Andrew Symonds: good enough if you give him a chance or two

Posted by
< 1 minute read

Not fooling anyone with his 'hundreds'We’re still not sure about Andrew Symonds as a Test player. We’re sure he is one. Don’t get us wrong. We don’t doubt our own eyes – that would be madness. Just who do you trust, if you don’t trust your eyes? Your ears? Unlikely. Ears are devious.

Anyway: Symonds. We’re certain that Australia have got better batsmen and his bowling’s misshapen. Today, in partnership with first Brad Hogg and then Brett Lee, he hit 137 not out after Australia had been 134-6.

One of the main reasons we’re unsure about Symonds is that we reckon he’s okay when Australia are on top, but maybe he’s not the man you want at the crease if you’ve lost early wickets. Today’s performance seems to have disproved that.

On the other hand, he got a couple of lucky decisions – a big one on 30 and a close one on 48. Even if we don’t think he’s all that, it’s only borderline. He’s definitely good enough to hit hundreds given three lives.

So’s Brett Lee for that matter. Forced to unfairly bat at nine for the last few years to save Shane Warne‘s ego, he’s back there again thanks to Brad Hogg. Lee’s better than three Test fifties. He’s ranked eighth in the ICC’s list of top all-rounders, in fact. Although it’s fairly common knowledge that there aren’t eight all-rounders in world cricket right now.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. Both of his centuries have come when Australia were struggling, although one of those was against England, so they weren’t struggling that bad.

  2. Bloody devious ears…

    I trusted my ears last night, thinking that I’d heard a nick from Symonds, and so had a billion Indians, but it appears that it was them playing tricks, otherwise he’d be out now, and Australia would have been all out for under 250, and it would have been a different game…

    Also, and I hate to bring it up, but he did score his first test century against England, when we had them at 84-5…

    Predator, is getting good at this recovery lark!

  3. But his four fifties have come with Australia; 237 ahead in their second innings; already ahead batting second; at 461-4 batting first; and 410-4 batting first.

    Suppose that’s just batting at six for Australia though, although he hasn’t managed a fifty plenty of other times.

    It’s just a feeling. Early days really.

    And we only ‘had them’ at 84-5 when one of the five was a nightwatchman and England had already been bowled out for 159, by the way. Not massive pressure. Still a good knock though.

  4. so shoot him for getting 50’s when there was no pressure! And all the other batsmen who’ve got 50’s, 100’s, 200’s, 300’s etc when there was “no pressure”. to do so.

    since when was there ever ‘pressure’ to get 200 or 300?

  5. Symonds is saying he was out, read it on the Sky website and linked it. Quite a few iffy calls.

    In regards to Symonds I think he is for real. Good in the clutch, and seems to be improving, rather than have a great performance and then have his level drop and drop.

  6. Why are you all taking this so literally? It’s just an impression we’ve got in the early days of Symonds’ career. We think he’s really good. We’re just not convinced he’s the best Aussie number six.

    It’s not so much the fact that his four fifties weren’t in testing circumstances, it’s more that he hasn’t hit any other ones.

    We like batsmen who kick ’em when they’re down anyway. It’s a trait lacking in England players throughout the years, but it’s vital if you want to win Test matches.

    The problem is that Andrew Symonds plays eye-catching cricket and people can get carried away. We’re just saying ‘two good hundreds and a smattering of middling fifties – he’s not there yet’.

    We’re by no means saying he’s never going to get there and we’re by no means saying that his achievements are negligible.

  7. >>>The problem is that Andrew Symonds plays eye-catching cricket and people can get carried away.

    Can’t argue that one, spot on. If you want to say some people are expecting a but much from him, yes, excellent point. I guess I can say: He may not be second coming, but he’s not chopped liver either. I think there is both style and substance there, but yes, perhaps not as much as some see.

  8. Maybe we are all taking the post too literally because of these southern hemisphere timings playing havoc with our minds! Right now I should really be asleep, but VVS is looking rather good so I keep saying “10 minutes more, 10 minutes more”.

  9. Symonds isn’t in the best 6 batsmen in Australia, but he is picked to install fear and trepidation to opposition players that he may one day bat like he does in one day cricket.

    David Hussey, Brad Hodge, Chris Rogers, SImon Katich and maybe even Shaun (sog) Marsh are better batsmen.

    But none have dreadlocks.

Comments are closed.