Would Andrew Symonds have made a difference in India?

[Craig]

Vote away.

Obviously we won't know for sure, considering, one decent knock for Queensland aside, would he have fired with the backing of the captain, coach, selectors, and board behind him no matter what his form was like or, or it wouldn't have mattered India would have won anyway?

Sorry Richard, no 3rd option, as I want to know what people think.

 

[biased indian]

Dont think so the problem was with the aussie bowling line up symmonds would not have made up huge impact with that

 

[SJS]

Yes, of course, Bhajji would have been suspended after the first Test, Zaheer after the second and Ishant after the third.

It would have been very difficult for India to bowl Australia out.

 

[Prince EWS]

Would he have made a difference? Yes IMO.
Would that difference have been significant enough to stop India winning 2-0? No, IMO.

 

[masterblaster]

No, he wouldn't have made any difference. Especially how his current form is fairly poor and he has a lot of things on his mind. His fielding would've been a fantastic positive for Australia, but his batting would've been fairly scratchy and his part time off spin would be no more of a threat than say a Michael Clarke or a Simon Katich.

 

[Precambrian]

No, The Law of conservation of luck would have it shared equally between Johnson and Symonds.

 

[four_or_six]

I think his batting could well have been better than Watson's but I don't think his bowling would. And his fielding would too. But I'm going for no as it was the bowling that really struggled.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think his batting could well have been better than Watson's but I don't think his bowling would. And his fielding would too. But I'm going for no as it was the bowling that really struggled.

Ponting suggested that both would have played if Symonds was on tour, though. I'm guessing it would have been White to miss out.

 

[sanga1337]

No. If you anything you could almost argue that Australia wouldn't have done as well with Symonds because of how Watson provides much more value with the ball than he does. He would've improved the batting but that wasn't the main problem during the series like other people have said.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah he would have. In tests the past 2 years he's scored runs, taken wickets when required and he's one of the better fielders the game has seen.

So having him there would have made a difference to Australia, but not IMO enough to have stopped India winning.

 

[four_or_six]

Ponting suggested that both would have played if Symonds was on tour, though. I'm guessing it would have been White to miss out.

Nah, I don't think that was anything more than Ponting showing confidence in his player during a press conference, as in:

Journo: How much of a blow is it for you to have Watson replacing Symonds?
Punter: Yes, it's a huge blow. We all know he'd never have been here if Symonds hadn't gone fishing, but since he did we need an all-rounder so we've taken a bit of a punt on Watson's form and fitness.

... was never going to happen.

I really don't think he'd have been anywhere near the test side without showing some fitness in four-day cricket if it hadn't been for Symonds going awol.

 

[masterblaster]

I think Watson would've missed out anyway.

I'd say that Watson was just as, if not more valuable than Symonds could've been.

Watson was really impressive on this tour with the ball. He made a crucial 70 odd too and chipped in with a few runs. Symonds with his form and with things on his mind would've been a problem for Australia.

 

[Top_Cat]

No, The Law of conservation of luck would have it shared equally between Johnson and Symonds.

When it comes to Symonds, no such law exists. He is above the law.

EDIT: Frankly I hope Symonds retires tomorrow so that he never has a chance to get the luck 'readdressed'. It'll drive Richard insane for the rest of his life and that'd be hilarious to watch.

 

[Polo23]

No.

 

[pup11]

I think he would have made a definite difference, his batting, bowling and fielding all could have added a lot of value to the side, i think Watto somewhat underachived with the bat on this tour which kind of hurt Australia, because once all the top and middle order batsmen were dismissed, the strong looking Aussie lower-order wasn't really able to do much.

Symmo batting at six has been excellent in test cricket for Australia, call him lucky or whatever you want he has counter-attacked Australia out of trouble on so many occassions now, and Aussies missed that really badly on this tour, his offies could have been handy too in Indian conditions.

 

[SJS]

Would he have made a difference? Yes IMO.
Would that difference have been significant enough to stop India winning 2-0? No, IMO.

Corrrrrect !

 

[Goughy]

No. What would he have done? Spun India out?

I dont think so and his runs may have added a little but not too much.

 

[social]

Yeah he would have. In tests the past 2 years he's scored runs, taken wickets when required and he's one of the better fielders the game has seen.

So having him there would have made a difference to Australia, but not IMO enough to have stopped India winning.

Agree totally

People are ignoring the fact that he's been the best performing batsman in the world for the past 2 years and put it all down to luck - if you use that as a basis for assessment then the performance of Ghambir, by frequently edging short of the keeper and slips in every innings, should be similarly discounted

Plus he's a genius fieldsman and handy bowler

Of course he would've made a difference but given the fact that it was Oz's bowlers who were rubbish, not enough to change the result

 

[Top_Cat]

A difference? Absolutely. The difference? Hell no.

 

[Craig]

A difference? Absolutely. The difference? Hell no.

Because I'm a n00b and will ask out of ignorance, what is with the Sarah Palin avatar? Revealing a new 'thing' for mid-40 Alaskan women?