Peter Siddle

[Special88]

Has to go along with Johnson.

Cutting - Johnson
Patto - Siddle

K.

 

[krisholio14]

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 "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.



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.



LOL.



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.

I'll give you one thing in all that - i'm not fond of South Africans.

I should also have qualified my Victorian statement by adding cricket.

I'm glad I inspired an appraisal of my posting on this board. Cheers

 

[Mad Catter 32]

Sorry Vics, I think Siddle time is up, If Australia is looking forward, and after this SA debarkle, that should signal the end of a few international careers, Johnson is done as well, Hadden is woeful, and Ponting has had his fun.
The truth about Siddle/Johnson is that Johnson HAD tons of talent, but other than one season he, for numerous reasons hasnt forfilled, where as Siddle isnt as gifted has no X factor, but he bust a gut just to get what he can and to put his team first, his batting efforts during the ashes are an example of this.
Even Harris as good as he has performed, would he have been picked 10 years ago, I dont think, he is just our only bowler capable of winning us a test, and when he goes out(sadly way to often), pretty much so do our chances.
Comparing Siddle/Johnson to Bichel, Lee and Kasper is pretty silly, when you compare them you will notice that they are all stock bowlers, unable to lead an attack consistantly. We need to find a new matchwinner(Mcgrath, Warne, Gillespie) and while we are loosing, we should at least be looking or training the next hope.
I wouldnt swap either of these(Johnson/Siddle) for any of the presently left out players like Bollinger (after his laying down in a test last year should never be considered agian).
Australia has a few quicks performing at state level so its time to pick them and let them go.
As far as the heading suggests I reckon opposition batsmen believe both Siddle and Johnson Bowl Poo, I agree.

 

[legend166]

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.

I think by removing outliers, he means this:

If you take away all of Siddle's innings where he got 5 wickets or more, his average goes from 32 overall to 40. He's the bowling equivalent of Marcus North.

If you take away all of Lee's innings where he got 5 wickets or more, his bowling average goes from 30 overall to 33.

 

[sherb]

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.

I disagree on both points.

Lee never ran through a side. In fact he never took more than five wickets in an innings. To me he may have been quick, but he wasn't a strike bowler.

And his bouncer was hardly lethal. It was invariably either far too short or far too wide, or both.

Look at the WI quicks (Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Garner, etc). Now they knew how to bowl a short ball.

 

[King Elvis]

I think by removing outliers, he means this:

If you take away all of Siddle's innings where he got 5 wickets or more, his average goes from 32 overall to 40. He's the bowling equivalent of Marcus North.

If you take away all of Lee's innings where he got 5 wickets or more, his bowling average goes from 30 overall to 33.

exactly!

 

[sherb]

I think by removing outliers, he means this:

If you take away all of Siddle's innings where he got 5 wickets or more, his average goes from 32 overall to 40. He's the bowling equivalent of Marcus North.

If you take away all of Lee's innings where he got 5 wickets or more, his bowling average goes from 30 overall to 33.

I just had a look at Ian Botham's Test bowling figures:
Complete bowling figures - 383 wickets @ 28.40
Remove the innings where he took five wickets or more - 233 @ 38.83 (10.43 differential).

Richard Hadlee went from 22.29 to 31.23 (8.94 differential). (he took 201 out of 431 in his career as 5 wicket hauls).

The low differential for Lee is probably due to the fact that he never took big bags (never took more than five wickets) and and also that he only took 10 five wicket hauls in his entire test career. So taking them out of the equation (50 wickets in total) isn't going to make that much of a difference to his average.

If you have a higher proportion of five wicket hauls in your career (eg as Botham and Hadlee did in comparison to Lee for instance), then that is clearly going to make the differential greater.

If Siddle keeps playing, I would think that the differential would reduce, as he doesn't appear to me to be the sort of player who will keep taking five wicket hauls regularly (just my take on him).

 

[Japes]

I disagree on both points.

Lee never ran through a side. In fact he never took more than five wickets in an innings. To me he may have been quick, but he wasn't a strike bowler.

Compared to Siddle, Lee definitely had more capacity to strike more regularly. I wouldn't have thought that was even in question tbh.

You only need to look at their respective strike rates to see that. Lee's was 53.3; Siddle's is 62.8.

 

[sherb]

Compared to Siddle, Lee definitely had more capacity to strike more regularly. I wouldn't have thought that was even in question tbh.

You only need to look at their respective strike rates to see that. Lee's was 53.3; Siddle's is 62.7.

I was replying to the statement that Lee was "a genuine strike bowler", which was a stand-alone assessment of him unrelated to Siddle. And I stand by my view. Lee in my books will always be a good to very good test bowler who had the ability to be a great but never got there.

But in comparison to Siddle, I tend to agree with what you are saying.

 

[The 747]

Has to go along with Johnson.

Cutting - Johnson
Patto - Siddle

K.

Doubt our selectors will go into a Test with two debutant quicks and one who has played one game.

The more pressing thing is to get rid of MJ from the team, which will mean Siddle stays for a little while.

But Siddle has not come on in the way we wanted, he isnt really a better bowler than when he debuted and i would rate him as a depth quick outside the XI at this point. There is a real lack of improvement in our bowlers from debut these days.

 

[dan warna]

I just had a look at Ian Botham's Test bowling figures:
Complete bowling figures - 383 wickets @ 28.40
Remove the innings where he took five wickets or more - 233 @ 38.83 (10.43 differential).

Richard Hadlee went from 22.29 to 31.23 (8.94 differential). (he took 201 out of 431 in his career as 5 wicket hauls).

The low differential for Lee is probably due to the fact that he never took big bags (never took more than five wickets) and and also that he only took 10 five wicket hauls in his entire test career. So taking them out of the equation (50 wickets in total) isn't going to make that much of a difference to his average.

If you have a higher proportion of five wicket hauls in your career (eg as Botham and Hadlee did in comparison to Lee for instance), then that is clearly going to make the differential greater.

If Siddle keeps playing, I would think that the differential would reduce, as he doesn't appear to me to be the sort of player who will keep taking five wicket hauls regularly (just my take on him).

THey are trying to find obscure statistics to show that Siddle is rubbish as opposed to ordinary, while pumping up Lee/bichs and kaspers

the base numbers are there.

Lee about 31 (blows out to 33 if you take away his first 7 test matches) at a about 2 wickets per innings.
Siddle 32 at about 1.88 wickets per innings.
Kaspers and bichs about 32 at about 1.6 wickets per innings.

Lee marginally ahead of siddle, who is way ahead of kaspers and bichs across their test careers.

That said we are discussing good to ordinary test bowlers.

 

[sherb]

THey are trying to find obscure statistics to show that Siddle is rubbish as opposed to ordinary, while pumping up Lee/bichs and kaspers

Well, using their methodology (ie comparing movement in averages based on removing five wicket hauls), they would have no choice but to try and argue that Brett Lee was a better bowler than Ian Botham. Or Richard Hadlee for that matter.

 

[krisholio14]

Well, using their methodology (ie comparing movement in averages based on removing five wicket hauls), they would have no choice but to try and argue that Brett Lee was a better bowler than Ian Botham. Or Richard Hadlee for that matter.

Good to see a balanced opinion on this thread for once.

The way some people are talking you'd think Siddle was Chris Matthews.

 

[legend166]

Well, using their methodology (ie comparing movement in averages based on removing five wicket hauls), they would have no choice but to try and argue that Brett Lee was a better bowler than Ian Botham. Or Richard Hadlee for that matter.

That's not really the point at all. Obviously when you're starting with an average of 22, it doesn't matter how big the differential is once you take away the 5 wicket hauls, because you're obviously getting them regularly enough to have such a good average.

 

[sherb]

That's not really the point at all. Obviously when you're starting with an average of 22, it doesn't matter how big the differential is once you take away the 5 wicket hauls, because you're obviously getting them regularly enough to have such a good average.

Disagree. The methodology was specifically used to show that Siddle was a worse bowler than Lee because Siddle's average was artificially low because of his five-fors. All I did was show that could be the case with the great bowlers too. It has to be, by definition, because you are taking a bowler's best performances out.

So if people insist on using that particular type of methodology, it is perfectly reasonable to use it in comparison to other bowlers to show how flawed it is.

Anyway, the comparison between Lee and Siddle was rendered even more irrelevant because Lee took so few five wicket hauls in test cricket (the least of anyone who has taken 300 wickets), so that by definition his drop in average was going to be relatively small when these hauls were taken out.

But even if you want to take out the "22 average" type bowler (eg Hadlee), you've still got Botham - his average went from 28 to 38 when the five-fors were taken out. Would you consider Lee to be on a par with him?

If anything, you could use the "five-fors" to argue the reverse if you wanted to. Brett Lee only managed a five-for every 15 innings (10 times out of 150 innings), while Peter Siddle has managed a five-for every 10.5 innings (4 times out of 42 innings). Also, Siddle has taken 6 wickets in an innings already whereas Lee never could (despite being described here as a strike bowler). And Lee never took ten wickets in a match either (best - 9/171, compared to Siddle's best of 8/113), so in that respect they are both on a par.

Basically with statistics, when comparing similar performing players, you can basically set the criteria to suit your own argument. And I think the "removing outliers" argument is a very good example of that.

 

[legend166]

I think you're missing the context of the argument though.

No one is arguing that Siddle doesn't have great days. The point is that at this stage I'd rather a bowler who can get me 2-3 wickets per innings relatively consistently, with the occasional fantastic performance, rather than a bowler who occasionally has a fantastic performance, but does nothing in between. That's what the statistic is showing. When Siddle doesn't have a fantastic performance, he has a really crappy performance.

For Botham, I think it describes him as a bowler really well actually. Fantastic when on, but not entirely consistent. Which is fine for him, because he was an all rounder and could contribute with the bat.

You hear football coaches talk about it all the time (Roos and Longmire have banged on about it with regards to the Swans for years now) - the gap between the good and bad is important. Sportsmen are human, they can't perform at their best all the time. So when they aren't performing at their best, they still need to be able to contribute. Siddle, as it stands, doesn't have that consistency. He's either fantastic, or pretty dud and unthreatening. And when you're a member of a three man pace attack, that's dangerous for a team to have.

 

[Jimthegreat]

We can go through the pedantics, stats etc.. but while Lee was never a great Test bowler, very good, but not great, he's light years better than Siddle. If you're getting so few 5 wickets hauls but averaging 4 per Test for 76 Tests it means you are getting wickets at a very regular rate each Test, as the comparitive strike rates show. Prefer that 100 times over to the more regular 5/6 wicket haul then nothing for a few Tests. Given there's only 4 frontline bowlers normally, you're likely to win more games with the former than the latter as you're getting wickets each game. Hauls then nothing for a few Tests is likely to see you lose alot of Tests given your 1/4 of the attack.

Fair chance if Lee suddenly made himself available for one more Test Series we'd take him in a heartbeat to play with Harris and Cummins. While he was never our greatest fast bowler, and expensive often, after watching our current crop we have a new appreciation for Lee. Players player like McGrath around it made Lee look worse than he really was.

 

[Heisenberg_]

I disagree on both points.

Lee never ran through a side. In fact he never took more than five wickets in an innings. To me he may have been quick, but he wasn't a strike bowler.

And his bouncer was hardly lethal. It was invariably either far too short or far too wide, or both.

Look at the WI quicks (Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Garner, etc). Now they knew how to bowl a short ball.

Hate it how peole think Lee had a lethal bouncer just because he was fast because it's completly wrong. Very rarely did he bowl one that the batsman had to play at because it would be way to short and go over the batsmanship head instead of at his throat or head.
McGrath was about 15-20kms slower but his bouncers were far more effective then Lee ever was.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Hate it how peole think Lee had a lethal bouncer just because he was fast because it's completly wrong. Very rarely did he bowl one that the batsman had to play at because it would be way to short and go over the batsmanship head instead of at his throat or head.
McGrath was about 15-20kms slower but his bouncers were far more effective then Lee ever was.

Lee was too low at the crease to have a lethal bouncer regularly. Hence never had that sharp bounce. McGrath's ability to rise it sharply made his bouncer alot more lethal 90% of the time. Only time Lee's was more deadly if he landed it in the right spot and it was around near 150k. That would be scary but his technique didn't allow it happen often.

 

[sherb]

Why are we even comparing Lee to Siddle anyway? It's comparing apples to oranges, unless of course people come up with spurious statistical criteria as a basis for comparison.

Lee was supposedly an express, strike bowler. Siddle isn't.

Lee played 76 tests, Siddle is in his 25th.

Lee was largely surrounded by quality bowlers who would ensure that the pressure was almost always kept on. Siddle isn't.

Lee was also in a side which often made large scores, putting the opposition batsmen under pressure and meaning his captain could afford to set attacking fields. Siddle isn't.

Where's the common ground for comparison here?

 

[King Elvis]

I think it was me saying I wished Lee was still round.

Best bouncer ever was the McGrath one which sent Pietrsen home.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Why are we even comparing Lee to Siddle anyway? It's comparing apples to oranges, unless of course people come up with spurious statistical criteria as a basis for comparison.

Lee was supposedly an express, strike bowler. Siddle isn't.

Lee played 76 tests, Siddle is in his 25th.

Lee was largely surrounded by quality bowlers who would ensure that the pressure was almost always kept on. Siddle isn't.

Lee was also in a side which often made large scores, putting the opposition batsmen under pressure and meaning his captain could afford to set attacking fields. Siddle isn't.

Where's the common ground for comparison here?

Watching and seeing and making our own common sense judgement. That's enough common ground. We can spin the rest anyway we like.

Quite a few times Lee missed out for Kasperwicz, comparable type of bowler to Siddle. When you compete for a spot in a team, it's common ground. Imagine they'd barely be anyone who put Siddle in ahead of Lee in any team, back then or now. Lee and Cummins sounds light years better than Cummins and Siddle/Johnson. Don't worry about spinning any other argument.

 

[Munro_Mick]

Hate it how peole think Lee had a lethal bouncer just because he was fast because it's completly wrong. Very rarely did he bowl one that the batsman had to play at because it would be way to short and go over the batsmanship head instead of at his throat or head.
McGrath was about 15-20kms slower but his bouncers were far more effective then Lee ever was.

Lee's lethality was full tosses more so than bouncers.

 

[Japes]

In the 3rd and 4th innings of matches (i.e. when bowlers are asked to decisively finish Test matches off), Siddle's record is pretty damning: he has taken only 19 wickets at an average of 46.

Make that 19 wickets @ close to 50 now.

He is totally unreliable when genuinely needed.

It really says something when a teenage debutant massively outperforms him, and looks a million times more dangerous.

 

[Munro_Mick]

Make that 19 wickets @ close to 50 now.

He is totally unreliable when genuinely needed.

It really says something when a teenage debutant massively outperforms him, and looks a million times more dangerous.

To be fair on last night, Siddle bowled better than his figures suggest. Clarke's lack of adventure in field settings and pretty pathetic reactivity (i.e. bringing in the 3rd slip after the horse bolted with the new ball, and then bringing in the short leg after two in a row popped up there with the number 11........was Clarke trying to stop boundaries from a number 11?). And how long a deep point or 2 guys behind square for hooks? from Amla?

At any rate, over the last 12 months back to India, Siddle has only bowled in the 2nd dig 4 times for 1-218. Not good. And Johnson in that time has returned 7-519. However, head to head, Johnson v Siddle in those specific games, and Johnno returns 5-310 - - and that's only because Johnno got 12 overs at the WACA for 3 wkts and Siddle only got 4 overs 0-8.
Point being - away from the WACA, it's 1-210 vs 2-266.

Now, Johnno is the new ball strike bowler. Supposedly.
Actually, what has stood out greatly, is that Siddle is often left bowling with the spinner at the other end - and the inability of Australia to settle on a decent spin option has unsettled the attack, and that will be most pronounced in the 2nd inngs.

It's also indicative - the LACK of 2nd innings bowling - that Australia has been batting awfully over the last 12 months. All we need do is recall the Ashes series last year where the Aust batters fiddle with deliveries that the Englishmen were letting through to the keeper. The Australian batsmen made the job of the English bowlers far easier, and never more clearly so than at the Adelaide oval.