better team with Symonds around.

One thing that was massive to India's victory IMO was the blessing-in-disguise of Kumble's injury just before the second test. No first-innings five wicket haul from his replacement and superb captaincy from Dhoni and the series could conceivably have finished 0-0.

 

[krkode]

Only one who could have made the difference, is Glenn McGrath, IMO. And Gillespie.

 

[Jono]

He would have kept Krezja out for four tests instead of three.

 

[G.I.Joe]

He would have kept Krezja out for four tests instead of three.

Would have been counterbalanced by him getting Harbhajan banned

Although then India would just have drafted in Murali Kartik and played last two tests on proper turning wickets and won 3-0.

So in effect, Symonds would have made a difference, just not in the desired direction.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, he would have made a difference. Symonds > White anyway you look at it. Big enough to reverse the series? No.

 

[Richard]

Frankly I hope Symonds retires tomorrow so that he never has a chance to get the luck 'readdressed'. It'll drive Richard insane for the rest of his life and that'd be hilarious to watch.

I've long since highly doubted that's going to happen anyway. It'd just be fantastic to see him get 5 "out" shockers in a row. It's always been aught but a dream though, never something I was actually having terribly high hopes of happening.

As to the question - of course he'd have made a difference, Andrew Johns would have made a difference. A fan throwing a bottle of water on the pitch would have made a difference. Would that difference have caused Australia to do better or worse? Tough question. I'd hope worse, but I'm not really sold either way.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Would he have made a difference? Yes IMO.
Would that difference have been significant enough to stop India winning 2-0? No, IMO.

EWS on the money for mine.

 

[quick4mindia]

I am tired of people trying to do some post fact analysis. Symmo is just an average player and his being in Australian test team does not mean a big change. He was selected in the team because CA ran out of other options.

I have been reading similar views on losing Shane Warne from the side and lack of a quality spinner after him. Warne may have been good against the whole world but his record against India is anything but decent. So i would even say ....let alone symonds even if it were Shane Warne.....the result would have been same....2-0

 

[social]

Symmo is just an average player

Classic

 

[andruid]

Yes, of course, Bhajji would have been suspended after the first Test, Zaheer after the second and Ishant after the third.

It would have been very difficult for India to bowl Australia out.

Symmo batting at six has been excellent in test cricket for Australia, call him lucky or whatever you want he has counter-attacked Australia out of trouble on so many occassions now, and Aussies missed that really badly on this tour, his offies could have been handy too in Indian conditions.

Then I would have won the prediction thingy cos the Australia would have had a bit more spine in their lower order and would probably have saved the last test rather than subsiding to 209 all out.

Besides which, she's freakin' fine. Not as fine as my 21-year-old blonde hottie but still...

And dammit, I was on track until he got selected in the last Test. If he'd gotten selected earlier, I still reckon he'd have been pumped and not selected again.

No she is not

 

[Richard]

I am tired of people trying to do some post fact analysis. Symmo is just an average player and his being in Australian test team does not mean a big change. He was selected in the team because CA ran out of other options.

I have been reading similar views on losing Shane Warne from the side and lack of a quality spinner after him. Warne may have been good against the whole world but his record against India is anything but decent. So i would even say ....let alone symonds even if it were Shane Warne.....the result would have been same....2-0

The question of "would Shane Warne have made a difference in India in 2008/09?" is kind of a pointless one. The likely answer is "no", and the reason it's no is nothing to do with what happened in 1991/92, or 1997/98, or 2000/01, but the fact that Warne hasn't bowled in a proper game of cricket for 1-and-a-half years now. Therefore it's pretty likely he'd not bowl terribly well if he should have been called out-of-the-blue.

However, if he were to bowl as he bowled at pretty much any time between February 1993 and January 1997, or any time between July 2001 and December 2005, the chances are he'd make one hell of a difference, whether or not that'd be enough to alter the result.

 

[aussie]

I honestly feel Warne hadn't retired & had ambitions to play to 40 in the 2009 Ashes, he would had a similar series here to his 05 Ashes performance.

But of course such a possible performance would not have altered the series otucome given that the quicks couldn't get the the ball to reverse swing.

 

[morgieb]

Would he have made a difference? Yes IMO.
Would that difference have been significant enough to stop India winning 2-0? Might have made it closer, but not really.

Fixed. That's my POV.

 

[Top_Cat]

No she is not

You're not.

 

[Mister Wright]

Reckon he would have made a big difference. Has been the most solid batter for Australia for the past 2 years and his bowling variety would have been something for Ponting to call on. Who knows? If Symonds was playing maybe we wouldn't have been so far behind in our over rates.

Reckon his fielding would have made a big difference.

 

[quick4mindia]

The question of "would Shane Warne have made a difference in India in 2008/09?" is kind of a pointless one. The likely answer is "no", and the reason it's no is nothing to do with what happened in 1991/92, or 1997/98, or 2000/01, but the fact that Warne hasn't bowled in a proper game of cricket for 1-and-a-half years now. Therefore it's pretty likely he'd not bowl terribly well if he should have been called out-of-the-blue.

However, if he were to bowl as he bowled at pretty much any time between February 1993 and January 1997, or any time between July 2001 and December 2005, the chances are he'd make one hell of a difference, whether or not that'd be enough to alter the result.

I agree, Warne played like God whenever the other team was not India.