End of the Test road for Symonds

[Noble One]

Before the 93 Ashes, Reiffel had played 4 Tests and had a bowling average north of 40. It wasnt as if an established player with a great record was excluded. Your is based purely on the fact that Rieffel did well when he came into the side. Taking advantage of hindsight there.

Julian was a decent cricketer. Tim May was a good cricketer and I rated Bichel. Symonds was an ordinary selection for Australia but he would have walked into any England team, Miller was an interesting idea. The rest I dont know enough about to comment.

Adding to the mix is Paul Reiffel was coming off a horrendous Sheffield Shield season by his own earlier standards. Brendon Julian had performed well for WA, mixing some blistering spells with average performances, and was generally considered one of the brightest young bowling all-rounders in Australia.

Was considered the right selection back in 1993. Hindsight may have proven otherwise; but it was by no means a poor selection.

 

[NUFAN]

Many of the names Rich mentioned will go down as the worst Cricketers to wear the baggy green but who really cares.

I don't think 19 undeserving Cricketers in 17 years is THAT high. Especially when I would disagree with a few especially May, Bichel and Symonds so that would make it 16 max.

The good stat for Australia is that we've not picked a batsman who's looked COMPLETELY out of his depth for a very long time!

Edit - I'm not going to include Rogers due to him playing just the one match and getting out to a questionable LBW decision in the second innings.

 

[Noble One]

Richards list contains 9 spin bowlers out of the 19 cricketers regarded as poor/undeserving selections. I don't necessarily disagree; just think it proves a point that quality spin bowlers are so difficult to un-earth.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, that's precisely the point... so pick more seamers instead of these nothing second-spinners!

 

[Richard]

I know you're talking about tests, but I'm sure the English team will testify to how 'diabolical' Bichel was in the World Cup when he smashed them with both bat and ball after we were bowled out for not many.

Bichel was superb in ODIs that season...

... but that doesn't make one iyota of difference to how he performed in Tests.

 

[Richard]

Before the 93 Ashes, Reiffel had played 4 Tests and had a bowling average north of 40. It wasnt as if an established player with a great record was excluded. Your is based purely on the fact that Rieffel did well when he came into the side. Taking advantage of hindsight there.

Julian was a decent cricketer. Tim May was a good cricketer and I rated Bichel. Symonds was an ordinary selection for Australia but he would have walked into any England team, Miller was an interesting idea. The rest I dont know enough about to comment.

Adding to the mix is Paul Reiffel was coming off a horrendous Sheffield Shield season by his own earlier standards. Brendon Julian had performed well for WA, mixing some blistering spells with average performances, and was generally considered one of the brightest young bowling all-rounders in Australia.

Was considered the right selection back in 1993. Hindsight may have proven otherwise; but it was by no means a poor selection.

I'll admit I'd not taken the blindest bit of notice of Reiffel and Julian's Shield performances in 1992/93, but it should've been obvious to anyone with two eyes that Reiffel was a far better bowler than Julian. At any stage. Yes, even though Reiffel did indeed have a poor tour of New Zealand, which I am aware - it should still I'd have thought have been obvious that he was better than Julian.

I can't emphasise enough how bad Julian was. Maybe there was some point which I've not experienced where he was better and looked vaguely like the part, but whenever I watched him he just looked anything but an international cricketer. Until I came accross names like McIntyre, Hauritz and one or two others I couldn't believe Australia seriously picked cricketers as bad as him.

In fairness, of course, he did save one Test, Trent Bridge 1993. But that really is it.

 

[Richard]

I don't think 19 undeserving Cricketers in 17 years is THAT high.

It isn't that high, but that's not really the point - the point is that someone (I forget who) suggested that there were none, and that McDonald was now the first for 20-odd years. Which, well, just isn't true. McDonald may be average but he's better than quite a few of the players in that above 19.

 

[Richard]

Haha, love how Rich can speak with such authority about players he's too young to have seen much of (some at all) and in another country he's never been to.

I've seen some\plenty of the lot of 'em, regardless of whether it was at the time or not. And I really don't need to have visited Australia to understand it.

 

[Noble One]

I'll admit I'd not taken the blindest bit of notice of Reiffel and Julian's Shield performances in 1992/93, but it should've been obvious to anyone with two eyes that Reiffel was a far better bowler than Julian. At any stage. Yes, even though Reiffel did indeed have a poor tour of New Zealand, which I am aware - it should still I'd have thought have been obvious that he was better than Julian.

I can't emphasise enough how bad Julian was. Maybe there was some point which I've not experienced where he was better and looked vaguely like the part, but whenever I watched him he just looked anything but an international cricketer. Until I came accross names like McIntyre, Hauritz and one or two others I couldn't believe Australia seriously picked cricketers as bad as him.

In fairness, of course, he did save one Test, Trent Bridge 1993. But that really is it.

Was pretty useful on that first morning of the 1st Test at Kengsington Oval in 1995. For mine, his best bowling performance for Australia.

I agree he was overall a poor Test cricketer. Selectors easily excited by an athletic/tall left arm fast bowler who bowled at good pace and swung the ball. Always struggled with his accuracy, and just his general attitude when the batsman got on-top.

You made the point that cricketers such as Brendon Julian, Paul Wilson, Adam Dale, and countless spinners where selected over a proven/tireless performers as Jo Angel. Agree entirely. Loved the way Jo Angel bowled, brilliant for WA for so many years, bowled well in the few international games he played.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Bichel was superb in ODIs that season...

... but that doesn't make one iyota of difference to how he performed in Tests.

*iota

 

[Top_Cat]

I've seen some\plenty of the lot of 'em, regardless of whether it was at the time or not. And I really don't need to have visited Australia to understand it.

Your statements about most of them indicate otherwise, I'm afraid.

I'll admit I'd not taken the blindest bit of notice of Reiffel and Julian's Shield performances in 1992/93,

And, I might add, for someone who advocates that the best way to select a player is by objective measures (season stats, etc.), you were offered the reason why Julian was preferred over Reiffel (Julian had a better Shield season) and maintain Aus should have picked Reiffel and that was obvious Reiffel the better bowler. Just a smidge inconsistent, don't ya think? On form, Julian was the obvious pick. Actually, on form, Holdsworth was the obvious pick but thank **** they didn't.....

Myself, I remember Julian was picked largely because he could brought more to the table; far better bat and field, offered variety being a leftie and being a swing bowler vs the seam-up Reiffel, was thought to be in a better position to exploit English conditions. And, at the time, it wasn't completely obvious who was the better bowler. Julian was well-known at the time to be quite a talented bowler. He just didn't fulfill it whereas Reiffel very much did.

 

[Richard]

Your statements about most of them indicate otherwise, I'm afraid.

How so? There's plenty of players who I've seen virtually their entire careers (Matthew Hayden for example) who people would, if they could, use the "you clearly didn't see his career so you can't comment". People just sometimes don't like what I say, and the "you didn't see his career because it was before your time" is a nice easy convenient one for a mass of players.

I can't be expected to know what happened in every single season in history you know.

And, I might add, for someone who advocates that the best way to select a player is by objective measures (season stats, etc.), you were offered the reason why Julian was preferred over Reiffel (Julian had a better Shield season) and maintain Aus should have picked Reiffel and that was obvious Reiffel the better bowler. Just a smidge inconsistent, don't ya think? On form, Julian was the obvious pick. Actually, on form, Holdsworth was the obvious pick but thank **** they didn't.....

Myself, I remember Julian was picked largely because he could brought more to the table; far better bat and field, offered variety being a leftie and being a swing bowler vs the seam-up Reiffel, was thought to be in a better position to exploit English conditions. And, at the time, it wasn't completely obvious who was the better bowler. Julian was well-known at the time to be quite a talented bowler. He just didn't fulfill it whereas Reiffel very much did.

Fair enough. As I say, my knoweldge of the case isn't all-consuming. However, I've never once said there isn't a place for picking someone who's obviously better over someone who's obviously worse, even if recent form (not entire careers) is in favour of the inferior.

Either way, even if Reiffel wasn't better-placed to succeed than Julian in 1993, I can't believe there weren't others who were. I maintain that Julian is one of the worst players I've ever seen play international cricket.

 

[Richard]

*iota

I spelt it like that on CW once, and someone (you can guess who) said "ner, it's not actually it's iyota".

Fact is there are two different spellings, same as realise\realize, scrum\scrim and many others.

 

[Uppercut]

I spelt it like that on CW once, and someone (you can guess who) said "ner, it's not actually it's iyota".

Fact is there are two different spellings, same as realise\realize, scrum\scrim and many others.

*checks Oxford English Dictionary*

Nope. It's iota.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I spelt it like that on CW once, and someone (you can guess who) said "ner, it's not actually it's iyota".

Fact is there are two different spellings, same as realise\realize, scrum\scrim and many others.

Was it Daisuke Iyota, Hidemi Iyota or Shinsuke Iyota?

Iota is the correct spelling, I told you it was dangerous territory the other day. None of us here are perfect when it comes to spelling.

 

[Noble One]

Either way, even if Reiffel wasn't better-placed to succeed than Julian in 1993, I can't believe there weren't others who were. I maintain that Julian is one of the worst players I've ever seen play international cricket.

The leading bowlers in the 1992/1993 Sheffield Shield seasons ended up as follower.

Wayne Holdsworth 45 @ 25.6: Selected to tour England. Worse bowler than Julian. Had pace, but little else.

Michael Kasprowicz 43 @ 23.5: First full season for Queensland. Very raw cricketer then.

Chris Matthews 43 @ 28.5. Already failed at Test level some 5 years previously. Entering twilight of his career around 1993.

Then Brendon Julian with 37 @ 33.1.

His real competition for the extra bowler spots was relatively non-existant. Jo Angel had a poor season, Glenn McGrath was a rookie, Reiffel was below his best, Fleming was a chance and perhaps only Carl Rackerman was worthy of selection.

Lack of options played a large role in the elevation of Julian to the Ashes squad. Seemed a wise move at the time, pick the young quick. Proved otherwise, but at no fault of selection decisions.

 

[brockley]

The courimer mail has panned the selectors for not picking symmonds in the A side.
Don't think him missing out means much tho.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Obviously they've gone for a look at those that they haven't seen exposed as often at "A" level, which is fair enough. These guys I doubt would be above Symonds in the current pecking order, or others for that matter. But they need to get as good a look at these guys as possible to see what they're capable; they know what Symonds is capable of.

 

[Matt79]

As if he'd want to play for the A side anyway.

In any case, the A team has not been a genuine second XI for a long time.

 

[Matt79]

I spelt it like that on CW once, and someone (you can guess who) said "ner, it's not actually it's iyota".

Fact is there are two different spellings, same as realise\realize, scrum\scrim and many others.

I've never ever seen anyone spell it as iyota. Think you've been had.