Andrew Symonds' selection for the Gabba Test was outrageous and one of the more bizarre Australian selections I can ever remember. We are raised in this country on the belief that to represent Australia in any sport is the highest honour possible and to achieve this status requires an enormous amount of hard work and sacrifice. In the Australian cricket team it seems if you can hit some big balls, bowl some part-time medium pace or roll out some offies and field brilliantly you are an automatic selection. You also have the right to come and go as you please. The message sent to the first-class players around the country busting their gut for that honour must have felt like a dagger in the heart. Surely, when you lose your position in the team for not one, not two, but several off-field indiscretions, then you must earn the right to be allowed back through the door. In a staggering selection, Symonds simply waltzed back in as if the all-rounder's position batting at No. 6 was his whenever he was ready. His performances for Queensland this summer were bordering on embarrassing and showed he was not ready.
Chairman of selectors Andrew Hilditch's comments about Symonds' selection were equally embarrassing. He said that his performances for his state were irrelevant. The selectors felt he was a big-time performer and, therefore, his inept numbers for Queensland did not matter. Well, blow me down. No wonder current selector Jamie Cox never got a look in at Test level, perhaps now he can work out why his good performances over 15 years of toil never amounted to anything, he never liked fishing much anyway.
This is Andrew Symonds we are talking about, not Sir Garfield Sobers. Symonds is one of the greatest one-day players ever to play for Australia, but is still establishing himself as a top-quality Test player. His batting over the past two years has been much improved, but needed to be. His first 11 Test matches yielded just over 300 runs at the paltry average of 18. Let's not forget this is only his 23rd Test - he's not a 100-Test superstar with a superb record.
He turned his career around with a majestic 156 in the Boxing Day Test two years ago and his batting seemed to have finally assumed a new sense of responsibility. Last summer he smote 162 not out in Sydney in the infamous Test against the Indians, but was given not out on 30 when he left splinters in the ball when caught behind. That innings inflated his average into the 40s and all of a sudden people felt he was the master and the answer to all problems. In fact, if he had been given out in Sydney on 30, his average today would be in the low 30s and his automatic selection perhaps not so certain. A pair of 20s this Test was more than we could have hoped for from Symonds given his lead in. He slammed a few boundaries as he always will, he is super talented and, on his day, will destroy military medium offerings. His two dismissals, however, were vintage Symonds - irresponsible. The get-out-of-jail-free card is "but that's how he plays".
Players of the Symonds ilk like to use that card in turbulent times. It seems to cleanse their soul and allow them the freedom to re-offend soon after. England's Andrew Flintoff and Pakistan's Shahid Afridi are similar; they are entertaining to watch but, at times, fail to temper their aggressive style when the team often needs more substance. These types of players are the icing on the cake in great teams, but rarely the glue to pull struggling outfits together. They can turn a game in your favour, but rarely carry you over the line.
Irrespective of the result in Brisbane, the Symonds selection smacked of desperation from a selection panel under intense scrutiny. These are changing times in Australian cricket and we are under fire from all angles. Is it time to totally rebuild, time to move a few more tiring superstars on and really freshen up the outfit? It may be painful in the short term, but long term it may be the best direction to take.
Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke and Michael Hussey are safe for the moment, but other big names may be gone by the end of the summer.
The selectors have now created a difficult situation between the two all-rounders. When the team walks out in Adelaide next week, only one will be in the XI, which begs the question, which one deserves it most? Jason Krezja was left out at the Gabba after taking 12 wickets on debut; he will play in Adelaide, meaning Shane Watson, who did himself no favours in Brisbane with the bat, is the likely to make way. This is wrong. He deserves his place after the hard yards he put in during the Indian series. He is a much better bowler than Symonds and although yet to show it consistently at Test level, he is also a much better Test batsman than the free-spirited Symonds.
India was a tough assignment, but "let's move forward" was the cry from the dressing rooms.
The Kiwis were supposed to be cannon fodder, we can only imagine the South Africans licking their lips in anticipation of the upcoming series.
The team has lost its spark and must regain it quickly. The experienced players are dragging the chain and the full force of the loss of some icons in Australia, namely Gilchrist, McGrath, Warne and Langer, is now having a tidal-wave effect.
The old look tired, the new look tentative and the selection of Symonds has left those waiting in the wings very confused.
No comments:
Post a Comment