Watson breaks down again.......

[mudney]

On my international cricket captain Watson is da man, so I would pick him anytime.

[Quagmire]

Symonds ended up being the right decision. I expected him to make a couple of fifties and take the odd wicket but he did better than what I thought he would.

[KennyG]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Symonds ended up being the right decision. I expected him to make a couple of fifties and take the odd wicket but he did better than what I thought he would.

If Watson or White got the chance they would match or excede the bad bowling and the crappy batting of Symonds.

[Quagmire]

So your saying that White & Watson would have made 156 when Australia were 5/80?

Symonds bowl very well he is just a fill in bowler to give the quicks a rest.

[Rachael]

Surely the key criteria for a no 6 ought to be batting: the specialists who've been excluded to date include Jacques, Rogers and Voges.... and predecessors include (I believe) Lehman (who was a handy additional bowler, but averaged 44.95 with the bat).

As I understand it, the no 6 bat needs to be more attacking than a top 3 bat... but any inclination towards "stand and deliver" sloggers should be tempered by the thought that the no 6 will most commonly EITHER be established at the crease when the second new ball is taken... or walking to the crease when an early wicket follows the arrival of the second new ball.

To my mind, Trescothick has been England's great wasted no 6: he's been stuck at the top of the order, seeing off the new ball... where at 6 he could have thrived as one of the most destructive players of spin and of old-ball bowling, inspired confidence when facing the second new ball AND delivered a few overs a Test of occasional bowling.

As I see it... neither Symonds nor Watson deserve mention in the same breath as the above batsmen: they are at best no 7 bats... which might work out when playing weaker sides, where the new ball bowling sucks... and when fortune means they can come in after the second ball has been seen off... or ridiculously early, well before the second new ball... but do you select a player on the assumption that they will only succeed when any no 7 would succeed, and be found out the moment it matters?

f you are picking a side to actually deliver when the pressure is on and it really matters... the no 6 should be as convincing as Jacques, Rogers and Voges... so why not play that trio alongside Ponting, Hussey and Clark and insist the six of them, between them, offer as much in terms of bowling as the other 5 members of the side (wicketkeeper and bowlers) offer in terms of batting.

Ponting's good if the ball is swinging... Clarke's got potential as a second spinner: just get all these guys playing grade cricket as specialist bowlers and work out a way of fudging the 10 overs a day that might be needed if one of the specialist bowlers is having a bad day.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Symonds bowl very well he is just a fill in bowler to give the quicks a rest.

Australia have never had the need for an all-rounder, unless a player is found who is exceptional, if I was Australia I would give up the search.

IMO Symonds will not in the long run serve Australia well as an all-rounder, keep it simple that has served you well.