Bollinger>Siddle

[The 747]

Not really, it's not like Siddle is picking himself in the side. Once we're off i'll be backing Siddle to the hilt just the same as the other 10 blokes that take the field.

I have issues however with the reasoning behind his selection. You cant tell me Doug has lost his match fitness in 6 weeks. He's been killing it for the past 12 months, bowling big and strong and more importantly taking wickets. A supposed unfit doug also took 3/25 in his first innings back post injury.

Edit - Was meant in response to The 747 Whoops

That is actually not true, not that these things bother anyone on BF.

He was great against Pakistan here and great against NZ (although Harris was better). He was rubbish in England against Pakistan and did not complete the one Test he played in India. There is some romance being created about him as the exclusion but those are the facts.

His career trajectory has basically mirrored Siddle's, not great to start, then an awesome patch, then a slide then injury.

Yes he was good in IPL games but that is not Test cricket. And he did take 3/25 and was noticeably underbowled in that game, no doubt because he is not fully fit.

As another poster said, if he plays at 75% we risk losing him for the summer and we also risk Watson breaking down if he has to cover for Bollinger half way through a Test.

If fully fit, both Harris and Bollinger are ahead of Siddle.*

*This does assume there is some logic in selection though and that logic has been absent for a while.

 

[The 747]

If it's a green wicket he's bound to take a few wickets even bowling pies. Then they'll unfortunately keep him in.

Yawn we get it you hate Peter Siddle. You should make it your sig to save you having to post the hate each time.

 

[eddiesmith]

When he bowls well Siddle will be alot more effective in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne than Hilfenhaus will be

 

[BACCS]

If it's a green wicket he's bound to take a few wickets even bowling pies. Then they'll unfortunately keep him in.

Oh damn, god forbid that happening!

 

[BACCS]

pretty sure I read somewhere Ponting is getting the final call on these type (this, Hauritz) of decisions.

If you are gonna make calls like that, at least have the decency to find a source.

 

[Ill Chicken]

That is actually not true, not that these things bother anyone on BF.

He was great against Pakistan here and great against NZ (although Harris was better). He was rubbish in England against Pakistan and did not complete the one Test he played in India. There is some romance being created about him as the exclusion but those are the facts.

His career trajectory has basically mirrored Siddle's, not great to start, then an awesome patch, then a slide then injury.

Yes he was good in IPL games but that is not Test cricket. And he did take 3/25 and was noticeably underbowled in that game, no doubt because he is not fully fit.

As another poster said, if he plays at 75% we risk losing him for the summer and we also risk Watson breaking down if he has to cover for Bollinger half way through a Test.

If fully fit, both Harris and Bollinger are ahead of Siddle.*

*This does assume there is some logic in selection though and that logic has been absent for a while.

Complete junk. Siddle has 60 wickets in 17 tests, Bollinger 49 in 11. That is in no way a mirror of Siddle's test career. 11 wickets in your last 5 tests and the guy is an instant recall.

By your thinking Watson is now at 75% and shouldn't be playing. Bollinger is 100% and it is nothing short of stupidity the rationale of Ponting, Nielsen and the selectors. It is so stupid that if Siddle goes shit house, he will get another run in Adelaide because they don't like egg in their face and will probably throw Doherty out before a poor performing quick.

 

[Phone]

If you are gonna make calls like that, at least have the decency to find a source.

Can't find any "Yes he gets the final say" sources, just hints that Ponting had a big influence in the Doherty selection. It's hardly a big, slanderous call anyway. I'd be pretty disappointed if Ponting didn't get the final say in the actual line-up.

 

[beez]

I'd much rather he bowl well and Australia win.

Common sense statements like this makes Cousin Jed a great mod.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Complete junk. Siddle has 60 wickets in 17 tests, Bollinger 49 in 11. That is in no way a mirror of Siddle's test career. 11 wickets in your last 5 tests and the guy is an instant recall.

By your thinking Watson is now at 75% and shouldn't be playing. Bollinger is 100% and it is nothing short of stupidity the rationale of Ponting, Nielsen and the selectors. It is so stupid that if Siddle goes shit house, he will get another run in Adelaide because they don't like egg in their face and will probably throw Doherty out before a poor performing quick.

Not to mention Bollinger averages some 8 runs better than Siddle, and averaged 22 or so over his last ten tests, something Siddle has never done. Oh and Bollingers strike rate is approx 15 balls better. Only area that Siddle wins is economy rates (both a bit average there, 3.01 for Siddle compared to 3.14 for Bollinger). With such a small difference, however, it's certainly not enough to say Siddle gets the nod.

 

[Minimum Chips]

That is actually not true, not that these things bother anyone on BF.

He was great against Pakistan here and great against NZ (although Harris was better). He was rubbish in England against Pakistan and did not complete the one Test he played in India. There is some romance being created about him as the exclusion but those are the facts.

Couldn't agree more, Bollinger was very poor in England he was all over the shop. I don't think there's really much between Siddle and Bollinger. Hopefully Siddle can recapture his form from SA two years ago and if he doesn't Bollinger (when fit) can come back in.

 

[Hayesuel]

That is actually not true, not that these things bother anyone on BF.

He was great against Pakistan here and great against NZ (although Harris was better). He was rubbish in England against Pakistan and did not complete the one Test he played in India. There is some romance being created about him as the exclusion but those are the facts.

The actual facts dont seem to bother you either, they read 7 tests for 29 wickets at just over 23 a piece for Dougy since the Sydney 12 months ago. Rubbish, rubbish season.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Couldn't agree more, Bollinger was very poor in England he was all over the shop. I don't think there's really much between Siddle and Bollinger. Hopefully Siddle can recapture his form from SA two years ago and if he doesn't Bollinger (when fit) can come back in.

No, Bollinger had a couple of poor spells, he bowled well in parts. Johnson was disgusting.

 

[frankrizzo]

So now bollinger was dropped because he struggled vs pakistan?

Johnson and hilf bowled just as poorly, if it wasn't for north taking 6 we might have lost 2-0.

Most frustrating thing with all this is people saying siddle and dougy have similar numbers.

4 wickets a game at 23 and 3 wickets at 31 aren't even in the same ball park.

You might as well say mcgrath and brett lee had similar career numbers.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Couldn't agree more, Bollinger was very poor in England he was all over the shop. I don't think there's really much between Siddle and Bollinger. Hopefully Siddle can recapture his form from SA two years ago and if he doesn't Bollinger (when fit) can come back in.

Winning that series in South Africa was the worst thing to happen to this test side. Johnson North and now seemingly Siddle have a mortgage on their spots because of their performances, always the justification goes back to performing well in South Africa. Only unlucky man there was Hughes, who got dumped at first oppertunity.

 

[Minimum Chips]

No, Bollinger had a couple of poor spells, he bowled well in parts. Johnson was disgusting.

I agree with you on Johnson, but I'll love to know when Dougy's good spells were. Bollinger rarely moved the ball in the air and if he did it was away from the right-hander and the same off the pitch.

 

[BACCS]

Can't find any "Yes he gets the final say" sources, just hints that Ponting had a big influence in the Doherty selection. It's hardly a big, slanderous call anyway. I'd be pretty disappointed if Ponting didn't get the final say in the actual line-up.

Well I just saw a post earlier in this thread that says Ponting actually wanted Harris over Siddle, but was over ruled. Again, it is all a guessing game unless they come out in the press and say it. I wouldn't be suprised in Ponting favouring the Tasmanian either.

 

[Minimum Chips]

Winning that series in South Africa was the worst thing to happen to this test side. Johnson North and now seemingly Siddle have a mortgage on their spots because of their performances, always the justification goes back to performing well in South Africa. Only unlucky man there was Hughes, who got dumped at first oppertunity.

North is a very lucky man but that's probably more due to the 09 Ashes Series than SA, I thought Siddle/Bollinger was 50/50 and Johnson was always going to be in the side because his good is very, very good.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

Disgraceful selection.

 

[frankrizzo]

Just watched the ponting press conference, pretty clear siddle over dougy is his choice.

Apparently according to ponting this is the bowling unit that has had great success in the past, including different times in England according to ponting......(the only one who bowled a match winning spell in England was the long since dumped clark)

I mean what can you say he's one sharp bloke.

 

[Minimum Chips]

So now bollinger was dropped because he struggled vs pakistan?

Johnson and hilf bowled just as poorly, if it wasn't for north taking 6 we might have lost 2-0.

Most frustrating thing with all this is people saying siddle and dougy have similar numbers.

4 wickets a game at 23 and 3 wickets at 31 aren't even in the same ball park.

You might as well say mcgrath and brett lee had similar career numbers.

Averages don't tell you the full story especially when Siddle and Bollinger have played such few tests. The majorty of Siddle wickets have come against quality opposition. As where Bollinger are against the likes of West Indies and Pakistan in Australia. I really don't get the hate for Siddle or love for Bollinger, they're both of a similar standard in my opinion.

 

[potatomasher]

Averages don't tell you the full story especially when Siddle and Bollinger have played such few tests. The majorty of Siddle wickets have come against quality opposition. As where Bollinger are against the likes of West Indies and Pakistan in Australia. I really don't get the hate for Siddle or love for Bollinger, they're both of a similar standard in my opinion.

The only times I can recall Siddle doing well is ripping through the tail once or twice. Granted, Australia suck at getting tails out and this is a handy skill, but he doesn't get the big wickets. Bollinger can, especially if there is a bit of movement about.

 

[aussie1st]

Couldn't agree more, Bollinger was very poor in England he was all over the shop. I don't think there's really much between Siddle and Bollinger. Hopefully Siddle can recapture his form from SA two years ago and if he doesn't Bollinger (when fit) can come back in.

Have I been smoking something or did you just say Bollinger was very poor in England?

 

[eddiesmith]

Have I been smoking something or did you just say Bollinger was very poor in England?

5 wickets @ 36 is pretty poor...

 

[aussie1st]

My bad thought you guys were talking about him being poor against England.
Fine if you guys want to pluck out some poor series then Peter Siddle 3 wickets against WI at 70 geez that is pretty poor.

 

[Bomber Bears]

The only times I can recall Siddle doing well is ripping through the tail once or twice. Granted, Australia suck at getting tails out and this is a handy skill, but he doesn't get the big wickets. Bollinger can, especially if there is a bit of movement about.

eg 5fa at Headingly, after Clark had ripped through the top order