This might turn out to be a very short thread as the answer seems likely to be "no, no and no".

The questions are simple and all relate to Symonds:

{i} Has their ever be a player less worthy of a baggy green?

{ii} Has their ever been a less impressive no 6 in Ashes cricket?

{iii} Has their ever been a worse no 6 batsman in world cricket?

Now that you finished having a rant Rachael, could you please stop with these strange posts about how batsmen who play non-text book cricket are not very good. You should instead appreciate Symonds talent.

__________________
CC

Its not a rant Chaddi. Its a try on. She's goading the Australians into writing the name of a certain Englishman.

Try that one on Ern.

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

What talent? As far as I can tell the guy has absolutely NONE: his batting is woeful, lacking any appreciable use of the crease, the slightest clue as to how to play a back-of-a-length delivery, the slightest idea about waiting for the ball and playing late and even the merest clue about using the bat as anything other than a long-handled club.

For what it's worth... I would bet on Panesar eventually being a more accomplished Test batsman than Symonds is now: he's barely started and has already played a better shot (albeit only one) than Symonds managed in his grotesque display in this recent Melbourse Test!

ps. to Oliver: until you mentioned it I'd not even considered that possibility. For what it's worth... I don't see the contest as even close - Flintoff's pretty one-dimensional... but surely (even playing as abjectly as he is now) no-where near as bad as Symonds.

Has Panesar become a yardstick for crap batting?

__________________
Frank Skinner: "You know when Glenn McGrath trod on that cricket ball? Don't you wish it would've been a landmine?"

I think you should look no further than RD Robinson. The wicket keeper batsman who played three Tests in 1977.
Rod Marsh was still playing so Robinson played as a specialist batsman, first as an opener and then as a number six.

He didn't cut it. Mustard-wise.

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

Didn't Symonds just score 155 the other day or am I missing something?

__________________
What we have been is what we are

Then you could try Trevor Laughlin, a medium pace bowling all-rounder who got his chance (1978) when all the decent players joined Kerry Packer.

He wasn't very good either.

And from the same year Phil Carlson who was undone by England's pace attack, averaging five from four innings.

I suspect if I keep trawling the archives I may come up with Trevor Chappell. I thought he only opened, but I might be wrong, and with his history, I kind of hope I'm wrong.

Damn him... damn Allan Border, who generally batted at six at the beginning of his career thereby carefully ensuring that Trevor Chappell didn't bat below five against England.

And Allan Border was a very good number six indeed.

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

Doesnt say much for our bowling then does it.

Is ours the worse bowling attack in Ashes history.

No of course it isnt.

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

ROFLMAO, to say Symonds has no talent is one of the funniest things I have heard and certainly one the most stupid comments. Yes his batting technique is not text book but he certainly has talent, if he didn't than he wouldn't have made the Test side and if he certainly wouldn't be playing cricket at a professional level.

Throughtout history there have been many similar batsmen like Symonds who have thrown the text book in the bin and yet been successful. The word technique should not used to much when talking about batsmen. For example look at India's young talents of the 90's- Sanjay Manjrakear and Sachin Tendulkar. Sanjay was said to have a better technique than Tendulkar and most people predicted Sanjay to be more successful than Tendulakr because of his superior technique. As we all know Tendulkar became a great and Sanjay was only a average batsmen at Test level, as you can see from this example technique is not necassarily needed to be sucessfull if you have talent which Symonds DOES have.

Yes, Symonds is unlikely to finish having a Test average of 50 with the bat, and I am sure Australia will find a better batsman then him to replace in the middle order but to say he has no talent what so ever is foolish.

__________________
CC