Peter Siddle

[Doodlesweaver]

Oh yeah lets attack the guy who took 6 wickets because England lead by 400+ runs, umm so what would they lead by if he didnt take 6 wickets?

As for the rubbish Clark argument that 13 games gives him invaluable experience, I suppose you would have preferred Australias middle order in the Ashes to be Hodge, Dussey, White, Mussey then seeing as they have a combined total of about 1000 games in English conditions? Add in Chris Rogers and Watson at the top and yeah maybe Australia would have won

The bowling was not the problem, it was the batting lineup that continously collapsed on good pitches

And still does and has been doing so for about 2 years now. Our middle order is a joke and the team as a whole handles pressure very poorly.

I wrote a comment yesterday about Siddle which I'll paraphrase today.

He is relatively young in international cricket terms and came into the team with stuff all first class experience. Considering that, he has done pretty well. His greatest attribute is his 'never say die' attitude. We don't have enough players with mongrel in them, so I think he's worth persisting with.

I also think he is mis-used sometimes by the captain who uses him to rough people up whereas he is better when he pitches it up.

Purely on aesthetic grounds. he has a lovely action so is good to watch bowl.

 

[ROSEMVP]

siddle had 1 bad game imo and that was is in adelaide. he did look injured that game. i thought he did his job well in perth. our best player in melbourne and brisbane. he is the leader of the attack now.

 

[mattymac]

lol eddie you love your stats except when they don't suit you. you say you've got facts, i show you some facts in a different light and you start mumbling some incoherent jabber about hodge, dussey and white??? wtf are you on about? its really just cos he's a vico innit? thats all its about. piddling state vs state lameness

 

[eddiesmith]

lol, you call them stats?

So therefore by your definition, Tim Bresnan is the greatest bowler England have because Australia recovered from poor starts in other matches but in Melbourne Bresnan plays and they collapse completely, of course nothing to do with the fact that it was on a far better pitch and conditions for bowling and anyone would have finished the job...

Not irrelevant about the batsmen, if you claim that Clark should have been in the side purely because he had played a handful of county matches then I want to know if you would also have picked the entire batting lineup from those with lots of county experience? Or does your argument of experience only count when it suits you?

Lets not forget that Phil Hughes county experience cost him his test spot because all it did was allow England to work him out, he gave away his 1 advantage and that was nobody had seen enough of him anywhere to see his flaws because he had only played a handful of games

 

[caboose]

He has stood up when it mattered.

WTF are you even on about?

Given you didn't address anything I wrote, I'm just going to assume your post wasn't actually meant to be a serious reply to mine.

If it was .. then please name a single Test where he has finished a team off in the second innings. Or, heck, even a Test where he has truly bowled well and with genuine consistency in both innings.

 

[dan warna]

Its not the bowling letting us down.

ITs the crappy batting failing to put any pressure on the opposition and the crappy fielding letting them off for easy runs.

How much pressure is the opposition when our batting is so weak and brittle and our fielding rubbish.

 

[eddiesmith]

WTF are you even on about?

Given you didn't address anything I wrote, I'm just going to assume your post wasn't actually meant to be a serious reply to mine.

If it was .. then please name a single Test where he has finished a team off in the second innings. Or, heck, even a Test where he has truly bowled well and with genuine consistency in both innings.

Did pretty well against the Saffers in Sydney and that is just checking 1 match off the top of my head...

He will bowl well next week and for the next 6 months the doubters will have to start bagging his ODI performances as reasons he shouldnt play test cricket whilst ignoring the fact he was very good in 3/4 test matches he actually really bowled in during a series...

 

[eddiesmith]

Its not the bowling letting us down.

ITs the crappy batting failing to put any pressure on the opposition and the crappy fielding letting them off for easy runs.

How much pressure is the opposition when our batting is so weak and brittle and our fielding rubbish.

Why would people attack the batting when the favourite sons are in it? The favourite whipping boys are bowlers...

It is no coincidence whatsoever that the 1 test the Aussies won was when the batting made a slight comeback and deflated the English a bit when the last 5 wickets put on about 200 runs, would have been a very different story here if Australia made 260 instead of 98

 

[caboose]

Did pretty well against the Saffers in Sydney and that is just checking 1 match off the top of my head...

Surely you can't be serious?

From memory, there were about 25 overs of trademark poo from him in the first innings before he took some tailend wickets on one of the worst pitches ever seen in Sydney. Then he couldn't land a single ball on the line of the stumps against a bloke batting with one arm when the game had to be won.

He ended up getting removed by his best mate, Ricky, at the end of that Test because he was so impotent, didn't he? Didn't Johnson have to finish it off instead?

 

[breeno]

I've been critical of Siddle, but he has been our best bowler by far this series. When he bangs it in short he is horrible to watch, but when he pitches it up he is actually really threatening.

He's yet to hit his peak, and whilst he may leak runs on occasion now and needs to get a lot more consistent, he's holding his spot better than any other bowler, so there's no reason to get on his back.

 

[eddiesmith]

Surely you can't be serious?

From memory, there were about 25 overs of trademark poo from him in the first innings before he took some tailend wickets on one of the worst pitches ever seen in Sydney. Then he couldn't land a single ball on the line of the stumps against a bloke batting with one arm when the game had to be won.

He ended up getting removed by his best mate, Ricky, at the end of that Test because he was so impotent, didn't he? Didn't Johnson have to finish it off instead?

Well seing as he got out the opening batsman and then 2 batsmen who made most of their runs, thats one interesting way of describing his 1st innings. Also if his bowling was so bad why did he go for the 2nd least amount of runs behind McDonald?

Also yes, Johnson did have to dismiss, Peter is very sorry that someone else had to stand up because by the end of the game and being far and away Australias best bowler and yet again their leading wicket taker he couldnt take 1 more to make you happy...

I can only imagine what sort of abuse you levelled at Doug Bollinger in his home test, judging by your appraisal of Siddles efforts, Doug's must be described as the worst bowling effort in test history?

 

[caboose]

Well seing as he got out the opening batsman and then 2 batsmen who made most of their runs, thats one interesting way of describing his 1st innings.

LOL. Ok, I'm so so sorry. Having now looked at the scorecard, I'd not recalled he got the horribly out-of-form bunny and soon-to-be-discarded McKenzie out. But the rest of my impression was perfectly accurate. He didn't take another wicket until the 115th over of the innings.

Also yes, Johnson did have to dismiss, Peter is very sorry that someone else had to stand up because by the end of the game and being far and away Australias best bowler and yet again their leading wicket taker he couldnt take 1 more to make you happy...

Was this genuinely supposed to make sense? Any sense at all; I mean any whatsoever?

I can only imagine what sort of abuse you levelled at Doug Bollinger in his home test, judging by your appraisal of Siddles efforts, Doug's must be described as the worst bowling effort in test history?

I wasn't aware this thread had anything to do with Bollinger. But it was his debut Test, so you can probably cut him a little slack. FWIW, I didn't think he was great at all in that game - but I do recall he had a lot of atrocious luck, especially against Smith in the first innings.

Again, though, I have no idea what this has or had to do with what we're talking about in relation to Siddle.

 

[mediumsizered]

I've been critical of Siddle, but he has been our best bowler by far this series. When he bangs it in short he is horrible to watch, but when he pitches it up he is actually really threatening.

He's yet to hit his peak, and whilst he may leak runs on occasion now and needs to get a lot more consistent, he's holding his spot better than any other bowler, so there's no reason to get on his back.

No, apparently he mostly bowls poo, despite already having taken 5 or more wickets in an innings 4 times in his short Test career. On the other hand, Ben 'I take the occasional wicket' Hilfenhaus is more deserving of a position in the Test XI, mostly on the basis that he is not a Victorian. In Hilfenhaus' case it doesn't matter that he doesn't take wickets in either the first or second innings of a Test match. His poo apparently is acceptable.

 

[mattymac]

ah the vico paranoia victim complex thingy is strong in this thread

So therefore by your definition, Tim Bresnan is the greatest bowler England have because Australia recovered from poor starts in other matches but in Melbourne Bresnan plays and they collapse completely, of course nothing to do with the fact that it was on a far better pitch and conditions for bowling and anyone would have finished the job...

i/ "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y...
3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed."

note: bresnan was neither the number 1 ranked bowler in the world; nor the destroyer of his opponent and highest wicket taker in the previous ashes; nor had his team failed to take 20 wickets on any occasion in the series prior to his inclusion; nor was he being kept out of the team because he wasn't a yes-man and a mate of the captain; nor did i say clark was the "best bowler [australia had]", but rather that siddle was keeping him out of the team when siddle's performances did not warrant his inclusion (averaging 40+ in the series or whatever it was at that point)

Not irrelevant about the batsmen, if you claim that Clark should have been in the side purely because he had played a handful of county matches* then I want to know if you would also have picked the entire batting lineup from those with lots of county experience? Or does your argument of experience only count when it suits you?

see i/ above

*see notes to i/ above

Lets not forget that Phil Hughes county experience cost him his test spot because all it did was allow England to work him out, he gave away his 1 advantage and that was nobody had seen enough of him anywhere to see his flaws because he had only played a handful of games

see i/ above

 

[Crows4Flag]

Fair play to him. Only one that turned up to play and showed abit of fight with both bat and ball.

 

[dan warna]

73 test wickets at 31, and a swag of runs at 18, puts him in the same category as brett Lee.

Not a great, just an good ordinary test bowler

once he gets to play a few soft nations, should end up with 200 plus wickets at 30 ish IMO.

puts him in the not quite very good category, definitely not in the great category, puts him in the good ordinary test bowler status along with the Brett lee's and kasperwics who have represented australia with honour.

Doubt he'll get the series carries lee got, not even dizzy one of australia's greats, got as much mercy as Lee.

 

[mattymac]

once he gets to play a few soft nations, should end up with 200 plus wickets at 30 ish IMO.

jeez hopefully we find someone better before that happens. he's far too inconsistent, as is the whole johnson-siddle-hilfenhaus trio. poms must've pissed themselves when we fronted up with the same failed attack. he has been a constant feature of the team that has slipped from 1 to 5. we will continue to lose consistently as long as we have to carry him every second and third match

its no good following up a 5fer with a couple of 0/100s. much rather a bloke that takes 2/60 or there abouts every innings. we need consistent team efforts not blokes that put their hand up every few games. otherwise its a pretty simple equation to work out we'll keep losing series

 

[dan warna]

jeez hopefully we find someone better before that happens. he's far too inconsistent, as is the whole johnson-siddle-hilfenhaus trio. poms must've pissed themselves when we fronted up with the same failed attack. he has been a constant feature of the team that has slipped from 1 to 5. we will continue to lose consistently as long as we have to carry him every second and third match

its no good following up a 5fer with a couple of 0/100s. much rather a bloke that takes 2/60 or there abouts every innings. we need consistent team efforts not blokes that put their hand up every few games. otherwise its a pretty simple equation to work out we'll keep losing series

He's a support bowler, not a match winner.

We haven't had a match winner since McGrath, Warne and Dizzy left.

our attack is a good ordinary attack. Unless one of the young players come through, we've developed a generation of 130 km hr medium / fast medium players, the same problem the english had in the 80s and 90s.

 

[mattymac]

i would say its a poor ordinary attack. i'm not talking about solo match winners, infact i'm talking about the opposite. 3 blokes who all pitch in every game rather than blokes who play well when the deck suits them or its their birthday or they got a new haircut or whatever then are so content with their one off effort that they switch off and contribute absolutely nothing for the next couple of games

 

[smasha]

i would say its a poor ordinary attack. i'm not talking about solo match winners, infact i'm talking about the opposite. 3 blokes who all pitch in every game rather than blokes who play well when the deck suits them or its their birthday or they got a new haircut or whatever then are so content with their one off effort that they switch off and contribute absolutely nothing for the next couple of games

Siddle's TWO one off efforts.

Come on mate.

 

[smasha]

Siddle still can make THREE one off efforts in an ashes series.

 

[mattymac]

i would say its a poor ordinary attack. i'm not talking about solo match winners, infact i'm talking about the opposite. 3 blokes who all pitch in every game rather than blokes who play well when the deck suits them or its their birthday or they got a new haircut or whatever then are so content with their isolated effort that they switch off and contribute absolutely nothing for the next couple of games

edited for the sake of pedanticism. point stands

 

[Japes]

Surely now is the end of the line for this guy. Especially with a new selection panel in place - who, one can only hope, won't be anywhere near as partial to him as the last one.

How anyone who professes to be a Test bowler could have stunk as badly as him in such favourable conditions at Newlands is a mystery.

His card should have been stamped 'never to play Test cricket again' a long time ago after helping us to lose so many games, but surely this latest effort was the final straw.

 

[Phone]

It's not the end of the line and non should it be. He's 26 or something.......but at the end of the day he's never played a full season in the shield, and that shows sometimes. 51 FC games, 24 tests, with a few of those FC games being tour games and Aus A games...it shows.

 

[Japes]

It's not the end of the line and non should it be. He's 26 or something.......but at the end of the day he's never played a full season in the shield, and that shows sometimes. 51 FC games, 24 tests, with a few of those FC games being tour games and Aus A games...it shows.

24 Tests? Bloody hell; is it up to that many now?

Players like Jamie Cox and Jamie Siddons (who didn't get 1 between them) must be turning in their cricketing graves.

How many more demonstrations do we need to have (and how many sides do we need to watch absolutely plundering our 'attack') before it's absolutely bleeding obvious this guy is nowhere near it?