Siddle: the bowling version of North

[krisholio14]

Your OP states 1.5 out of 4 is no good. I said 2 out of 4. You corrected my assessment. I conceeded to the semantic correction. I then showed you that being on for 1.5 out of 4 (3 out of 8) is very much Test standard. Then you call me a troll. Just Maybe you don't like being corrected or Just Maybe you don't like others that totally disagree with your flawed assessment.

Now I will let you have the last say.

I knew I smelled something around here

 

[krisholio14]

So you're saying most of our team was out of form? I agree. Do you have a point?

What I was highlighting is that Siddle is chalk and cheese like North - he either takes 5 wickets or he does nothing at all. At least Harris bowled consistently. Johnson...well, that's Johnson. A headcase.

No, my friend, that's not "semantics". Do you know what semantics means?

That's cold, hard difference. Siddle did not perform the whole of Brisbane. He, very notably, backed up a good first innings performance with an awful one in the second innings. It would be incorrect to say he performed for the Test, because he clearly didn't.

How about you give us a list of Aussie bowlers over the years who's success ratios are better than the one you've given Siddle.

Then give me a list of bowlers in the world at the moment.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

You're the one trying to prove a point, so go and do it yourself.

 

[legend166]

The thing about Siddle is he might be on for 1.5 out of 4 tests, which is definitely a good ratio, but he's completely off for 2.5 out of 4 tests.

He needs to be able to start converting his 0/80 into a 2/50 or 60.

 

[krisholio14]

You're the one trying to prove a point, so go and do it yourself.

Whose avoiding the issue now?

Lets get a couple of things straight here.

First, I can't think of anyone whose come out at any time on these boards and said Sids is the next Dennis Lillee. He's a workhorse in the Merv Hughes mold, and every good side needs that type of bowler. As far as I can see he's done that job pretty well thus far.

Second, he's making improvements as time goes on, which is more than I can say for several other Aussie bowlers. In fact, he's about the only Aussie cricketer that has improved full stop since the last Ashes series.

And on another note, how about giving some credit to the English batsmen? They've been switched on for all but a week and a half of this tour and have got the deserved results.

You're the one potting Siddle here, so again, I ask you which Aussie bowlers over the last couple of decades have better than the 1.5 out of four ratio you're speaking of?

 

[Jimthegreat]

Whose avoiding the issue now?

Lets get a couple of things straight here.

First, I can't think of anyone whose come out at any time on these boards and said Sids is the next Dennis Lillee. He's a workhorse in the Merv Hughes mold, and every good side needs that type of bowler. As far as I can see he's done that job pretty well thus far.

Second, he's making improvements as time goes on, which is more than I can say for several other Aussie bowlers. In fact, he's about the only Aussie cricketer that has improved full stop since the last Ashes series.

And on another note, how about giving some credit to the English batsmen? They've been switched on for all but a week and a half of this tour and have got the deserved results.

You're the one potting Siddle here, so again, I ask you which Aussie bowlers over the last couple of decades have better than the 1.5 out of four ratio you're speaking of?

What ratio is this?

 

[krisholio14]

The thing about Siddle is he might be on for 1.5 out of 4 tests, which is definitely a good ratio, but he's completely off for 2.5 out of 4 tests.

He needs to be able to start converting his 0/80 into a 2/50 or 60.

He didn't bowl well in the second innings in Brisbane and in Adelaide agreed, but then he wasn't Robinson Crusoe there.

I make the point again, he is improving all the time, so I think there's a reasonable chance on that basis that he can achieve what you have said there (the bit I bolded )

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

Whose avoiding the issue now?

Lets get a couple of things straight here.

First, I can't think of anyone whose come out at any time on these boards and said Sids is the next Dennis Lillee. He's a workhorse in the Merv Hughes mold, and every good side needs that type of bowler. As far as I can see he's done that job pretty well thus far.

Second, he's making improvements as time goes on, which is more than I can say for several other Aussie bowlers. In fact, he's about the only Aussie cricketer that has improved full stop since the last Ashes series.

And on another note, how about giving some credit to the English batsmen? They've been switched on for all but a week and a half of this tour and have got the deserved results.

You're the one potting Siddle here, so again, I ask you which Aussie bowlers over the last couple of decades have better than the 1.5 out of four ratio you're speaking of?

As others on here, between you and skipper kelly self-congratulating, have agreed - it's about Siddle being OFF for the other 2.5 Tests. You have completely missed the whole point of this, which is about consistency - and hence the comparison to North. Find me ANY Australian bowler (Johnson aside) who is as grossly inconsistent as Siddle.

Go back to the beginning, read again, then tell me it's OK for Siddle to do sweet FA 2.5 out of every 4 Tests. Then tell me how we're going to progress as a team.

In your desperation to defend Siddle, you've completely missed the bloody point. Complete and utterly.

Oh - and he's hardly improved. He's still the same bowler. Same inconsistent bowler.

 

[krisholio14]

What ratio is this?

Void here is saying he's only bowled well in 1.5 of the four tests and on that basis he is the Marcus North of bowlers.

 

[Jimthegreat]

He didn't bowl well in the second innings in Brisbane and in Adelaide agreed, but then he wasn't Robinson Crusoe there.

I make the point again, he is improving all the time, so I think there's a reasonable chance on that basis that he can achieve what you have said there (the bit I bolded )

That's what he needs to do, take the 2/50-60's between the good spells. He's had quite a few 5 wicket hauls in an innings but is only averaging 3 1/2 per Test with an average of 32. So something is missing in-between. He needs to bowl as he did in Melbourne, as that was his best effort ever for consistency through an innings. Don't expect those figures but the consistency of line and length would be a winner. Other's would get wickets too then, if they bowled well enough, with that type of pressure.

 

[krisholio14]

As others on here, between you and skipper kelly self-congratulating, have agreed - it's about Siddle being OFF for the other 2.5 Tests. You have completely missed the whole point of this, which is about consistency - and hence the comparison to North. Find me ANY Australian bowler (Johnson aside) who is as grossly inconsistent as Siddle.

Go back to the beginning, read again, then tell me it's OK for Siddle to do sweet FA 2.5 out of every 4 Tests. Then tell me how we're going to progress as a team.

In your desperation to defend Siddle, you've completely missed the bloody point. Complete and utterly.

Oh - and he's hardly improved. He's still the same bowler. Same inconsistent bowler.

I fail to see how you can call his bowling in Perth off. He was barely given a run, and when he did bowled quite ok.

As I see it, he's bowled in 6 digs.

He's bowled outstandingly in 2, poorly in 2, and fine without getting a real workout in 2 others.

Marcus North has one outstanding knock in 10 digs, and is mediocre at best in the other 9.

Siddle has taken two 6 fa's in this series with one test to come. If he'd taken only one and been carted in all other innings i'd possibly agree with you. But that is not the case.

Along with that, the fact he's bounced back after a couple of bad outings says to me he is improving.

It will be interesting to see what he delivers in Sydney.

 

[krisholio14]

That's what he needs to do, take the 2/50-60's between the good spells. He's had quite a few 5 wicket hauls in an innings but is only averaging 3 1/2 per Test with an average of 32. So something is missing in-between. He needs to bowl as he did in Melbourne, as that was his best effort ever for consistency through an innings. Don't expect those figures but the consistency of line and length would be a winner. Other's would get wickets too then, if they bowled well enough, with that type of pressure.

Yep I agree with this for sure.

I thought he was the only Aussie bowler to get his line and length right consistently in the last test, which in itself is a good sign.

The other thing he needs to do in conjunction with that is stop bowling a four ball every 7 or 8 deliveries. From what i've seen this summer he seems to be getting on top of that slowly but surely.

 

[caboose]

the fact he's bounced back after a couple of bad outings says to me he is improving.

Wow. Talk about scoring a spectacular own goal.

There's not much chance Cousin Jed (or anyone else) is going to get relief from watching this argument go round in circles when one of the main protagonists clearly doesn't even understand the thrust of the thread.

 

[krisholio14]

Wow. Talk about scoring a spectacular own goal.

There's not much chance Cousin Jed (or anyone else) is going to get relief from watching this argument go round in circles when one of the main protagonists clearly doesn't even understand the thrust of the thread.

I assure you I understand the thrust of the thread.

Which is basically to say that Siddle, like Marcus North, has one excellent performance surrounded by several mediocre ones.

What i'm saying is that while Siddle hasn't been ultra consistent this summer, he's performed a lot more consistently than Marcus North, and is improving.

I do agree (and have said so in this thread), that he still has work to do bridging the gap between his best and his worst, but at least the good performances have started to bob up a bit more regularly.

 

[mattymac]

Sounds a lot like you SA talking up Callum Ferguson, shouldn't and isn't anywhere near the Test team.
As for this thread, replace the name Peter Siddle with Mitchell Johnson and its bang on.

he's near the team don't kid yerself. but i think you'll find most of the talking him up was pre-ashes. after the aus-a game and a few missed opportunities in the shield i think you'll find most south aussies on here have said openly he hasn't done enough to force his way in this series. still hit a couple of tons though and no doubt will figure in the rebuilding plans post-ashes

thats not quite in the same league as the hordes of vicos incessantly calling for cameron white to be given another go despite pretty forgettable performances and not even being mentioned by the powers that be, or even better the ones crying that a retired bloke should get a test call up. priceless

my issue with siddle btw has nothing to do with him being a vico. its just obvious that him and johnson together doesn't work cos they're both far too inconsistent. by siddle's standards he's played a blinder this series but he's still taken his wickets in only 2 innings over 4 tests. when johnson does the same we lose series. simple math really. as soon as a couple of consistent young blokes come through we should ditch them both

 

[Phone]

i stopped reading after the op 'cause i know how this thread is gonna go on this board, but i totally agree with the op. that said siddle playing wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that right now MJ is pretty much the same too.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

I fail to see how you can call his bowling in Perth off. He was barely given a run, and when he did bowled quite ok.

Not really. He was pretty poor in both, hence falling to last place in the queue.

As I see it, he's bowled in 6 digs.

He's bowled outstandingly in 2, poorly in 2, and fine without getting a real workout in 2 others.

Marcus North has one outstanding knock in 10 digs, and is mediocre at best in the other 9.

Bowlers are more exposed, hence it is more comparative.

Siddle has taken two 6 fa's in this series with one test to come. If he'd taken only one and been carted in all other innings i'd possibly agree with you. But that is not the case.

Along with that, the fact he's bounced back after a couple of bad outings says to me he is improving.

Again, you've just confirmed his inconsistency. He's been doing it his whole career. I mean, FFS, how many times do I have to say this...it's exactly what bloody North did as well.

It will be interesting to see what he delivers in Sydney.

You don't say.

 

[Phone]

it's also worth noting that really any comparison between bat and bowl is a bit poor...2-3 poor matches with the ball is about equal to 5-6 poor matches with the bat for me.

 

[krisholio14]

Not really. He was pretty poor in both, hence falling to last place in the queue.



Bowlers are more exposed, hence it is more comparative.



Again, you've just confirmed his inconsistency. He's been doing it his whole career. I mean, FFS, how many times do I have to say this...it's exactly what bloody North did as well.



You don't say.

Lol i'll say one thing, this thread is bringing back the memories.

I'll just wait and see what happens in the next test.

I'm sure if he takes another bag it will be because the Poms have already gone home mentally.

 

[krisholio14]

it's also worth noting that really any comparison between bat and bowl is a bit poor...2-3 poor matches with the ball is about equal to 5-6 poor matches with the bat for me.

Considering it's a batsman's game these days?

 

[skipper kelly]

??

After one post (five pages in), compared to your umpteen unenlightening ones, I'm the one who has added nothing? That's top class logic; well done.




Instead of lashing out at others, I suggest you read the OP again. Please pay special attention to the word "inconsistency" that is written near the start of it.

Then perhaps you might better understand what the thread is about, be clearer about what it was that you were even attempting to argue against in the first place, and kindly leave the rest of us in peace.

Cheers.

The title says "Siddle: the bowling version of North". Then goes on to explain that he only performed in 1.5 out of 4 tests. I explained that this ratio is fine for test cricket, and is obviously above what North did. That is ignored because it doesn't fit in with the Siddle is crap theory and certainly doesn't fit in with new age cricket supporter who expects every player to play at their best every game and if they don't well lets get rid of them.

Now what type of consistency are you after? Consistently average seems to be what is asked for. I'll take inconsistent matchwinners every day of the week over consistently average.

He hardly bowled in Perth because there were 2 matchwinners doing their stuff. His limited bowling in Perth is ignored because it doesn't fit the criteria of the thread. But then again if he starred with his limited opportunities in Perth then he would have had more bowling with the 2 matchwinners getting less. And around it goes. on and on and on.

The problem is expectations. But I dont expect anyone to even consider this because basically the players of today are expected to be robots or a mixture of 0's and 1'.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

Lol i'll say one thing, this thread is bringing back the memories.

I'll just wait and see what happens in the next test.

I'm sure if he takes another bag it will be because the Poms have already gone home mentally.

I like how you cover yourself for any situation. Siddle is perfect, sorry.

And no, dead rubbers never effect results do they?

Considering it's a batsman's game these days?

Really? What a cop-out.

And no, it's because bowlers are more exposed. Batsmen have less chances for exposure - one bad shot and you're out.

You are certainly obstinate in the face of pretty clear evidence.

 

[SurfingTheVoid]

The title says "Siddle: the bowling version of North". Then goes on to explain that he only performed in 1.5 out of 4 tests. I explained that this ratio is fine for test cricket, and is obviously above what North did. That is ignored because it doesn't fit in with the Siddle is crap theory and certainly doesn't fit in with new age cricket supporter who expects every player to play at their best every game and if they don't well lets get rid of them.

Just because you said something doesn't make it so. Nor was it dissimilar to what North did, as you cannot make a straight comparison between a bowler's exposure and a batsman's exposure.

Now what type of consistency are you after? Consistently average seems to be what is asked for. I'll take inconsistent matchwinners every day of the week over consistently average.

Neither of Siddle's bags resulted in the winning of a match. So your argument is irrelevant.

He hardly bowled in Perth because there were 2 matchwinners doing their stuff. His limited bowling in Perth is ignored because it doesn't fit the criteria of the thread. But then again if he starred with his limited opportunities in Perth then he would have had more bowling with the 2 matchwinners getting less. And around it goes. on and on and on.

His bowling in Perth was not that limited, and it was also poor.

The problem is expectations. But I dont expect anyone to even consider this because basically the players of today are expected to be robots or a mixture of 0's and 1'.

And yes, your post added nothing.

Please go back to post 38. I explained it clearly, but because you are trolling, you completely ignored it. The only 0s and 1s we're talking about are Siddle's.

 

[skipper kelly]

you cannot make a straight comparison between a bowler's exposure and a batsman's exposure.

You did and actually started a thread about it. The thread we are posting in.

You also want a bloke dropped after he took 6 for 75 off 33 overs.

You chose a ratio which you say is not up to test standard but I showed you if all players were 'on' for this ratio then The Ashes would be in Australia.

But yeah you are after serious debate.

Nothing changes even your feigned outrage.

 

[krisholio14]

I like how you cover yourself for any situation. Siddle is perfect, sorry.

And no, dead rubbers never effect results do they?



Really? What a cop-out.

And no, it's because bowlers are more exposed. Batsmen have less chances for exposure - one bad shot and you're out.

You are certainly obstinate in the face of pretty clear evidence.

Of course i'm covering all the bases, it's the BF way. I'll laugh though, if he does another Brisbane.

And as far as the second part goes, I was just asking the question. I've heard plenty of far more knowledgeable and experienced cricket observers than myself make the comment in recent times.

And yes, I am obstinate, and damn proud of it