Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Peter Siddle

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Well, he sure proved me wrong after Perth (when he often looked nothing short of pedestrian). He bowled well in patches at Melbourne and finally pulled it together with a (debatably) MOTM performance in Sydney. Admirable stuff.

You know what? I'm not disappointed at being proven wrong.

I don't believe that he's our best bowler just yet, but a bowling attack of Clark/Johnson/Siddle certainly looks capable of taking 20 wickets. Even without Clark, our bowling attack seems capable.
 
DaRick said:
I don't believe that he's our best bowler just yet, but a bowling attack of Clark/Johnson/Siddle certainly looks capable of taking 20 wickets. Even without Clark, our bowling attack seems capable.
Click to expand...

Clark/Johnson/Siddle looks pretty solid. I think at this stage they will continue to need the assistance of a bowling all-rounder. So Ron may get a few more games.

Hopefully Mitch and Sid have a fair bit more development left in them.
 
I was certainly one to say drop this guy instead of krejza when krejza was dropped. Boy was I wrong. Once you pump this kid up, he can take some ripper wickets and bowls some ripper balls. Great attacking bowler. Plenty of years to come for him.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I've always liked him. I remember his first class debut in a one dayer and he was really impressive and always hit the deck hard. Thats why he's so dangerous, every now and then he gets one to move in off the seam. Also bowls a good tight, consistent line. He can also get a touch of swing both reverse and conventional, enough to trouble a batsman.
 
weevil said:
Clark/Johnson/Siddle looks pretty solid. I think at this stage they will continue to need the assistance of a bowling all-rounder. So Ron may get a few more games.

Hopefully Mitch and Sid have a fair bit more development left in them.
Click to expand...

Which is why Watson>>>>>>>>>>>Symonds at test level.
 
DaRick said:
You know what? I'm not disappointed at being proven wrong.
Click to expand...

Sid said:
I was certainly one to say drop this guy instead of krejza when krejza was dropped. Boy was I wrong. Once you pump this kid up, he can take some ripper wickets and bowls some ripper balls. Great attacking bowler. Plenty of years to come for him.
Click to expand...

Well done, boys.

We all make wrong calls, but it's very rare (at least on this board) for people to admit they made a bad call.

Most simply hide in the shadows waiting for the player to have a bad day so they can come out and go 'ner ner, i was right, he's a hack'.

weevil said:
Hopefully Mitch and Sid have a fair bit more development left in them.
Click to expand...

I think that's a certainty.

If they both have luck with injury, they may just form a pretty formidable duo for years to come.

weevil said:
If our bowling is very inexperienced and lacks a bit of penetration I agree.

If the bowlers are going well then I very much lean towards a batting all-rounder.
Click to expand...

Excellent observation.

For a while we're going to need the all-rounder to be a genuine bowling option the inevitable ups and downs of such a young, inexperienced attack.

We simply must have that protection.

But once we get some real cricket into Johnson and Siddle (and perhaps the four bowler, depending on which direction they go in), we should be able to either go with a genuine batsman at 6, or even a batting all-rounder.
 
Always liked him (the fact he was Victorian probably contributed a lot to it), he's had quite a few injuries so he's only gonna get better.:thumbsu:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

fraser25 said:
Jumping the gun a bit aren't we? Promising start so far but that is all.
Click to expand...

Who is we?

One person (a non-Australian supporter) is the only one to have said anything even somewhat extravagant.

As one who totally potted Siddle (although that was nothing compared to the vitriol you aimed at Ronnie prior to the match), what are your views on his performance?
 
JerryWexler said:
Again, on both counts, what drugs are you on?
Click to expand...
Dont listen to all the hype. Johnson is still average. Cant swing the ball and still can't maintain a good length and line. H's mastered the art of getting batsman out with rubbish balls. Whilst he's had a good series it'll only be short term unless he improves dramatically. Clark's still our best bowler.

Potentials there with Siddle. Definately got the right attitude and his aggression is invaluable. Got a lot of tailenders out this series but accumulating wickets is a good start no matter who you get out.
 
JerryWexler said:
Again, on both counts, what drugs are you on?
Click to expand...

What drugs are you on?

The guy that will cause the most damage if he's fit enough and plays in South Africa is Stuart Clark. Or Peter Siddle. With the pitches they'll be presented with, they'll be Australia's two most dangeroous bowlers. Johnson is Australia's most dangerous bowler on the whole, in fact I'd say the world, but consistent line and length will work better in South Africa than pace and the odd bit off swing.
 
Cassius_Clay said:
Got a lot of tailenders out this series but accumulating wickets is a good start no matter who you get out.
Click to expand...

Only 5 of his 13 wickets for the series were tailenders, and three of those were in the first dig of this test.
 
Good on him. I didn't agree with his selection, but he's made a really good fist of it after two poor performances in his first couple of tests. Happy to see the guy bowling so well. Agreed that he needs to drop a little bit of weight - his man boobs are slightly confronting.

As for the plonkers call, god forbid people have opinions that don't always turn out correct! :o
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Cassius_Clay said:
Dont listen to all the hype. Johnson is still average. Cant swing the ball and still can't maintain a good length and line. H's mastered the art of getting batsman out with rubbish balls. Whilst he's had a good series it'll only be short term unless he improves dramatically. Clark's still our best bowler.
Click to expand...

18 test matches a mountain of wickets and an ICC rating of 4th best test bowler in the world. Very average.
 
SBI said:
Agreed that he needs to drop a little bit of weight - his man boobs are slightly confronting.
Click to expand...

Doug Bollinger has more concern in that area, but it appears Dougie is the untouchable golden boy, both in the media and on Bigfooty.

One only needs to look at the differing reactions to Siddle's Perth test and Bollinger's Sydney test to see that there are two sets of rules for judging players.

SBI said:
As for the plonkers call, god forbid people have opinions that don't always turn out correct! :o
Click to expand...

It's not about having an opinion, it's about abusing and condemning a kid before he's had an opportunity.

From memory, you didn't do that, you simply said that you preferred Bollinger as you believed he is a better bowler, but there are others who did and went much further (none of whom have shown up during this test).
 
Exhale You said:
Well done, boys.

We all make wrong calls, but it's very rare (at least on this board) for people to admit they made a bad call.

Most simply hide in the shadows waiting for the player to have a bad day so they can come out and go 'ner ner, i was right, he's a hack'.
Click to expand...

Yeah, riiiight, I'd probably be inclined to pay you some credit if you'd raced on here with similar breakneck speed after each of his performances in Mohali, Perth and Melbourne to rightfully acknowledge he'd been part of an attack which failed abysmally and essentially lost Australia two of the most crucial series they'll play for some time. But you didn't. Or at least not as far as I can tell, though I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Instead it looks like you've hidden in the shadows and waited for the player to have a good day (in a dead rubber and on one of the most abysmal tracks to bat on we've seen in ages) to come out and troll other BF posters in at least two separate threads now.

As one who has criticised Siddle, I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge he had a fine game. And that I may have been a bit hasty in my judgement of him, and that I'm happy to reassess. But equally (a) I'm not going to embrace a diammetrically opposite opinion after one match on a rubbish pitch that made batting for the South Africans a nightmare and (b) I still stand absolutely by my comments that he shouldn't have been picked ahead of other better credentialled bowlers like Hilfenhaus. Especially after Perth. I've got no doubt at all that, with his accuracy, Hilfenhaus (and probably most of our top pace bowlers at Shield level) would have had a field day on this pitch as well. More to the point, it's almost impossible to believe Hilfenhaus et al wouldn't have performed better than Siddle in Perth and Melbourne. When the crucial moments of the series were played out and when Australia genuinely needed wickets, he was extremely unimpressive.

What I also note is that you try to keep emphasising that Siddle will be a great bowler in time. Which is a point I think you might have overlooked in your eagerness to condemn his critics on here. Most of the criticism I've seen has been about the fact that he is not ready for Test cricket *yet* - not that he mightn't potentially be ok in the long term. So although you mightn't have picked up on it, the points they've made and the comments you've made about him aren't quite the polar opposites that you seem to think they are.

As for one other point, I see you claiming only five of his wickets for the series were tailenders. The devil is probably in the detail, though: if you look more closely at it, you can also see that he actually only got anyone above #7 out five times. And two of those five were McKenzie, who I guess it could be cheekily said wasn't much more than a glorified tailender in this series anyway. His form was just horrible. Of course, you could go a bit further and add that more than 60% of his wickets for the series came on a pitch that at least one commentator said was "scandalous" - but I think you probably get the point. Or at least I hope you do.
 
Exhale You said:
Doug Bollinger has more concern in that area, but it appears Dougie is the untouchable golden boy, both in the media and on Bigfooty.

One only needs to look at the differing reactions to Siddle's Perth test and Bollinger's Sydney test to see that there are two sets of rules for judging players.



It's not about having an opinion, it's about abusing and condemning a kid before he's had an opportunity.

From memory, you didn't do that, you simply said that you preferred Bollinger as you believed he is a better bowler, but there are others who did and went much further (none of whom have shown up during this test).
Click to expand...


theres a pretty simple reason to this. One is from NSW and is god's gift to the world in the media and by all the ex NSW players that are now commentators and one is a victorian
 
I cant believe people rate Johnson that highly. Clark is a better bowler. Pretty comfortably. I'd take Siddle over him aswell. Johnson does not swing the ball, his line and length is average and he is clearly not an allrounder. I think some of you guys are wishing and hoping more than actually knowing he is an allrounder.
 
Well done siddle and lets hope he gets some wickets in Sth Africa.People will look back and say they picked him at the right time.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom