Soulberry has put together a sort of tribute to Andrew Symonds:
People I have interacted with before on BBC's boards might recall of
those positive views of mine. They might recall my support for Symonds'
inclusion into the test team way back before he was actually inducted,
and my reasons thereof. They might recall my awe at his all-skills
prowess in the one-day game.
Things changed, Symonds became Symo
for some and Roy for others. Andrew began trying to men something to
everyone. And dissociation is a dark confusing world. But all this I
have gone over in earlier posts and is not the focus of this post.
just wanted to record my appreciation for Symonds, one of the most
complete one-day players ever....and who could have become a decent
test player if the devil times hadn't descended upon when he finally
had the chance. can you ever forget his WC innings and the all-round
performance in that.
The links he provides are very interesting. Meanwhile, The Age carries a story that Symonds falling enthusiasm for cricket can be dated to Bhajji abuse scandal:
To this day Symonds has not forgiven Cricket Australia for what
transpired in an Adelaide federal courtroom eight months ago. It
was there that he and three teammates were convinced to downgrade
an initial charge of racial slander against Harbhajan Singh to one
of verbal abuse, a ploy the Australians were advised would help
ensure a long suspension after the Monkey-gate scandal, but one
that eventually resulted in Harbhajan escaping sanction.
Harbhajan's reprieve infuriated Symonds, who felt abandoned by
administrators he believed were more interested in kow-towing to
India than protecting their own. Team sources say Symonds has
bluntly refused CA's attempts to resolve the issue, and the
lingering resentment has fuelled his deteriorating attitude to
Those close to the 33-year-old do not believe he will retire,
but there is grave concern about the way he feels.
And the Times of India has a pair of editorials on the basic question behind all this that could have been asked of any number of wonderful cricket players. Does team discipline trump individual greatness?
management felt that Symonds failed to recognise, and adhere, to the team ethic
so central to its success. Australia's success in the recent past is remarkable
when we contrast it with that of other teams. Team India, despite boasting of
some of the world's finest batsmen, have flattered to deceive. And Brian Lara's
brilliance with bat did little to help the cause of the West Indies. Simply put,
individual talent need not necessarily translate into success for a team unless
the team has a clear plan and will to achieve its goals.
The alternative point of view, that greatness is better than rules:
Cricket, like most other sports, is not your usual
nine-to-five job. At the highest level, sport is akin to art. Like artists,
sportspersons cannot always be bound by rules and manuals. Too much discipline
could stifle creativity and kill sporting genius. The trick is to get the
balance right so that a great athlete has adequate freedom but at the same time
doesn't fritter away his talent.
Meanwhile, Jrod reckons Symonds is really in trouble now:
Dean Jones, he of the self proclaimed legend status, is on his side.
Never a good sign in an argument.