Greater All-Rounder - Shane Watson Vs. Andrew Symonds

[irottev]

Symonds brings more then just his batting, bowling and fielding. he seems to have a presence, all his experiance. I mean you see him sledging players. He adds some aggression.

 

[MUFC1987]

Symonds for me, class ODI player while Watson is poor in both forms of the games.

Is it me though, or has Symonds neglected his medium pace over the years? I remember him bowling in a C & G Trophy game about five years ago and after 30 overs or so, a bowled a boomerang of a ball to take out the batsman. It was the first time I thought that he could bowl an unplayable delivery.

 

[irottev]

He was succesful in one of the Ashes tests with his medium pacers. I guess he thinks he's harder to hit in the ODI's.

 

[aussie1st]

He just bowls according to the pitch, if it needs medium pace he will bowl it, if it needs spin he will change to off spin.

 

[cricketmad09]

As an all-rounder, Watson, because as a bowler, Symonds is just a good part-timer, where as Watson is developing into a front-line bowler for Australia.

 

[smssia0112]

Symonds is a lot better at fielding and batting, and they're close at bowling, but definitely Roy for me!

 

[Hooper]

As an all-rounder, Watson, because as a bowler, Symonds is just a good part-timer, where as Watson is developing into a front-line bowler for Australia.

WHAT! A frontline bowler? He cant swing the ball or cut the ball and he always bowls to short, he will never be a "frontline bowler" unless he can do something with the ball.

 

[Cricketman]

WHAT! A frontline bowler? He cant swing the ball or cut the ball and he always bowls to short, he will never be a "frontline bowler" unless he can do something with the ball.

Hes fast and bowls a good line and length. (most of the time) He's a better bowler than roy, but Symonds is still better.

 

[sifter132]

let me tell you when you judge someone as a better batsman or not....and when both players have played a few internationals like these guys have...first class statistics and first class averages of 50 or something are irrelevant....Tests and ODI's is where the best batsmen in the world are to be judged and in that case Symonds is so so so far ahead of Watson battingwise..

I think Watson is a better allrounder because i think he is more an all round talent...but Watson better than Symonds??? I would take a Symonds 100 off 80 balls over a technicially correct 55 from Watson anyday.....comparing the stats pre world cup 2003 is irrelevant as well because Symonds exploded after that...there is nothing to say Watson will jump like that...

Without Watson we do fine...Symonds gets injured and we bomb out of the CBS to a team that couldnt beat us all series, then we get smashed by the kiwi's...

the point im making in the first paragraph is that international cricket is a totally new arena to state or domestic cricket...

its like comparing Domestic or state cricket players by seeing what they did at grade level.....which isnt smart either...some smashing grade players simply can't cut the mustard at state level...its a whole new ball game..

Im not saying that Watson is horrible but i dont think Symonds is a proper direct comparison to Watson in terms of career path

The comparison from the 2003 World Cup is relevant because since then, Symonds has had much better batting opportunities. Before that he was batting at #7 coming in to slog at the end, but since then he has been basically at #5 where he has more responsibility. That is a pretty good reason for your stats to improve.

My point was that a similar thing could happen to Watson. Currently he bats at #7, but he would improve his figures if he batted higher up. Currently, he averages nearly 42, S/R of 87, when he opens the batting (Symonds by comparison, averages 45, S/R of 91 since 2003). Admittedly, Watson's only opened 8 times, but 4 times he's made 50s - that is a very solid start (and that doesn't count the 2 warm up matches last week where he also made 50s, as they weren't recognised ODIs). Not only that - he looks suited to the role, no one would say "geez it's just a fluke he's made those runs", since he has looked impressive doing so.

Also, if you don't rate first class cricket, then you must also factor in Symond's test cricket record, which is pretty bad. Yes he made one big hundred, but the rest of the games he has looked lost and I would pick Watson over Symonds any day of the week to bat at #6 in our Test team and bowl 5-10 overs a day. And the selectors did, just he got injured before he could play.

 

[Brian Lara_06]

It would depend on what you would want them to do i would have Symond's for batting & have Watson for bowling,even though Watson is a decent opening batter.

 

[Prince EWS]

Watson. Despite a one-off century, Symonds's batting will never be up to test level, and it's quite obvious his bowling isn't. Watson has a superb technique and averages nigh on 50 in first class cricket with the bat - his batting style is equipped to handle the best bowlers in any conditions as good as any.

Watson has a lot to learn with his bowling, but to suggest that Symonds is a better bowler is completely laughable.

 

[Hooper]

Symonds's batting will never be up to test level

So scoring a Test Hundred against the second best Test nation isn't good unough is it? And Watson may have a good Technique and look more better as an "all-round" player, he will never be a match winner like Andrew Symonds.