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...

I liked the article, a change from the usual done-to-death topics and interesting none the less. Blue chip companies are the biggest Nancy hypocrites around, and here they've got their claws on a blue collar institution and turning it into another sanitized marketing vehicle. Internally they're bastions of middle class snobbery, rife with boy's clubs, racism and nepotism, externally they have to be squeakly clean in case anyone dares peek in. They've got the public wrong, guess why we love McEnroe, Fevola, Newman etc, but in todays society no one wants to venture a risk with such characters when the PC mob are sitting by with gritted teeth ready to pounce. Get some balls Cricket Australia.

If Andrew Symonds cut his hair shorter than Clarke and paraded his better half around in a swimsuit he would be captain by now.

I agree with this article. And with Houellebecq. CA hung him out to dry last summer. His crime was to follow the match referees instruction and report any racial abuse. What followed was betrayal from CA and a frenzied reaction in the media.

Little wonder he appears disillusioned.

According to me he is a great all rounder so he must be in team. But due to some of his activities he was out of team so he must improve his behavior.

Christine

[url:"http://www.talkinghomeloans.com/"]HomeLoans[/url]

Andrew Symonds has provided fans of Australian and world cricket with much enjoyment over the years. But unfortunately he is an alcoholic with all the baggage that goes with it. Cricket Australia knew this years ago but as long as Andrew could perform, rationalised his behaviour. Now he can't perform he has got the chop. He won't play for Australia again.

On the basis of the ample evidence that has come forth over the years I agree with blairbar. The wonder is that Cricket Australia was loyal to Andrew Symonds for so many years and that he has been propped up at a State level.

Symonds is out because he is not good enough on the day and he is inconsistent. The fact that the causes of his poor performance are known does not alter the fact that his performance is what mattered and that suffered through factors within his own control.

A weak man would blame the booze alone. A scallywag might play up occasionally after a big game but not when it matters, for example when the team and coaches are depending on him to be at training and to be his best for the game.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/ponting-spills-on-symonds/2005/10/22/1129775998447.html

It is because Cricket Australia is so loyal to its anointed few that there are so many good young players who are crushed through never getting a chance to show what they are capable of.

Andrew's just a show off in the wrong way - especially in cricket.

Played a lot of bush cricket in the old days, and though our pressed up snow white cricket togs got filthy red in no time on typical Dalwallinu district red clay pitches, our wives and mothers made us all dress the same and look the same as we first walked onto the pitch.

One certainly wouldn't get away with a Symond's hair-do, neither.

Only wish the silly bugger doesn't wake up. Even his mates should give him a bit of a hint know and again.

Cheers from BB, a sporting boozing temperamental
silly old bastard

I agree that sports people shouold play sport and not necessarily be role models. They're good at hitting, throwing or kicking something, not being sqeaky clean. However, that really isn't the issue here.

Symonds clearly isn't that motivated to play for Australia. Perhaps he's growing up and realising that there's more to life than cricket. Even so, he signed a contract with clauses that require him to behave in a certain way. If he breaches the contract he gets punished, as with other types of contract.

He's not a great loss to the Aussie cricket team from a playing perspective. A bit like Hayden, he made his name playing against second-rate test sides, and has been found wanting when the good ones come along.