Very good Michael. I’m with you all the way.

“ ‘Progress’? ‘Issues’? ‘Platform’? Am I the only one he hears Mao and Little Red Books in all this?”

No, you are not the only one.

Excellent sentiments and well put, too!

'Until that happens, perhaps we should just hand athletes scripts before every interview.'

I thought they did...

'This is not a cricket matter; it is about image and brand.'

Definately, but perhaps the other way around that you suggest. He
hasn't actually been performing well at all, and what they are really looking for is an excuse to drop him that doesn't upset the sponsors. You cant have every advert featuring A Symonds when he isn't even in the team. Not good value for money.

Also I think he is rubbing a lot of team mates up the wrong way and some of the reason is to do with team harmony. With regards to the counselling, it may be needed, as he just split with his long term partner. As with Brett Lee, I think CA can see he's odds on to continue with poor performances for a while.

Ironically he is very popular with a lot of the fans *because* he is rough around the edges. As was Warnie. Sport twists itself in knots about this. People relate to personalities, they bring in sponsorship dollars, but when they show a rounded personality or something real which people relate to (rather than the coached 'take it one game at a time' crap) they somehow fear that's too much personality and look to censor them. I can see how this would be confusing for Andrew.

The thing you omitted is that it all started to go wrong for Symonds when Cricket Australia hung him out to dry in the Harbhajan case. We're behind you all the way mate... oh, hang on, the Indians might leave and take their money with them... I'm sure you understand Andrew but you're on your own now.

I notice the author has described the situation using both capitalism and communist references as if capitalism entering sport has given rise to communist-like control.

What a lot of crap ! Symonds is on his FOURTH disapproval and is not acting in the interests of cricket. Cricketers of old certainly did not have the media hype that today's do....but they had to work at a job for a living and were not paid as professionals. If a doctor acts like a hoon in the course of his duties ( and outside in the public arena) he soon pays a penalty one way or another. There is a professional standard to cricketers paid for by the public through advertisers and governments in one way or another). Live up to those standards or get out.

Good article. We like scalliwags and rogues.
I have heard that his private issues are a problem, and obviously team harmony is paramount.
But calling someone else a poo, so to speak, in a casual interview? Overreaction.

Rosie: I like this. Shows the two are not so far apart as people believe as they both stem from "zero-sum" thinking...