Symond's is the sort of player a good side can afford to play. Okay he may not be consistent but he occasionaly takes important wicket and occasionally scores some important runs. He has done both in this series.
Haven't Australia improved since Martyn left and he joined. Thats not a question its a fact.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

I could add a name to that list, but I think I might be verbally lynched. Whoah hang on a bit. How about Mark Butcher?

__________________
Red-it, Red-it, Read it and wept

Probably not in fairness. He was a useful player at the time ie when our opening partnerships were very short lived affairs (even shorter than now !) and his slow scoring was probably very useful for nas, who appeared to win his matches with attrition rather than 4 an over romps.

__________________
Nothing says "Obey Me" like a bloody head on a fence post!

No! I never warmed to Martyn but he was one of the most outstanding batsmen of his generation... far superior to Langer and Hayden and at his best the player that Thorpe always threatened to be: astonishing in attack when the side was on top and yet resolute in gritty defiance when the side was in trouble.

Symonds is not fit to lace his boots!

Sadly, the 150+ probably means he'll keep his place. A shame, that, as Cameron White would be a far better pick for the final Test as a considerably more talented (albeit not great) batsman AND a better occasional bowler.

Yes he has. Martyn was doing nothing. At least Symonds has contributed in this series. Two wickets in the last Test and 153 runs in this Test. He is not one of the better number 6 that has played Test cricket but there is a time and place even for the likes of Symonds. The england dressing room must be saying why couldn't Martyn have waited to the end of the series, the last thing we needed is a better balance Australian side.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Gilchrist looked spent before the mad cameo at Perth: Martyn remained (and remains) a far more likely source of a matchwinning contribution.... and with Lee having finally found form, McGrath soldiering on, Warne looking in excellent nick and Clark outbowling all 3.... who needs Symonds?

Voges should have go the nod, and the selectors should accept that Symonds simply lacks the class for Test cricket.

I bet if it gone badly you would blamed Symonds. As far as you are concerned nothing is down to Symonds and every argument will be sought to prove that. Now some of what you say above is true but it is also true that when bowled and took two wickets for eight runs in the last Test it was a boost to the Australian attack and English batsmen thought they can bring someone on who can bowl a bit and bolster the attack. No more Martyn.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Symonds only got a start because the Aussie selectors are not fit to lace the boots of their predecessors: for decades the Aussies have had the nerve to pick a proper Test side based on batsmen getting the runs and bowlers getting the wickets... and in all that time there has been precious little talk of compromise: all of a sudden Clarke has to rely on Watson getting injured to get a start (a truly ridiculous situation: Clarke is 10x the player that Watson should ever be) and when McGrath, Clarke, Warne and Lee prove capable of carrying the attack... and Martyn retires... the current crew bail out of the bolder choices... being the perennially hard done by MacGill, the new boy Voges, the more obvious Jacques or (if desperate for occasional bowling) Cameron White... and settle on a ODI can't-bowl, can't bat bits-n-pieces compromise.

The whole business sucks. If Symonds gets to play Tests beyond the next test it will REALLY suck... but I fear lack of confidence in Johnson will mean that when he joins MacGill, Clark and (the seemingly undroppable) Lee... Watson, Symonds and White (in that order) will prevail ahead of more deserving top order batsmen.

This might all make sense if Australia had a wicket-keeper who looked like a no 8.... but whilst they persist with iron-gloves Gilchrist (who was a passable gloveman once but ain't no more) the case for a no 6 batsman who can bowl (rather than a no 7-8 bowler who can bat) remains rather like the current Aussie selectors - very, very weak.

This appears to sum everything up Rachael. You are quite correct, you should choose batsmen who get runs and bowlers who get wickets. I would argue that test players getting runs or wickets do not have to conform to any sort of test player stereotype. Some players are classical and beautiful to watch, but cannot score as heavily as a player like Hayden for example, you have to ask who is bringing more to their team's cricket.

I love watching the technically blessed players, but I have to accept that those who get runs while looking like they could never play a competent forward defensive also have a place in the game.

I'm not saying Symonds deserves his place in the side above some of the other Australian batting options, but in his three innings since his recall, Symonds has scored 184 @ 61.33 including a maiden test hundred. He certainly deserves the opportunity to prove that he can go on in this series and score more runs.

__________________
Whatever your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you mine are far greater!
Albert Einstein, 1879-1955

I try to be impartial on this matter: I would love to see cricket dominated by touch players like Lara, Mohammed Yousuf, Jayawardene and so on... but have never shirked the task of defending the likes of Mark Richardson, Nasser Hussain and (long before he convinced anyone else) Collingwood. I'm quite happy with Boycott's line that selectors have to give players the chance to sink or swim rather than guessing as to the guys with the right temperament and the guys who ain't got it.... but if a guy wants to bat in the top 6 he ought to at least have the basics covered... and as a no 6, Symonds does not!

Had Symonds been playing at no 8 I'd have no problems with his batting: when bowlers bat you have to accept limitations and accept rather curious ways of dealing with them. The problem is... Symonds isn't credible as a frontline bowler.

He can't bowl as well as MacGill or Johnson. He can't bat as well as Voges or Jaques. He's not even as sound a bits-n-pieces compromise as White: the entire basis for his selection appears to be the infatuation of Ponting and the dream of a unified Test / ODI side - which sucks for those Symonds is excluding!