Siddle Petering Out?

[gbatman]

16 wickets in 10 innings during the ashes was probably seen as a little modest. He played his role but you start playing better sides with better batsmen than England and you really need a bowling attack with more venom and more wicket takers. The worry at the moment is that maybe we are a bit too reliant on Johnson. Harris took 22 wickets in the ashes and probably bowled better than that. Siddle has just looked a bit lifeless in his bowling, not overly quick, not getting heaps of bounce, nothing intimidating about his short balls, rarely getting movement. Just running in and putting it on the spot over and over again isn't going to get too many wickets. That's not the Siddle that used to lead our attack 3 or 4 years ago.

The other thing is that Pattinson is a genuine wicket taker who moves the ball, gets bounce, and averages 26 in test cricket. It was as plane as day during the ashes this day was coming.

 

[blaze036]

He has lacked something imo for a while however it's been covered up by Johnson's (and to a lesser extent Harris) domination. Doesn't take enough wickets, and we have Lyon who can do his shut down an end role, however Lyon does it better and can do it for longer.

 

[Caesar]

Pattinson's effectiveness has been in the strike role now occupied by Johnson - being used as a shock weapon in short, sharp bursts. It remains to be seen how well he performs on flatter wickets when he isn't given the luxury of bowling 3/4 over spells before being rested. That has always been Siddle's advantage and I'm not convinced he's been displaced in that role.

 

[Wallaby]

I think it's a team balance thing - trying to win the game. Siddle has shown he's not a big wicket-taking strike bowler these days - fair enough, he still does his job. But with Lyon now showing he can tie the Saffies down, and Watson back, we can afford to take a risk with another strike bowler.

Of course if Watson breaks down in his 3rd over (50-50), we then don't have anyone to chew up those dead overs.

 

[KissKiss]

Pattinson's effectiveness has been in the strike role now occupied by Johnson - being used as a shock weapon in short, sharp bursts. It remains to be seen how well he performs on flatter wickets when he isn't given the luxury of bowling 3/4 over spells before being rested. That has always been Siddle's advantage and I'm not convinced he's been displaced in that role.

Thats why I always pictured him coming in for Harris, when ever his time was up. I thought that Bird would be a better fit for the role Siddle plays. With the lineup they have in this test I worry what would happen on a long hot day when the wicket isnt doing much

 

[gbatman]

Pattinson's effectiveness has been in the strike role now occupied by Johnson - being used as a shock weapon in short, sharp bursts. It remains to be seen how well he performs on flatter wickets when he isn't given the luxury of bowling 3/4 over spells before being rested. That has always been Siddle's advantage and I'm not convinced he's been displaced in that role.

I think so too, I think Patto has to prove himself again but to me he's proven enough that he's capable of being a top test bowler.

For me it's Watson's role to bowl line and length medium paces and break partnerships and when he's going he does it very well as he can also achieve a little movement, even on the deadest of tracks.

I think Watson, Lyon, Harris, Pattinson is enough bowlers to have them all bowling short sharp spells. I still recon we lack that batsmen who can have a little trundle like Clarke used to but it's no big deal. I like seeing the bowlers rotated in short spells, it doesn't let the batsmen get comfortable and looks after the bowlers.

 

[Slax]

I don't really think it is Siddle letting up, but more a case of others passing him by. Six months ago the idea of Johnson ripping through batting line ups on a regular basis was laughable, but it has happened and he has shot past Siddle. Harris has remained fit (somehow), this means that once you get the likes of Pattinson, Cummins & Bird fit and firing you're left wondering who will miss out.

Just a shame we can't have the same problem with our batsmen.

 

[Power Raid]

I think it's a team balance thing - trying to win the game. Siddle has shown he's not a big wicket-taking strike bowler these days - fair enough, he still does his job. But with Lyon now showing he can tie the Saffies down, and Watson back, we can afford to take a risk with another strike bowler.

Of course if Watson breaks down in his 3rd over (50-50), we then don't have anyone to chew up those dead overs.

I think you absolutely right and with a rain shortened test, strike capacity is more valuable than endurance (especially with watson and lyon helping with that role)

 

[Showbags]

I don't really think it is Siddle letting up, but more a case of others passing him by. Six months ago the idea of Johnson ripping through batting line ups on a regular basis was laughable, but it has happened and he has shot past Siddle. Harris has remained fit (somehow), this means that once you get the likes of Pattinson, Cummins & Bird fit and firing you're left wondering who will miss out.

Just a shame we can't have the same problem with our batsmen.

Cummins? When will he ever be fit and firing. Am getting pretty sick of his talkups. He has played 1 FC game in years and by the looks of it won't play many more for the next couple of years either (if CA have their way). If we want him to be a Test bowler we need to get him bowling long spells. Not the odd T20 here or there.

Siddle is still a good test match bowler and I think an important part of the side but I agree with the risk taken by the selectors for this game. Pattinson is a risk. He could have a shocker and put pressure on Harris, Johnson but he could also bowl really well. With Watson back we can afford to take that risk on a pitch that is pretty flat. On a pitch giving more assistance though I'd have Siddle back in straight away as he provides a better foil for Harris/Johnson.

 

[King Elvis]

I'd have Bird for Siddle.

Like Sid, but he's a workhorse, and he's not even dangerous these days; just useful for slogging through overs.

Bird can do that, and will actually take wickets.

Siddle is like Ian Perrie; good, honest toiler who will bust his arse for you, but just isn't that good, and his place in the side should only be temporary.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

He has lacked something imo for a while however it's been covered up by Johnson's (and to a lesser extent Harris) domination. Doesn't take enough wickets, and we have Lyon who can do his shut down an end role, however Lyon does it better and can do it for longer.

He hasn't been 'covered' by the domination of Johnson and Harris. He has contributed towards their domination.

Has played his role superbly, and has only really been left out of this game as a 'horses for courses' selection. Which I quite like, really. Good attacking move for a must win game, but not one we should employ every match.

 

[Showbags]

I'd have Bird for Siddle.

Like Sid, but he's a workhorse, and he's not even dangerous these days; just useful for slogging through overs.

Bird can do that, and will actually take wickets.

Siddle is like Ian Perrie; good, honest toiler who will bust his arse for you, but just isn't that good, and his place in the side should only be temporary.

I can't see how Bird is any different than Siddle? Both bowl early 130's and are accurate.

 

[Caesar]

Yeah, I'd have said that Bird is actually a lot less threatening on wickets that aren't doing anything than Siddle is. Siddle often gets breakthroughs through sheer persistence when the other bowlers are struggling to extract anything from the pitch.

Bird is a great bowler but sort of goes missing a bit when there isn't that subtle seam movement and nippy bounce that makes him so dangerous.

 

[Hellgood]

I don't really think it is Siddle letting up, but more a case of others passing him by. Six months ago the idea of Johnson ripping through batting line ups on a regular basis was laughable, but it has happened and he has shot past Siddle. Harris has remained fit (somehow), this means that once you get the likes of Pattinson, Cummins & Bird fit and firing you're left wondering who will miss out.

Just a shame we can't have the same problem with our batsmen.

Has Pattinson passed him by though? Pattinson was absolutely sensational for his first stint in the side, but got injured and didn't quite come back in the same form as he was. Now I have no doubt at some stage he'll regain that form and be a bloody good bowler for a long time, but right now I think Siddle has been doing a pretty good job and whilst I can see the attraction in bringing in a younger, faster bowler it still is a little bit uncomfortable dropping him so quickly.

 

[therubbernub]

I think we are seeing the benefit of watson and what he brings to the team. Others have correctly identified the role siddle played as less of a strike bowler and more of a bowler who ties up the other end. Watson is of the same breed, but can also get that movement that might have been very handy during the second test. Of course he can also bat.
Siddle has performed a vital role but his time might be coming to an end IF one or all of the following occur
1. Watson stays fit. He takes his place imo
2. Our young guns stay fit i am talking about cummins, starc, bird, pattinson
3 johnson remains the anchor strike bowler

I believe that the selectors want a blend of strike and line and length. Due to injuries to the young emerging quicks and lack of form with MJ that has been very hit and miss before the latest MJ revival. But all things being equal, i believe that the following structure makes sense

1 strike bowler MJ. Apart from pace, he provides the Left hand experience and the Malcolm marshal like skid through off the pitch.
2 strike bowler 2 pattinson or starc for mine. Providing lift. Harris if fit.
3 stock bowler Watson
4 lyon

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

I really like Siddle and he's put his absolute heart and soul into every ball he's bowled but sometimes you have to make the tough decisions.
He'll still play more Test cricket because Watson will break down and we need a workhorse who can tie up an end and build pressure while still taking wickets, but he's going to be squeezed out by a pretty exciting crop of fast bowling talent, some of which have already demonstrated their worth at Test level such as Pattinson, Bird and Starc (needs to cut out the bad balls).

If we had an all-rounder in the mould of Stokes I'd say he'd probably be finished.

 

[courtjester]

I think we are seeing the benefit of watson and what he brings to the team. Others have correctly identified the role siddle played as less of a strike bowler and more of a bowler who ties up the other end. Watson is of the same breed, but can also get that movement that might have been very handy during the second test. Of course he can also bat.
Siddle has performed a vital role but his time might be coming to an end IF one or all of the following occur
1. Watson stays fit. He takes his place imo
2. Our young guns stay fit i am talking about cummins, starc, bird, pattinson
3 johnson remains the anchor strike bowler

I believe that the selectors want a blend of strike and line and length. Due to injuries to the young emerging quicks and lack of form with MJ that has been very hit and miss before the latest MJ revival. But all things being equal, i believe that the following structure makes sense

1 strike bowler MJ. Apart from pace, he provides the Left hand experience and the Malcolm marshal like skid through off the pitch.
2 strike bowler 2 pattinson or starc for mine. Providing lift. Harris if fit.
3 stock bowler Watson
4 lyon

I don't think Watson's ever going to be the stock bowler we'd like him to be. Might be good for 5-10 tidy overs per innings, but much more and he'll just break down.

Our current set up is alright- MJ the strike bowler, Siddle the stock bowler and Harris somewhere in between. All of them are keeping it tidy and not leaking runs. Swapping Pattinson for Siddle is fair, because Siddle is just not taking wickets. MJ, Harris, Pattinson, plus Lyon and Watson is exactly right for the time being.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

*shakes head in disbelief*

 

[King Elvis]

I can't see how Bird is any different than Siddle? Both bowl early 130's and are accurate.

Bounce and movement.

 

[Hellgood]

Bird does not get much bounce at all compared to Siddle.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Certainly more economical than Pattinson.

 

[Slax]

He hasn't been 'covered' by the domination of Johnson and Harris. He has contributed towards their domination.

Has played his role superbly, and has only really been left out of this game as a 'horses for courses' selection. Which I quite like, really. Good attacking move for a must win game, but not one we should employ every match.

Agree, wouldn't want this attack on the sub-continent. Siddle does still have a place in the side and the amount of run Pattinson leaked shows that.

 

[gbatman]

Pattinson didn't bowl well which is to be expected from someone who hasn't played long format cricket for months. Bowled too short and too inconsistently. His pace was down a fraction and his rhythm sketchy. We've all seen him bowl and know he can do a lot better. Really needed to play a handful of first games, his form looks some way off just yet. Things you don''t get in the nets is that adjusting to match conditions, bowling to fields, bringing the length back when the balls not moving and then later pitching it up when it begins to reverse, all these things were off. No doubt Siddle will be working on his game which is also not where it used to be as well. Hopefully Siddle plays the shield game on the 11th, would be good if Patto could too as it's obvious he needs long format cricket form but thins might be a bit soon after the test.

 

[Despair]

So refreshing to see someone's initial prediction come to fruition, despite the arrogant replies on the 1st page.

Being "a workhorse" isn't enough when you are playing the world's best. Even South Africa's 3rd seamer (Morkel) looks threatening and has steepling bounce and bowls 150.

Siddle has really offered nothing. 130kph, straight up and down, he's lost the aggression he used to have, he's lost the pace he used to have. He was lucky to even have 5 wickets in the 2 tests, 2 of the 5 wickets he got bounced about 2 inches off the deck.... It honestly feels like you're just waiting for the batsman to do something stupid against Siddle.

Workhorsing is for part-timers or allrounders, which is the function that Lehmann & CA want Watson to be help out with, and now that he is fully-fit he is able to.

 

[hayes]

Who would've thought that Johnson and Harris could still get wickets without Siddle frustrating the opposition batsmen. :O Hopefully next time a simple question is asked the armchair critics on here are a bit more willing to accept a different opinion.

Anyway when our fast bowling stocks are as good as they are now being economical doesn't cut it anymore. It wasn't that long ago Pattinson was an auto selection, once he gets a few more tests under his belt he'll be back to his best and we'll have the best bowling attack in the world. I'm sure in the end Siddle will be better for this.