Peter Siddle

[King Elvis]

Siddles averages, can you remove the outliers?

I actually quite like Siddle, I just cannot see what he's done to be a walk up start to our side.

He has a huge heart, and he tries his best - but this is Test Cricket, that isnt enough.

 

[dan warna]

If you're going to argue (as you did earlier) that Siddle is significantly disadvantaged by having no great bowlers around him (McGrath, Gillespie, Warne etc), then there's no point also using stats comparing how many wickets he takes relative to the likes of Bichel and Kasper per innings.

Either you think it's a level playing field, or you don't.

Siddles averages, can you remove the outliers?

IF its a level playing field then he compares well with all of them.

If its not a level playing field, he still compares well with all of them.

the numbers are there.

As for removing outliers, you can do that to every one. Take away Lee's first 18 months and Siddle has him comfortably covered.

Brett Lee from March 2001 onwards (basically removing his first 7 tests)

B Lee (Aus) 69 tests 2001-2008 average 33.13, 1.98 wickets per innings.
Siddle 25 tests, 31.7, 1.88 wickets per innings.

Start removing outliers from brett lee as well if you are going to compare apples with apples.

 

[davis_756]

I must've missed something the last few years. I thought, bar the odd burst, he struggled getting wickets anywhere and just pounded them up there without much thought. Like the Ashes last year, 13 wickets, 11 in 2 innings amongst those massive English scores.

The problem in our bowling line up is not Siddle.

It is the balance of the attack, you need #1 a stump to stump accurate bowler (Mcgrath, Clark) #2 A spinner capable of cleaning up the 2nd Innings (Warne, McGill) #3 Swing Bowler (Harris, Hilfy, Watson) #4 X factor, someone with extra pace/height/hit the pitch bowler (Johnson, Siddle, Cummings).

Facts are we are playing a side loaded up in 2 area's and nothing in the other 2, sometimes we look brilliant and others we can't take a wicket to save ourselves.

Take 1 of Siddle, Johnson, Cummings + Ryan Harris and go find me a decent spinner and a younger Mcgrath type bowler and you will have a well balanced attack capable of bowling anyone out.

Unfortunately our problems don't end there, we have 1 opener who isn't ready yet, one who chokes everytime he gets near 100. Then we have Marsh who looks good, Ponting who has lost confidence in himself, Clarke who has the worst batting average for a captain since 1907, Hussey who is probably gone with ponting sooner rather then later... Haddin rounds up the rear with his idiotic batting, he has to go.

We are going to be in a lull for a while, it won't be until ponting and hussey are gone and watson moves down the order that we finally start to build another dominating test side.

I see our side looking something like this in 2-3 years time..

Hughes
Marsh
Khawaja
*Insert new player*
*Insert new player*
Watson
Wade/Paine
Harris
Cummings/Siddle/Johnson
*Insert up & coming line and length bowler*
*Insert semi decent spinner*

 

[Japes]

IF its a level playing field then he compares well with all of them.

If its not a level playing field, he still compares well with all of them.

the numbers are there.

What unadulterated rubbish.

If you say that Lee, Bichel and Kasper were regularly in attacks alongside a host of much better bowlers (and therefore essentially 3rd or 4th best in the attacks they played in) ... then it stands to reason that their chances of taking bags of wickets were a lot smaller than Siddle's.

Yet Lee still has Siddle covered in that department anyway and, all things considered, Bichel and Kasper aren't very far behind him either.

 

[Bucking Beads]

We have no line and length bowler.. All our quicks in the side at present are attacking quicks who don't really bowl to a plan well or out think a batsmen

 

[rioli is a hack]

IF its a level playing field then he compares well with all of them.

If its not a level playing field, he still compares well with all of them.

the numbers are there.

As for removing outliers, you can do that to every one. Take away Lee's first 18 months and Siddle has him comfortably covered.

Brett Lee from March 2001 onwards (basically removing his first 7 tests)

B Lee (Aus) 69 tests 2001-2008 average 33.13, 1.98 wickets per innings.
Siddle 25 tests, 31.7, 1.88 wickets per innings.

Start removing outliers from brett lee as well if you are going to compare apples with apples.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

You need to be more subjective and honest with your analysis.

What are his attributes?

He has a big heart and good attitude granted.

However, he lacks control and skill and bowls with a flat trajectory so his lack of consistent pace is not compensated by troubling bounce.

Will he consistently cause international top orders problems? No

Is he feared by good batsmen? No

Is he reliable to keep an end tidy and maintain pressure? No

Can he bowl multiple consecutive great deliveries or work a batsman out? No

When it's all said and done he simply doesn't belong at international level, and to be perfectly honest he doesn't stand out at domestic level either.

As much as I like the kid, its time for him to explore other career options.

 

[Japes]

he lacks control and skill and bowls with a flat trajectory so his lack of consistent pace is not compensated by troubling bounce.

Will he consistently cause international top orders problems? No

Is he feared by good batsmen? No

Is he reliable to keep an end tidy and maintain pressure? No

Can he bowl multiple consecutive great deliveries or work a batsman out? No

When it's all said and done he simply doesn't belong at international level

Hammer. Nail. Head.

This is spot on, and the very nub of the whole problem with Siddle.

End of thread. And hopefully some time soon, end of career.

 

[rioli is a hack]

Hammer. Nail. Head.

This is spot on, and the very nub of the whole problem with Siddle.

End of thread. And hopefully some time soon, end of career.

Mods, can you please close this thread it has been completed.

 

[krisholio14]

Hammer. Nail. Head.

This is spot on, and the very nub of the whole problem with Siddle.

End of thread. And hopefully some time soon, end of career.

I notice you decided not to quote the part of his post that was clearly incorrect.

And how can anyone take a word you say seriously when a look over your posting history on this board shows you to be a prominent hater of all things Victorian?

Put the stats aside for one second and let's get one thing clear.

Peter Siddle would be in most test nations best attacks right at the moment, and the reason most of you pot him is because you've been spoiled for the last 15 or so years.

Unfortunately, there isn't always a Lillee or a McGrath on hand.

 

[dan warna]

No one is saying siddle is a great bowler, he's a good honest international class bowler of the ilk of kaspers, lee and bichs.

He's got similar failings and attributes.

Outside Lee's first 7 tests he was a average, but because he accumulated 310 wickets over 10 odd years people extol his virtues as a great. Dizzy has 250 odd wickets and he was a great. Lee was a solid cricketer.

Same as Siddle.

When he is put aside, for a combination of our youth, McDermott, Hazelwood, Cummins, Herrick, Pattinson and the ilk, we should say thanks for your contribution in difficult times.

He'll never be a great, but he's not the spud people are making him out to be.

 

[rioli is a hack]

I notice you decided not to quote the part of his post that was clearly incorrect.

And how can anyone take a word you say seriously when a look over your posting history on this board shows you to be a prominent hater of all things Victorian?

Put the stats aside for one second and let's get one thing clear.

Peter Siddle would be in most test nations best attacks right at the moment, and the reason most of you pot him is because you've been spoiled for the last 15 or so years.

Unfortunately, there isn't always a Lillee or a McGrath on hand.

He certainly wouldn't make the England, India or South African attacks and would be a doubtful starter in many others.

This is our national team in our national sport - I for one am not prepared to settle for mediocrity. I'm glad at last the selectors have taken a chance on Cummins rather than recycling the garbage.

Rather than brand someone a hater why not be a bit more reflective and take note that it seems only Victorians like Siddle.

It's hardly a shock to notice you are also a Victorian.

Hater - I doubt it.

You being bloodymindedly parochial - Methinks so.

 

[King Elvis]

Peter Siddle would be in most test nations best attacks right at the moment,

Shouldn't be in ours, wouldn't be in Saffers, wouldn't be in Poms, wouldnt be in Pak if they weren't cheats.

He'd probably be in the mediocre/poor sides, which kinda proves the point.

And the outliers thing was more in line with Siddle taking a bag, then nothing or one wicket an innings for awhile.

 

[rioli is a hack]

No one is saying siddle is a great bowler, he's a good honest international class bowler of the ilk of kaspers, lee and bichs.

Lee was a solid cricketer.

Same as Siddle.

When he is put aside, for a combination of our youth, McDermott, Hazelwood, Cummins, Herrick, Pattinson and the ilk, we should say thanks for your contribution in difficult times.

He'll never be a great, but he's not the spud people are making him out to be.

Firstly, I contend to you that Siddle is not a good honest international class bowler - for reasons see my previous posts.

Secondly, Lee was a rare talent who could regularly bowl in the mid 150s. Granted he didn't always come off but Lee was a genuine strike bowler with a lethal bouncer. Siddle is neither a strike bowler nor a support bowler.

 

[rioli is a hack]

Shouldn't be in ours, wouldn't be in Saffers, wouldn't be in Poms, wouldnt be in Pak if they weren't cheats.

He'd probably be in the mediocre/poor sides, which kinda proves the point.

What a shock - a non Vic making straightforward points without the parochial blinkers on.

Stop kidding yourselves Vics, the game is up, you've been outed.

 

[King Elvis]

Saying 'ten years' for Lee is dishonest as well; he was behind genuine stars or very good bowlers, and was injured half the time.

I'd take Lee, Kaspa and Bichel over Johnson/Siddle any day.

 

[krisholio14]

He certainly wouldn't make the England, India or South African attacks and would be a doubtful starter in many others.

This is our national team in our national sport - I for one am not prepared to settle for mediocrity. I'm glad at last the selectors have taken a chance on Cummins rather than recycling the garbage.

Rather than brand someone a hater why not be a bit more reflective and take note that it seems only Victorians like Siddle.

It's hardly a shock to notice you are also a Victorian.

Hater - I doubt it.

You being bloodymindedly parochial - Methinks so.

As a Victorian, I would be more than happy for him to play state cricket exclusively. This in spite of your assertion he sucks at state level too (though he seems to take a few wickets every time I see him in Bushies colors). I couldn't give a rats arse if he plays for Australia or not.

I agree with some of the criticisms of his bowling, but I also think, as I said, that Aussie supporters in recent years have been spoiled, and have a misconception all time great fast bowlers fall out of trees.

I've been following the game 30 plus years and i've only seen two - Lillee and McGrath, and two others that at their best were up there - Thommo and Gillespie. That's 4 out of the dozens of quicks that have worn a baggy green in three decades.

Siddle is a workhorse, and occasionally above that, and if hes the biggest problem in the Australian side right now then you don't have all that much to worry about.

 

[krisholio14]

What a shock - a non Vic making straightforward points without the parochial blinkers on.

Stop kidding yourselves Vics, the game is up, you've been outed.

Look, we know the rest of you have an inferiority complex, not being from Victoria and all, but spare us the lesson in deflection

 

[rioli is a hack]

As a Victorian, I would be more than happy for him to play state cricket exclusively. This in spite of your assertion he sucks at state level too (though he seems to take a few wickets every time I see him in Bushies colors). I couldn't give a rats arse if he plays for Australia or not.

I agree with some of the criticisms of his bowling, but I also think, as I said, that Aussie supporters in recent years have been spoiled, and have a misconception all time great fast bowlers fall out of trees.

I've been following the game 30 plus years and i've only seen two - Lillee and McGrath, and two others that at their best were up there - Thommo and Gillespie. That's 4 out of the dozens of quicks that have worn a baggy green in three decades.

Siddle is a workhorse, and occasionally above that, and if hes the biggest problem in the Australian side right now then you don't have all that much to worry about.

You clearly do give a very big rats arse if Siddle plays for Australia.

If you listed all Australian 1st class fast bowlers since say 1971 Siddle wouldn't make the top 50.

Lastly, Siddle is not good enough to fill the role of workhorse. If that was the case he would be economical and build pressure. He can do neither of these. If it is workhorse you want then you would need to look at a line and length bowler with a few tricks like Copeland for example.

 

[Jimthegreat]

As a Victorian, I would be more than happy for him to play state cricket exclusively. This in spite of your assertion he sucks at state level too (though he seems to take a few wickets every time I see him in Bushies colors). I couldn't give a rats arse if he plays for Australia or not.

I agree with some of the criticisms of his bowling, but I also think, as I said, that Aussie supporters in recent years have been spoiled, and have a misconception all time great fast bowlers fall out of trees.

I've been following the game 30 plus years and i've only seen two - Lillee and McGrath, and two others that at their best were up there - Thommo and Gillespie. That's 4 out of the dozens of quicks that have worn a baggy green in three decades.

Siddle is a workhorse, and occasionally above that, and if hes the biggest problem in the Australian side right now then you don't have all that much to worry about.

And in 3 decades Siddle would be closer to the bottom than the top end.The Marcus North of fast bowling. Ashes were one of the worst performances as a collective whole in the history of our game. Batting was bad enough but the bowling was downright embarrassing.

Problem is he is one of our bigger problems and we have alot to worry about. What's worse, Johnson's a bigger problem.

 

[krisholio14]

You clearly do give a very big rats arse if Siddle plays for Australia.

If you listed all Australian 1st class fast bowlers since say 1971 Siddle wouldn't make the top 50.

Lastly, Siddle is not good enough to fill the role of workhorse. If that was the case he would be economical and build pressure. He can do neither of these. If it is workhorse you want then you would need to look at a line and length bowler with a few tricks like Copeland for example.

Clearly you want me to give a rats arse.

Have a look at who I actually follow in international cricket and you'll see i've got more to worry about than whether you or anyone else here think Peter Siddle is international class or not.

In fact, i'd go as far as to say i'm defending him not because i'm Victorian, but because he would easily be our best bowler at test level right now.

 

[Japes]

I notice you decided not to quote the part of his post that was clearly incorrect.

Pardon? I didn't realise it was a crime on BF to quote part of a post? Are you saying we all need to quote long posts verbatim, and parse all of them to the letter? I'd love to see you apply this laughable dictatorial standard across BF as a whole, and see how you go. And what exactly was "clearly incorrect" about what he said in any case?

a look over your posting history on this board shows you to be a prominent hater of all things Victorian?

A "hater"? Sorry?

I can assure you I don't hate "all things Victorian", let alone prominently. As you would have realised if you'd bothered to put your brain into gear for even a moment.

If I had such a deep hatred of "all things Victorian", why on Earth would I support Richmond? Let alone for longer than you've even been alive, in all likelihood. I eagerly await your explanation of this massive contradiction.

As for hating Victoria in cricket, unlike some people on this board (including you, as I've subsequently discovered - but more of that in a moment) ... I don't and couldn't give a rat's arse where players in national teams come from. TBH, it constantly bemuses me that many people are more interested in where a player lives, than what a player does.

Like many non-Victorians here, what I do dislike is the way many Victorians pump up their own players. Far worse than any other state supporters do, by a mile, in my experience. And that's why - like many on this board - I make more comments about Victorians on the whole. It's because there are more posts and threads about them than anyone else.

It's genuinely not a hard concept to grasp - so I'm honestly not sure why you're having such trouble with it?

That said, and given you are making such ill-informed and blanket criticisms of me, I'd welcome you finding posts consistently indicating my hatred for excellent past Victorian players like, say, Warne, Jones, Lehmann, Siddons or Reiffel just to name a few. Because you clearly seem to know far more about my personality and innermost thoughts and feelings than I do.

Put the stats aside

You accuse me of selectively responding to other people's posts, then adopt the approach of steering away from fact and offering nothing but opinion-based dirge? This is another of your many own goals.

Peter Siddle would be in most test nations best attacks right at the moment

LOL.

prominent

I'm prominent on this board? Again, thanks for ascribing something to me I wasn't even aware of.

BTW, I had a brief look at your own posting history. Perhaps I didn't look at it for long enough to get the full picture, but imagine my surprise when the following things all cropped up:

• repeated criticisms of just about everything of or from NSW, including an apparently strong personal dislike of Michael Clarke;
• a repeatedly strong bias in favour of everything Victorian, even to the point of describing Brad Hodge as a great bloke;
• multiple uses of an offensive term to deliberately disparage South Africans;
• abusive taunting of Australian supporters for losing the Ashes; and
• 50 pages (50!) of posts from you just on the cricket board alone, most of which seem to be based on mindless cheerleading - and yet I'm apparently the one who is "prominent"?

To sum up ... I suggest that the next time you choose to target someone with juvenile personal abuse, you get your own house in order first. That way, you will do a better job of preventing yourself from looking like such a blatant and desperate hypocrite. Cheers.

 

[King Elvis]

 

[Doodlesweaver]

And in 3 decades Siddle would be closer to the bottom than the top end.The Marcus North of fast bowling. Ashes were one of the worst performances as a collective whole in the history of our game. Batting was downright embarrassing and the bowling was downright embarrassing.

Problem is he is one of our bigger problems and we have alot to worry about. What's worse, Johnson's a bigger problem.

Helped you out there.

 

[Phone]

'even to the point of describing Brad Hodge as a great bloke;'

well this got a lol from me.

 

[King Elvis]

Like the Argus Report said; our only problems are we can't bat, bowl or field.