• 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

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Symonds averaged 29 in Australia and 50 overseas. His game was definitely suited to small grounds where he could clear the rope more frequently and safely.
A fact that surely shows that he wasn't as good as people are making out then seeing as there are batsmen who could do that.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Maybe other batsmen were better because they could, you know, modify their game to conditions? There’s a fair few who average more and at a higher strike rate than him.
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
Maybe other batsmen were better because they could, you know, modify their game to conditions? There’s a fair few who average more and at a higher strike rate than him.
??

The post you responded to said he averaged 50 outside of his home country. If that's not "modifying their game to conditions" then I don't know what is
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
Basically Australia was Symonds' worst country to bat in. The fact that he played half his career in Australia is neither here nor there. He averaged significantly more in every other country he played 10 or more matches in - England, South Africa, West Indies, India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand.

Australia ave 29
NZ ave 39
India ave 43
WI ave 57
England ave 59
SL ave 74
South Africa ave 95

5 of his 6 hundreds were scored overseas as well. 1 in India, Bangladesh, NZ, England and South Africa.

I think a part of Symonds' low average at home was probably due to coming in later on home wickets because the batting line-up ahead of him was even more dominant at home than abroad.

But mostly I think his game was better suited to muscling the ball over shorter boundaries in other countries.
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
I can see your logic stephen but I'm not sure it's the truth. Symonds post-2003 was excellent at hitting the ball into gaps and running 2s. I don't know how I would explain his low average in Australia though, but it's a very strange anomaly.
 

Red Hill

The artist formerly known as Monk
Maybe other batsmen were better because they could, you know, modify their game to conditions? There’s a fair few who average more and at a higher strike rate than him.
So which batsmen cleared the rope more frequently and safely?
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
I can see your logic stephen but I'm not sure it's the truth. Symonds post-2003 was excellent at hitting the ball into gaps and running 2s. I don't know how I would explain his low average in Australia though, but it's a very strange anomaly.
But if a 4 in a different country is a 2 in Australia that could significantly reduce your average if your game is built around hitting boundaries.

There wasn't a significant difference in Symonds' average in Australia before and after he came good in South Africa.
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
Before his breakout 2003 WC he was just a reckless hitter like Harvey and Shane Lee in the tri series each summer. I think he'd had more success with the ball before the 143*

For the next few summers until his decline he produced decent returns in home seasons and was a reliable bat. Just had a short peak I think
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
Averaging 50+ away from home in ODIs is pretty incredible. I have a theory. Alcohol was less readily-available or easy to access for him when touring. Maybe be averaged so low at home because he was drunk/hung over half the time, but when touring he had to focus on the cricket more.

I know he famously got drunk before a match in Britain but maybe that's just an exception





(and yes I'm mostly joking, obviously. But it makes just as much sense as the bigger boundaries theory)
 
Last edited:

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
Him playing a lot of home games from 99-03 batting 6-7 with a license to smash it is my theory and I think it's concrete

A lot of useful cameos around that time, a lot of run a ball 30s and 40s but nothing to really boost the average
 
Last edited:

ankitj

International Coach
Has CW arrived at consensus on what batting on lower order does to batting averages? Does it hurt like in case of Yuvraj or Symonds as being said here? Or does it inflate like in case of Dhoni or Bevan? I have seen both kind of arguments being made and that too as if the logic is self evident.
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
Symonds seemed to bash to the final ball and didn't have many not outs to show for it(talking about the early days of his ODI career)

With Bevan he was more about wicket preservation, I think even in the final overs he'd aim for 1s and 2s every ball over boundaries

Bevans RPI objectively suffered but with averages it can depend on your individual approach
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
Has CW arrived at consensus on what batting on lower order does to batting averages? Does it hurt like in case of Yuvraj or Symonds as being said here? Or does it inflate like in case of Dhoni or Bevan? I have seen both kind of arguments being made and that too as if the logic is self evident.
It hurts more than it helps. But it depends on the type of player. Bevan wasn't a slogger, he was a nurdler and placer of the ball so it didn't really hurt him. Dhoni is a bit similar in that, especially later in his career, he chose not to score as fast as he could and it helped protect his average.

For your Symonds type that is going to be looking for big hits, you're average is certainly going to suffer from coming in late in the innings a lot.

Symonds didn't actually do that much after 2003 though. He was mostly at no. 5 for that part of his career, often batting ahead of the likes of Clarke and Hussey.
 

h_hurricane

International Debutant
I would rate both as similar in batting with Watson being the better bowler. Symonds clearly the better fielder though. Whom would I pick in an ATG team ? Probably Symonds as there would be quite a few merely decent fielders in many ATG sides.
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
Him playing a lot of home games from 99-03 batting 6-7 with a license to smash it is my theory and I think it's concrete

A lot of useful cameos around that time, a lot of run a ball 30s and 40s but nothing to really boost the average
Symonds' average in home games after his breakout 143* was only around 32 so it wasn't far from his historical average to that point.

I think for him it's a combination of shorter innings and larger boundaries at home. Shorter innings because the batsmen ahead of him were better at home and therefore occupied more balls.
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
Symonds seemed to bash to the final ball and didn't have many not outs to show for it(talking about the early days of his ODI career)

With Bevan he was more about wicket preservation, I think even in the final overs he'd aim for 1s and 2s every ball over boundaries

Bevans RPI objectively suffered but with averages it can depend on your individual approach
Last time I looked Bevan had the highest rpi for a number 6 batsman. That could have been with a couple of minimum runs filters on though. His rpi was around 37 batting 6 IIRC, which is pretty incredible.
 

Top