Sanketh I did not see the West Indies 2nd innings or the end of the 1st Innings as a capitulation.

The moment that Chanderpaul got hit by that Brett Lee bouncer, in my opinion changed the mindset of every batsmen in both teams from that point on. I think it played on everyone's mind that the pitch had become very uneven and that if a good batsman, played in and in full flight such as Chanderpaul could find himself in that much trouble. They could easilly find a similar ball coming their way as well. And most of them on both sides looked like they were batting like they had become pre-occupied about it.

I thought 190 odd was a good score in the last innings on a wicket that looked like it had deteriorated badly by the middle of day 3.

The game was lost on day one in the later half of that Ponting 158, whe he changed gears from steady innings growth to full scale plunder. It sort of looked like he had reached the bonus stage of Super Mario Brothers.

Sorry to dig this up but he has batted this way his whole life and it is his natural style as I played cricket with him throughout highschool when he was first picked for QLD, no manufacturing going on at all only attempts by coaches to curb his aggressive nature trying to produce a more "classical" batsmen. This I still believe the reason why he had so many problems early on as he was trying to please to many people instead of playing his natural game

Did you think he would end up where he did "fade" ?

Would you quibble with Symond's cricinfo profile?This is the guy who "ripped the tendon from his arm playing a fierce drive"... and I don't dispute for one moment that he has always been capable of hitting a ball very hard (much as Andy Roddick always seems to have been able to in tennis).

Do correct me if I'm wrong... but I'm pretty sure he has NEVER been a natural for lingering on the back foot with the slightest hint of a backlift to counter late movement with deft adjustment and soft hands - or even a natural improviser with the touch to open the face and place the ball into gaps at a pace that allows him to take the extra run to the deep fielders.

I'd be interested to learn how hard he has worked at mastering such core arts (surely the core arts) of Test match batting... especially as I get the impression he's actually making progress on that front now: in this most recent innings (for instance) he didn't go at the ball as hard (or at least not until the 28th over, which he started having made a singularly measured 11 off 49 balls with one boundary) and did manage to keep at least one edge down so it didn't reach the slips...

My impression is that the coaches cut their losses and concentrated on doing what they did with Flintoff: getting him tighter in his front foot defensive play, more selective about his strokeplay and sticking to a few basic shots that were his strengths - the drive (preferably straight or to the on side, and generally off the front foot), the cut (preferably forcing the ball infront of square rather than dabbing it late and behind square) and the swat (I will not grace what he does with the term "pull": I may have missed some refinement, but it's always appeared more of a front-foot slog-sweep, though it's got elements of a horizontally batted drive about it).

As with Roddick in tennis, this has resulted in a hugely effective player... but Roddick is effective with a VERY limited game: he's hits the ball hard when serving and on his forehand.. but that's all he does with either shot...and he's not able to follow up the serve with any decent volleys, and his "mastery" of the back court game (variations in pace, trajectory and swing, finding the angles, mixing in drop shotvs, etc) is just about non-existent.

I'm not going to deny that he's an unsophisticated batsman. I just take issue with your labelling of him as a manufactured batsman.

I'll take your word for it on Roddick. Personally, I think tennis is the second-most dull spectator sport, right behind the British Pub Darts Championship.

Perhaps not. However, it seems that his natural style is very much how he plays today, if what Fade says is anything to go by. Maybe he's not mastered late swing etc. but he's been very effective at scoring runs in the way that comes naturally to him. If that's the way he naturally plays, then why should he change his style to become more orthodox?

What a heap of warm cow dung

Truth is Symonds has all deft touches and soft strokes that Vaughan does, plus the added benefit (which Vaughan does not have) to kick it up into a power exhibition as required.

Biggest problem England supporters seem to have with Symonds is that like Ozzy Osborne and Robert Plant he was born in Birmingham. But unlike Ozzy Osborne and Robert Plant he is recognised as an Australian.

Shame he wasn't born in South Africa, you might have been keeping a better eye out for him and selected him.

Couldn't agree more: he is what he is... and knowing his own game is essential. If he were to try and play as Mark -Waugh or Brian Lara did he'd get into right trouble: he's far better off just limiting himself to what works for him.Consider two players:

Player 1, even as a teenager, is able to play with extrordinary deftness and dexterity, improvising outrageously (albeit off dodgy bowling) and using the pace on the ball to work the ball into gaps with ridiculous ease. In time this player might add some mental toughness and become better at judging appropriate risk... but we're essentially talking of a "natural".

Player 2, even as a teenager, excels in assorted sports and demonstrates an extrordinary ability to open his shoulders and still get his timing right (whether with a cricket bat, a baseball bat, a tennis raquet or whatever). He may have the potential (and mental toughness) to go on to be very effective, but principally by playing within obvious limitations.

I don't suggest for one moment that these are the only types of young player. For starters, Boycott became a superb Test player despite not being close to either desciption... but Symonds is clearly more of a Player 2 where Mark Waugh (for instance) would be more distinctively a Player 1.

Is "manufactured" the right term for someone who is more of a Player 2? It's what I've settled on for now... but I'm open to alternatives.

I guess this isn't really the thread to be discussing this but-

Yes I did and to be honest anyone who watched him knew, but I have been so frustrated over the years at his lack of results and find it such a pity that he has only really matured with regards to batting when in his 30's. Rachael's description of "player 2" is somewhat correct as he was a good rugby player, state hockey, could swim well and good allrounder on the athletics field with running and throwing events but in his cricket although he often destroyed attacks he also played a wide variety of shots and could match local players like Jimmy Maher and Matthew Mott with shot selection. To label him almost a slogger is unfair and I think his batting deserves a little more respect than that it's not his fault he can't hit the ball as softly as Vaughan he's built for power.

Vaughans innings of 30 runs off 133 balls in Englands first innings was hardly an innings to be proud of.

Symonds 79 that was almost half Australias score in the 2nd innings of this match definitely was.

hey acker..continuing our discussion..do u think the aussies being dismissed for a low 2nd innings score and being 18-5 at a stage was due to the pitch or due to good bowling by windies seamers??i think it was a spell of good bowling... i would imagine that this pitch behaved way better than the appalling underprepared kanpur wicket tailor made for the indians for the 3rd test against SA. i mean i have seen better cricket played by sarwan, chanderpaul on crumbling dust bowls in india...i think they just didn't bat as positively as i thought they would considering u rarely get a chance to catch australia on the backfoot.
i dont know if the chanderpaul incident played on the minds of the windies...i mean half the game is played in the mind. but i think getting hit by a bouncer is a fairly common occurance. if england got discouraged by vettori licking his lips after a 5 wicket haul and specially after seeing panesar rip through the kiwi innings, i would imagine they wouldn't get close to winning, probably that is the difference between a top ranked test team and lower ranked. a target of less than 300 should be a winnable score on most pitches towards the end of the 5 days except ofcourse maybe in india.
anyways i see that most of the guys are engaging in yet another battle between pleasing to the eyes batting vs effective batting. it such a futile attempt....at the end of the day no one talks about technique or style...whether ur performances won the team a match and records should be the most important criteria. i guess in the end ur respected by fellow team mates and opposition by ur performances rather than whether u look ugly while batting like chanderpaul or whether ur the most technically sound batsman say like a dravid. symonds is effective as a player...any form of the game whereas vaughan features only in test matches and that does say a lot for me!!!