• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Shane Watson vs Andrew Symonds (ODIs)

Cast Your Vote

  • Watson better batsman, Symonds better AR

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Symonds better batsman, Symonds better AR

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Can't Split as batsmen, Watson better AR

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He averaged 145 at a strike rate of 170 batting 7 in the World Cup.

Only got out once but still, he didn't exactly suck at the role when he was required at that point.
Yeah that's about what I expected. tbf that's only actually 85 balls of batting in the whole tournament too
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Avoiding the question

No, it wont be the "the batsmen who average more at a quicker rate thanks". We're talking about batsmen who clear the rope more frequently and safely. With the bat, that's the role he's being selected for.
What sort of a moron selects someone because they "clear the ropes frequently" over someone who scores at quick rate and averages a higher amount?
 
Last edited:

srbhkshk

International Captain
What sort of a moron selects someone because they "clear the ropes frequently" over someone who scores at quick rate and averages a higher amount?
It's an insurance in case you reach the world cup final and the game is tied.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
What are your reasons for thinking he doesn't belong in an ATG side?
There's literally no role he fulfils.

Not good enough to play as a specialist bat.

Bowling nowhere near the standard needed to qualify as an allrounder without having to rely on part timers as an insurance policy.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He actually averaged 40 at a strike rate of 87 at #7 overall in his career, from 23 innings. He seemed really unsuited to it early on but he was absolutely smashing it towards the end before moving up to opening. If he kept the role I think he would've been perfectly fine at it.
I see. Honestly had no idea that his figures at 7 were that good (mostly because of what you said re: being unsuited to it), but yeah if he was doing that well I think he would've been a fine 7 if he stayed here.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
There's literally no role he fulfils.

Not good enough to play as a specialist bat.

Bowling nowhere near the standard needed to qualify as an allrounder without having to rely on part timers as an insurance policy.
"Literally no role he fulfils"

Have a look at the stats for number 5 and 6 batsmen in ODIs. He's ahead of almost anyone else in the lower middle order in terms of SR and avg when batting. The only two that are remotely comparable are Dhoni and Bevan, but both have weaker SRs. Plus you get literally the best inner ring fieldsman we have seen, and a bowler who can be a handy option.



But yeh, he fulfils "no role". 8-)
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
One advantage of picking Symonds at 5/6/7 in an ATG side is that he's one of half a dozen guys in history who are proven performers in those slots. Buttler and Morgan have begun to catch up but Symonds was better than those guys when there was something in the pitch. Hussey and Bevan were probably better as pure batsmen and Ranatunga was pretty good in the role but Symonds provides more utility than anyone else in that role.

If you discount his bowling as not being good enough for an ATG side (despite him basically playing the role of 5th bowler in the best side in history) but say Watson's bowling is good enough then Watson may edge ahead.

But really with Viv in the side to roll his arm over for a few and 4 ATG bowlers, it's the extra 6 runs that Symonds leaks over Watson really going to have much impact compared to Symonds superior fielding, lower order batting and hitting?
 

srbhkshk

International Captain
But really with Viv in the side to roll his arm over for a few and 4 ATG bowlers, it's the extra 6 runs that Symonds leaks over Watson really going to have much impact compared to Symonds superior fielding, lower order batting and hitting?
My assumption has always been that in an ATG scenario it's going to be a lot more than 6 runs.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's literally no role he fulfils.

Not good enough to play as a specialist bat.

Bowling nowhere near the standard needed to qualify as an allrounder without having to rely on part timers as an insurance policy.
nah that's rubbish. He fills the no. 5-7 role beautifully. Averages 50+ in ODI cricket outside of Australia, which you'd presume would be where the team would play most of the time. Striking at 90+ too I'd assume. Bowling is just a handy bonus and he's arguably the best there's ever been. Can't help but feel that all those so vehemently opposed to Symonds being in the ATG ODI side have an axe to grind.
 

M0rphin3

International Debutant
Dunno, even for his time, Symonds seemed to play numerous crunch knocks. Watson defo the better allrounder though.
 

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Bowling is just a handy bonus and he's arguably the best there's ever been

You sure rate his bowling heh
 

GoodAreasShane

Cricketer Of The Year
I never thought too much of Symonds the bowler tbh, the offies a bit better than the meds but realistically a fit Watson was a vastly superior bowler.

Batting wise though I was always a big fan though
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I feel like Symonds was a more talented batsman, though his technique didn't hold up at Test level. Watson had days where he could be incredibly destructive, but teams could block his scoring areas and make him struggle to rotate the strike. India tied him down really well in the 2011 QF, you couldn't do that to Symonds.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I feel like Symonds was a more talented batsman, though his technique didn't hold up at Test level. Watson had days where he could be incredibly destructive, but teams could block his scoring areas and make him struggle to rotate the strike. India tied him down really well in the 2011 QF, you couldn't do that to Symonds.
this is false

never got a chance to see him on an English greentop but he never seemed to have too much trouble adapting to Test cricket during his short period established in the side
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
this is false

never got a chance to see him on an English greentop but he never seemed to have too much trouble adapting to Test cricket during his short period established in the side
Did they drop him after 2008 or was there some other reason he never got picked again?
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Symonds was a good batsman, could play some very nice orthodox cricket shots when he wanted to. Nothing better than seeing the Indians with six back on the fence in a test also lol

 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Did they drop him after 2008 or was there some other reason he never got picked again?
Wasn't really dropped because of form. Mostly behavioural issues IIRC. Like he refused to show up for compulsory trainings. He sort of just faded away, it was a bit sad.

what were the 4?
haha he reckons he should have been out 4 times during the innings

also monkey-gate series, and pretty sure the same one where the Indians threatened to go home unless the match referee was fired because he caught Sachin ball-tampering. Good times.
 
Last edited:

Top