End of the Test road for Symonds

[Top_Cat]

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.

He was the best of the lefties going around at the time too which worked in his favour.

Personally, was picked because he's a chick magnet for the hard-up players on tour.

 

[andruid]

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

*checks Oxford English Dictionary*

Nope. It's iota.

Not an iota of doubt that iyota is plain wrong

 

[aussie]

Nah, best to start at '89. After '89, until '06/07, they were only twice outplayed outside India\SL - WI '91 and Eng '05. Against everyone else they were the better side or at worst equals.

Yea well fair enough

The clear watershed Test was the Fifth Test of the 2006/07 Ashes. The last of the truly outstanding teams of that period played together in that Test. The judgement date will be from the start of the 2007/08 season onwards.

Between SRI 07/08 to SA 07/08 (in Aus) would be considered to transition period. The Ponting era just began with the win in SA.

Because there were 4-5 better seam bowlers than him - admittedly, half of whom were injury-prone.

So. May was generally picked on turning tracks & he was a solid off-spinner. I dont see how you can say him playing for Australia, was a useless baggy-green selection.

So? Jo Angel for one was available, and he was a quite patently better bowler. There were probably others - Julian was dreadful. Anyways, Julian was first picked not in WI in '95 but in England in '93... ahead of Reiffel. .

Well i was talking about the WI 95, it was a forced selection. I see others have brought new light to why Julian was selected in 93, so again not a wasteful baggy-green selection.

So pick seamers. Good seamers > poor spinners, under any circumstances. Granted, Gillespie, Kasprowicz or Bichel would probably have had zero benefit from playing a single Test in India compared to making their debuts at home (as they subsequently did), but it'd still have made less of a mockery of the BaggyGreen than to pick those two no-hopers. Anyway, McIntyre's other game was against England in 1994/95 - when there were again several far superior seamers available.

Not just good seamers, you have to be adept at bowling on those flat pitches - either high pace - or ability to reverse swing the ball. In 96 Australia had none of that.

I agree McIntyre was a useless selection, but again the circumstances - it was a one-off test in India. I forgot about the England game, didn't see the game but i am presuming it was an adelaide turner & they wanted a back-up to Warne.

Because he did nothing whatsoever of note apart from demolish two utterly deplorable West Indies ('00/01) and Pakistan ('02/03) sides.

So he wasn't a useless test player. He wasn't the greatest yea, but to put him on the same level as the McDonald or White pick is nonsense...

To one bowler - Glenn McGrath. Cook was barely even a regular for his state - there were 7 or 8 bowlers who could at the very least say that..

I have no facts of that plus the injury situation ATT to the likes of Dizzy, Fleming etc. He probably would have been smoked if he had gotten more test - but again circumstances - if he was a quick injury replacement, to never be played again. The notion of "useless selection" cant be bestowed upon him since he took 5 on debut.

Well... no, he isn't, Robertson was a very poor spinner who should never, ever have played. Apart from anything he was initially picked in preference to MacGill!.

You ever saw Robertson bowl?. I think not, i got an old VHS cassette of the tours to PAK & IND in the late 90s of him bowling, probably got a little fungus now i would mail it to you. But the man has all of Swann's traits, he just ran into a Tendulkar in 98 at his ultimate peak.

On him being selected ahead of MacGill intially. No doubt Stewey was the better bowler. But i think the selectors saw even back then that his loopy leggies in India would have been smashed regardless. That was proven has his career progressed that againts good players of spin i.e SRI 04, IND 03/04 he was found wanting.

Plus with the pace-bowling ranks depleted for that tour, Robertson was a safer pick.

They weren't, though. Better players were available - Fleming, Angel, to name just a couple.

Fleming was one of the injured going into the tour & i dont think Angel was all that better than Dale. Both equally average, neither would have made much of a difference in India.

Nah, Miller was a journeyman pro who'd bowled average seamers for years. That he was going to fluke a year or two of being an effective fingerspinner against terrible batting units could not possibly have been guessed.

Nonsense. Who cares about what he did as a seamer for years? Fact is as he transformed into an off-spinner especially on turning tracks, he was very good. I saw all of his test's except the one vs ZIM he too is on par with Swann. Rest ya self...

Nah, Williams and Symonds were both selected over vastly superior candidates.

Oh lord, well we have argued about this Symonds scenario before. I wont get into that again because you have a ideological gridlock that - Symo is a lucky cricketer - because of your crazy FCA theory.

On Williams he deserved his elevation into the test squad vs IND & SRI 03/04. He was brillaint in preceeding ODI's & given the big trio of Pigeon, Dizzy & Bing where out injured or below par, he along with Bracks where the form bowlers.

He just bowled in the flattest summer of AUS cricket this 2000s era & in SRI where his style of bowling was never going to be effective.

Please dont say Kasper was a better option ATT, because his FC form wasn't steppin up till the later half of the domestic summer during the VB series & not during during the tests vs IND. Plus prior to that recall Kasper career was very inconsistent....what happened in 04 surprised everyone.

So saying Williams selection was poor doesn't even make sense in hindsight...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Nah, Miller was a journeyman pro who'd bowled average seamers for years. That he was going to fluke a year or two of being an effective fingerspinner against terrible batting units could not possibly have been guessed.

The fact that he'd just broken a long standing record for the most wickets in a year meant that they couldn't have guessed that he might've been successful?

 

[Richard]

I could give you a fair few players who broke short-term long-standing records and amounted to very little long-term.

Miller was a freak, simple as. Cases like him virtually never occur.

 

[Richard]

Between SRI 07/08 to SA 07/08 (in Aus) would be considered to transition period. The Ponting era just began with the win in SA.

Saying an era has begun after a single series is not very wise.

So. May was generally picked on turning tracks & he was a solid off-spinner. I dont see how you can say him playing for Australia, was a useless baggy-green selection.

May was picked regularly, on most surfaces, as a first-choice bowler for a period of a couple of years. Crazy stuff. Especially with Warne already in the side.

Well i was talking about the WI 95, it was a forced selection. I see others have brought new light to why Julian was selected in 93, so again not a wasteful baggy-green selection.

1993 is fair enough; WI 1995 certainly isn't. There must've been better bowlers, even with McDermott and Fleming missing.

Not just good seamers, you have to be adept at bowling on those flat pitches - either high pace - or ability to reverse swing the ball. In 96 Australia had none of that.

I agree McIntyre was a useless selection, but again the circumstances - it was a one-off test in India. I forgot about the England game, didn't see the game but i am presuming it was an adelaide turner & they wanted a back-up to Warne.

Seamers are always more likely to have effect on rank flat decks than fingerspinners or nothing wristspinners. A seamer would always have been a better pick than McIntyre except on a rank bunsen.

So he wasn't a useless test player. He wasn't the greatest yea, but to put him on the same level as the McDonald or White pick is nonsense...

Bichel earned his corn, fo' sho', but he was a poor Test player who but for injury would never have played.

I have no facts of that plus the injury situation ATT to the likes of Dizzy, Fleming etc. He probably would have been smoked if he had gotten more test - but again circumstances - if he was a quick injury replacement, to never be played again. The notion of "useless selection" cant be bestowed upon him since he took 5 on debut.

It can. What happened, as I've said 100 times, is irrelevant to the calibre of selection. Cook's selection had next to nothing going for it. He should never, under any circumstances, have been picked.

You ever saw Robertson bowl?. I think not, i got an old VHS cassette of the tours to PAK & IND in the late 90s of him bowling, probably got a little fungus now i would mail it to you. But the man has all of Swann's traits, he just ran into a Tendulkar in 98 at his ultimate peak.

On him being selected ahead of MacGill intially. No doubt Stewey was the better bowler. But i think the selectors saw even back then that his loopy leggies in India would have been smashed regardless. That was proven has his career progressed that againts good players of spin i.e SRI 04, IND 03/04 he was found wanting.

Plus with the pace-bowling ranks depleted for that tour, Robertson was a safer pick.

Robertson was a fairly nothing bowler, I've seen his action and have taken a look at his career. Under whatever circumstances, MacGill was a superior bowler to him and it'd have cheapened the BaggyGreen less to pick MacGill (who'd already played) than Robertson.

Fleming was one of the injured going into the tour & i dont think Angel was all that better than Dale. Both equally average, neither would have made much of a difference in India.

Fleming was not injured going into India 1997/98 - he was called-up mid-tour. Angel was a fine bowler and would have been a more worthy selection than any of Bichel, Dale or Wilson. That any ever got the chance ahead of him was wrong.

Nonsense. Who cares about what he did as a seamer for years? Fact is as he transformed into an off-spinner especially on turning tracks, he was very good. I saw all of his test's except the one vs ZIM he too is on par with Swann. Rest ya self...

Miller enjoyed success only against rank dreadful batting units. Against stronger ones he generally came-up short, because he wasn't really much of a bowler.

Oh lord, well we have argued about this Symonds scenario before. I wont get into that again because you have a ideological gridlock that - Symo is a lucky cricketer - because of your crazy FCA theory.

On Williams he deserved his elevation into the test squad vs IND & SRI 03/04. He was brillaint in preceeding ODI's & given the big trio of Pigeon, Dizzy & Bing where out injured or below par, he along with Bracks where the form bowlers.

He just bowled in the flattest summer of AUS cricket this 2000s era & in SRI where his style of bowling was never going to be effective.

Please dont say Kasper was a better option ATT, because his FC form wasn't steppin up till the later half of the domestic summer during the VB series & not during during the tests vs IND. Plus prior to that recall Kasper career was very inconsistent....what happened in 04 surprised everyone.

So saying Williams selection was poor doesn't even make sense in hindsight...

Williams should have been selected after Kasprowicz. I said this at the time, so did quite a few others - before he played any Tests and we saw on the big stage how bad he really was. And even if Symonds had earnt (rather than been gifted by poor Umpiring) his success it still wouldn't mean it was right to pick him ahead of Katich in 2003/04.

 

[redhotchilipepa]

I would say it's not looking good for Symdonds right now.

He will be returning to Australia from London after a "breach of team rules."

Can read more about it at CA's website. http://www.cricket.com.au/

Apologies if there is already a thread about this.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Miller had a reasonably successful tour of SL, although he only really got a bowl in three innings proper.

 

[Noble One]

Miller hardly disgraced himself in the 5 Tests he opened the bowling with his medium-pacers either.

Tore through Pakistan in Karachi in 1998 opening the bowling. Very unique ability.

Hard to fault the Test career of Colin Miller. Bowled well in every series, regardless of quality of opposition. Cannot fault a cricketer for never bowling to and thus dismissing top quality batting lineups. Performed well in Sri Lanka, took wickets in his one Indian game.

 

[aussie]

Saying an era has begun after a single series is not very wise..

Probably not, especially if Australia lose the Ashes etc...

But the series in SA was the first true series without the greats of previous era, that Ponting himself has had to impose himself on a new-breed of players & won a series. So it is fair to say the Ponting era began vs SA.

May was picked regularly, on most surfaces, as a first-choice bowler for a period of a couple of years. Crazy stuff. Especially with Warne already in the side.

Thats debatable not crazy. It still does not justify the claim that he was a useless selection.

1993 is fair enough; WI 1995 certainly isn't. There must've been better bowlers, even with McDermott and Fleming missing.

Well their wasn't so go take a piss..

Seamers are always more likely to have effect on rank flat decks than fingerspinners or nothing wristspinners. A seamer would always have been a better pick than McIntyre except on a rank bunsen.

Allright, im gonna give you this one...

Bichel earned his corn, fo' sho', but he was a poor Test player who but for injury would never have played.

Look get away from the computer....Bichel a poor test bowler haa - my ass...

It can. What happened, as I've said 100 times, is irrelevant to the calibre of selection. Cook's selection had next to nothing going for it. He should never, under any circumstances, have been picked.

So what do you saw about Andy Ganteaume then??

Robertson was a fairly nothing bowler, I've seen his action and have taken a look at his career. Under whatever circumstances, MacGill was a superior bowler to him and it'd have cheapened the BaggyGreen less to pick MacGill (who'd already played) than Robertson.

McGrath, Fleming, Dizzy where out.

The seam attack was lead by a unknown kasper & Reiffell past his best - plus alot of garbage.

The main wicket-taker & defensive option was Warne.

Picking MacGill in India would have dangerous given his style of leg-spin so Robertson was the safer option. So i agree/agreed with the selection ATT & Robertson was not a useless bagg-green selection although he would not go down as a fantastic offie.

Fleming was not injured going into India 1997/98 - he was called-up mid-tour. Angel was a fine bowler and would have been a more worthy selection than any of Bichel, Dale or Wilson. That any ever got the chance ahead of him was wrong.

Got a link to the fleming part?

On Angel the little clips i've seen of him vs WI 93 & PAK 94 along with Dale i don't think he would have made much of a difference in India. Those where 2 domestic bowlers who in a great era just didn't cut in @ international level regardless.

Miller enjoyed success only against rank dreadful batting units. Against stronger ones he generally came-up short, because he wasn't really much of a bowler.

Another stats arguments this....clearly you didn't watch much of Miller test's.

Williams should have been selected after Kasprowicz.

Based on what?. As i just told you ATT, Kasper FC form didn't take off until the VB series & not DURING THE TEST MATCHES VS INDIA.

Williams was the form bowler ATT along with Bracken. Anyone who says now they where poor selections is only arguing in hindsight since - ATT their form in preceding ODI, especially - Bracken whose ODI form from IND 01 to TVS Cup 03 was more impressive than Johnson of NZ 05 - IND 07 ODI series.

I said this at the time, so did quite a few others - before he played any Tests and we saw on the big stage how bad he really was. .

What?

And even if Symonds had earnt (rather than been gifted by poor Umpiring) his success it still wouldn't mean it was right to pick him ahead of Katich in 2003/04.

As we have argued before. Although it was harsh on Katich, the strenght of Australia's top order ATT enabled them take the risk in picking Symonds @ 6 & utilize his off-spinners (which ATT was certainly still solid enough coming off excellent results in the preceding ODI series).

A similar thing was done with Gilchrist @ 6 & Bichel @ 7 in WI 03 also. So you oughta chill, or as i expect you will hold this ideological belief till you die...

 

[Smith]

Probably not, especially if Australia lose the Ashes etc...

But the series in SA was the first true series without the greats of previous era, that Ponting himself has had to impose himself on a new-breed of players & won a series. So it is fair to say the Ponting era began vs SA.

So the series in India does not count, shotta?

 

[aussie]

So the series in India does not count, shotta?

Nope. From SRI 07/08 to SA 07/08 (in AUS) was the transition period.

 

[Smith]

Nope. From SRI 07/08 to SA 07/08 (in AUS) was the transition period.

Lol, a series of flop shows succeeded by a close win classifies as start of an era? Anyways, bye.

 

[aussie]

Lol, a series of flop shows succeeded by a close win classifies as start of an era? Anyways, bye.

What series of flops? AUS won 4 out of 6 series in this period.

Its not the start of Ponting era just because of the win in SA. But because its the first series - without the stars of the McGrath/era, that Ponting has had to lead.