Peter Siddle

Remove this Banner Ad

Phone said:
...but at the end of the day he's never played a full season in the shield...
Click to expand...

He had a pretty good crack at the Sheild last season: 7 Matches (second most of any Victorian fast bowler), 32 wickets at 23 and his economy and strikes rates stack up with anyone else from that season. He's clearly talented, but needs to bring it out on a more consistent basis.
 
If there's one constant with some of our recent disasters it's Johnson and Siddle in the same side. Again, on a pitch that offered alot they gave nothing in the way of movement. That was a "Copeland" pitch if I ever saw one. He should've been in for one of the other two. Doesn't help when you get bowled out for 47 admitttedly.

Siddle give you alot in heart, effort and attitude, something the side lacks, but is limited and just can't keep pressure on a batsman. Three of your 4 bowlers must be able to do that or it's just like letting out the pressure valve. 24 Tests 79 wickets, average 32 with a strike rate of 62. Contrast that with Bollinger who's played the one bad Test only, 12 Tests, 50 wickets, average of 25 (av 23 before that ill-fated Test against England in Adelaide when still obviously unfit), strike rate of 48. Whether Siddle would go better next Test with Harris and Copeland and their ability to really apply pressure I don't know. Guessing we'll find out in a few days. That might help. We lose that pressure every time when he plays with Johnson. At times it's been just a disaster of monumental proportions.

Back in Australia Bollinger replaces him and we bring in Pattinson as well to partner Harris. We don't really have to go back to Siddle. Had enough chances.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

mediumsizered said:
I wasn't aware it was our bowlers that lost us the Test Match (although Johnson did stink it up). Any team that can only make 47, needs urgent change in the batting line up, starting with the removal of Hughes & Haddin.
Click to expand...

Not differing on the 47, that was a match loser but we did get them out for 96 as well but on the back of only 2 bowlers. We had nothing other than Harris and Watson. Once they didn't fire in the 2nd innings no-one was there to back us. Couldn't rely on Siddle and Johnson, they never looked like it all Test match. SA got 2/236 chasing on a pitch that had previously offered up inning of 96 and 47 on the same day and bar Clarke's almost solo effort (Marsh 44) not much the day before either. On that track, from what we had seen, they shouldn't have got near 236 let alone get the runs just 2 down. Bowlers almost as culpable.

Batsmen, bowlers and keeper need changing. Johnson stunk it up for the last time in my eyes and Siddle should not be in the team. He's not good enough at this level.
 
Siddle is a perfectly capable 3rd seamer. MJ is a perfectly capable 3rd seamer. Neither of them are capable 2nd seamers. This has been obvious for a long time now. I can understand why they decided to ignore the history of failure, because SA is the one place MJ and Siddle in tandem once worked, and because Copeland didn't secure his spot, but really was anyone surprised to see it not work?
 
I think what he's saying is if you have 2 good bowlers, the third can be carried...(See Brett lee, bichel, kasperwisc during the era of McGrath and Gillespie)
 
mediumsizered said:
I wasn't aware it was our bowlers that lost us the Test Match (although Johnson did stink it up). Any team that can only make 47, needs urgent change in the batting line up, starting with the removal of Hughes & Haddin.
Click to expand...

Obviously the batting needs fixing but if you cast your mind back to when we had just bowled SA out for 96. The SA bowlers could have just given up like our bowlers have done in the past when our batsmen have failed but instead they picked up the slack for their batsmen, almost created history and then gave the confidence to their batsmen to claim a convincing win.
 
dan warna said:
I think what he's saying is if you have 2 good bowlers, the third can be carried...(See Brett lee, bichel, kasperwisc during the era of McGrath and Gillespie)
Click to expand...

That was 3 good bowlers as we had Warne too as our spinner. You can carry one bowler, pace or spin, if you have 3 good bowlers. With McGrath, Gillepsie and Warne it was a perfect foil to let Lee loose. 2 of the 4 isn't enough. The most important part of a fast bowling group is pressure.
 
Jimthegreat said:
That was 3 good bowlers as we had Warne too as our spinner. You can carry one bowler, pace or spin, if you have 3 good bowlers. With McGrath, Gillepsie and Warne it was a perfect foil to let Lee loose. 2 of the 4 isn't enough. The most important part of a fast bowling group is pressure.
Click to expand...

concur, but those 3 bowlers were 3 all time greats.

But I think 2 is enough, Sri Lanka did well with Vaas and Murali. Australia had Lillee and Thompson...and some other guys.

Windies had a battery of fast bowlers

I'm looking at the future and NSW has 2 or 3 international class bowlers in their ranks, and I don't know why O'keefe isn't been cultivated more.

Vics have 1 that looks awesome and 2 that look adequate.

I can't really say about the other states.

The state and national selectors in NSW and Victoria seem to be morons though, the stupidity from the national selectors have filtered down to state level.

National and state selectors seem to be picking their favourites regardless of who is best.

I think we need some uncomplicated straight shooters like hookes (RIP) in the fold.

He really 'uncomplicated' victoria and selected a few good teams to get massive synergies going.

Victoria has been riding on the hookes work since, pretty much like hohns and co did from the work done in the border and post border era.

People are making this shit more complicated than it has to be.

Pick the best players, team them to bowl and bat and field, and keep them fit.
 
dan warna said:
I think what he's saying is if you have 2 good bowlers, the third can be carried...(See Brett lee, bichel, kasperwisc during the era of McGrath and Gillespie)
Click to expand...

Yeah pretty much. if your 3rd seamer is having a bad day you can pull him out (lol) and not hear of him again....assuming your 2nd seamer isn't having a bad day either. The problem is Siddle and MJ often have bad days together (although I wouldn't call them bad days for Siddle.....mediocre days is a more apt description. He just doesn't looking threatening, but he doesn't bowl the pies MJ does) so neither make that step up to 2nd seamer and the attack gets dragged down massively. It was perhaps exposed more this match because the spinner wasn't suited to the pitch at all, but it's been exposed plenty of times before and it's why I've so often called for only one of them to play. At this point I just assume the worst when I see them both playing.

The mystery here for me is...Siddle doesn't get swing, rarely gets seam movement, isn't pushing 160km/h and often bowls a bad length...yet he has four 5 wicket hauls in 24 tests. That's a damn good ratio (and not just because it suits my oft said 5 wicket haul, crap test, crap test, crap test, crap test, 5er line) and at times like these I just can't make sense of the man.
 
Phone said:
Yeah pretty much. if your 3rd seamer is having a bad day you can pull him out (lol) and not hear of him again....assuming your 2nd seamer isn't having a bad day either. The problem is Siddle and MJ often have bad days together (although I wouldn't call them bad days for Siddle.....mediocre days is a more apt description. He just doesn't looking threatening, but he doesn't bowl the pies MJ does) so neither make that step up to 2nd seamer and the attack gets dragged down massively. It was perhaps exposed more this match because the spinner wasn't suited to the pitch at all, but it's been exposed plenty of times before and it's why I've so often called for only one of them to play. At this point I just assume the worst when I see them both playing.

The mystery here for me is...Siddle doesn't get swing, rarely gets seam movement, isn't pushing 160km/h and often bowls a bad length...yet he has four 5 wicket hauls in 24 tests. That's a damn good ratio (and not just because it suits my oft said 5 wicket haul, crap test, crap test, crap test, crap test, 5er line) and at times like these I just can't make sense of the man.
Click to expand...

talent does not equal brains (the brett lee clause)

I would have had mckay as the best victorian bowler ahead of siddle over hte period siddle was first selected for tests.

People keep looking at the radar when people bowl and not their talent.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Put him on a hattrick, he's our best bowler. Give the other team a 50 run partnership, absolute trundler. He's capable of getting bags, but gets hammered if wickets aren't ticking over.

He bowls 15km/h slower if things aren't going his way.
 
Would say you guys are spot on. That is why England and SA have standout bowling attacks with Broad and Anderson, Steyn and Morkel they have their 2 good bowlers and the 3rd can be carried or in both teams cases perform very well.
 
dr nick said:
I think pea heart siddle would go well in a side that included McGrath/Gillespie. But if not, he chucks in the towel.
Click to expand...

that would seem true of his form, probably same for brett lee as well. If lee got afew he steams up, if there is a drought, he just starts bowling pies. Siddle seems to be of a similar vein :(
 
Harris and Copeland is as close as we're going to get to Gillespie and McGrath and the moment. Cummins waiting in the wings but I'd like to see him firm up his body before getting into it.

That third fast bowler could be anyone.
 
Bucking Beads said:
I think Bichel is a pretty fair comparison for Siddle TBH.
Click to expand...

True, we had a string of 'solid' bowlers who backed up. Bichel, kaspa, lee, fleming (who was a touch above the rest but his body didn't hold up)

Same with lawson, he was the 3rd bowler at the end of thomo and Lillee and expected to pick up the reins and couldn't. Lee had similar expectation.

What we need is bowlers to LEARN from guys like vaas and mcgrath and clark, who just bowl with discipline to a field and let the batsmen get themselves out.

a lot of our bowlers are trying to get batsmen out with every ball, they don't build pressure. which is EXACTLY why i like mckay and O'keefe. People keep talking o'keefe down, but he builds pressure. I know mckay and clark are pretty much finished now, but sure we can learn from this?

bowling at 150kph is fine if you are accurate and disciplined, if not, you'll pick up the rubbish but the good batsmen will use your speed to spank you harder.
 
He's been the victim of lifeless shield decks which means bowling back of a length to survive. He then bowls on a seamer's dream and bowls the same length. Who is the bowling coach for god sake?

Give our quicks a few seaming decks occasionally in shield games and get them to bowl the right length!!!!

Don't blame Siddle.
 
dan warna said:
in the eyes of the selectors you might as well take him out to the back paddock and shoot him.
Click to expand...

That's not certain because we don't have a clue what these new selectors are going to do. I'd McKay takes wickets he is in with a chance
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Peter Siddle

Similar threads

T
Nick Hockley and the Peter principle
Replies
2
Views
449
The 747
The 747

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top