The off topic thread

[Jatz]

He is just too likely to go 0/100 as he is an innings like this I reckon. Also when it's not happening for him he can go for plenty and cant stem the flow (perhaps he'll fix this with more experience)

Haha what? He was the quickest to 50 wickets.

There's no way Siddle is better. He's economical and that's about it. Doesn't threaten anywhere near enough to be a strike bowler.

 

[BluesMan]

There's games like against the kiwis at the WACA where he just doesn't look like having an idea how to stop them once they get on top of him (1 for 100+). Happened a bit in England too where he'd get a wicket but then followed it up with some poor bowling and someone getting set pretty easy because of his bowling

And all the times siddle has been poor? Plenty.
Im not going to have a long conversation about it, obviously neither are going to change our minds


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jatz]

The Victorian bias is hilarious though

 

[Jatz]

Btw, Hazlewood is 0.06 runs per over more expensive than Siddle, despite having an average of 24.5, compared to Siddle's 29.99.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

The Blues bias isn't though...

Gift wrapped baggy greens

 

[Jatz]

The Blues bias isn't though...

Gift wrapped baggy greens

I've just proved you're wrong using statistics.

But yes, please continue...

 

[Van_Dyke]

There's games like against the kiwis at the WACA where he just doesn't look like having an idea how to stop them once they get on top of him (1 for 100+). Happened a bit in England too where he'd get a wicket but then followed it up with some poor bowling and someone getting set pretty easy because of his bowling

The WACA was one of the flattest pitches I can remember.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I've just proved you're wrong using statistics.

But yes, please continue...

Who said I was referring to Hazlewood.

It has as much basis as this notion of Vic bias.

In any case when you've played 6 series and 2 of them are against the Windies that does distort things. He's not crap however.

 

[jd2010]

Hazelwood got wickets in England but he was only good in 1 innings (Lords). Didn't put his foot on the throat enough and leaked runs that got England back into the game.

Was very good in the night test vs. NZ but avg-poor the rest of it. The West Indies are barely a test nation anymore so can't really use those numbers to add much weight to anything. So whilst he has had his moments of fantastic bowling there's also still been question marks over him and he is just into his 2nd year of test cricket so that's the big reason I'd be reluctant to have him as our top or 2nd top bowler. If he can have a good series here in conditions that should suit he definitely has more credibility, but currently we've seen him do well and struggle against good sides so far

 

[Jatz]

Who said I was referring to Hazlewood.

It has as much basis as this notion of Vic bias.

In any case when you've played 6 series and 2 of them are against the Windies that does distort things. He's not crap however.

Well that's who the comparison was against.

Of course it isn't. Hazlewood is the better bowler. It can be proven.

He bowled poorly against the Windies (8 wickets). Took 13 against the Kiwis. So that also holds little weight to your argument.

 

[Jatz]

Hazelwood got wickets in England but he was only good in 1 innings (Lords). Didn't put his foot on the throat enough and leaked runs that got England back into the game.

Was very good in the night test vs. NZ but avg-poor the rest of it. The West Indies are barely a test nation anymore so can't really use those numbers to add much weight to anything. So whilst he has had his moments of fantastic bowling there's also still been question marks over him and he is just into his 2nd year of test cricket so that's the big reason I'd be reluctant to have him as our top or 2nd top bowler. If he can have a good series here in conditions that should suit he definitely has more credibility, but currently we've seen him do well and struggle against good sides so far

No problem with any of that (except suggesting the Windies pads his stats up - they don't).

But he's absolutely a better bowler than Siddle.

It would be Starc and then Hazlewood. Then you can take your pick from a number of bowlers.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Well that's who the comparison was against.

Of course it isn't. Hazlewood is the better bowler. It can be proven.

He bowled poorly against the Windies (8 wickets). Took 13 against the Kiwis. So that also holds little weight to your argument.

How? His WI average is 16. Nearly a third lower than the career average

Anyway, you're judging a bloke in his prime and trying to argue he's better than a bloke in the twilight of his career. Hint. Siddle has the runs on the board (pun not intended)

 

[Spanish Sahara]

Ill take Hazelwood over Siddle

 

[jd2010]

No problem with any of that (except suggesting the Windies pads his stats up - they don't).

But he's absolutely a better bowler than Siddle.

It would be Starc and then Hazlewood. Then you can take your pick from a number of bowlers.

Didn't say it did make his stats look better I just didnt even bother looking at them. His best is no doubt better but like I said there's too much difference between his best and his worst (even in the same innings).

He doesnt have a great deal of exposed test form yet (1 India home series, 1 Ashes away & 1 NZ home). He (like many) did well against the Indians on our deck, he had moments of brilliance in England but didn't really take a match by the scruff of the neck like you'd want (16 wickets in 7 innings wasn't bad but he just let them off too often), against the Kiwis he was ordinary in 2 tests (yes on roads) and good in 1.

That's hardly the track record of a superstar at this point. Can he get there? Of course. Do I think he will get there? Probably but not for another 12-18 months.

Is Siddle a superstar? No. But he is a 200+ wicket taker @ less than 30 per wicket (and at under 3 an over) which needs more credit than it gets

 

[Jatz]

How? His WI average is 16. Nearly a third lower than the career average

Anyway, you're judging a bloke in his prime and trying to argue he's better than a bloke in the twilight of his career. Hint. Siddle has the runs on the board (pun not intended)

I'm talking wickets. You know, the main reason bowlers play the game...

He is better than the guy in his twilight years. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[jd2010]

He is better than the guy in his twilight years. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

The guy with 65 wickets (24 against a State A side) to his name is better than a guy with 200+ wickets. Doesn't take much to be a legend these days it seems

 

[Spanish Sahara]

lol southee

 

[BluesMan]

It doesnt matter where siddle is in his career, Im picking a team to play today, and therefore you pick the bloke who is going to best perform today. Hazelwood is that guy.

In fact, Siddles recent form is as good as any form in his career, so this twlight talk is silly

 

[Art Vandelay_]

The guy with 65 wickets (24 against a State A side) to his name is better than a guy with 200+ wickets. Doesn't take much to be a legend these days it seems

State A... Generous on the Windies. They were beaten in December by Vic's 3rd's. Only 2 had played First Class cricket and they beat them comfortably.

Hazlewood was disappointing in England. On the pitches that were bowler friendly which we were skittled for little (birmingham and Nottingham) he was very poor. That's where we needed our steady bowler to apply pressure and get us back into the game, was loose and was carted.

 

[jd2010]

It doesnt matter where siddle is in his career, Im picking a team to play today, and therefore you pick the bloke who is going to best perform today. Hazelwood is that guy.

In fact, Siddles recent form is as good as any form in his career, so this twlight talk is silly

Like he did throughout the Ashes and recent Kiwi series.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

How embarrassing. Hit for 6 by Boult. Retire Gary. Retire now!

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

The Victorian bias is hilarious though

"We love Siddle coz he's a victorian"

 

[jd2010]

Late hitting at the end will bite us on the backside I think. Not confident at all that we will have a first innings lead. Anything above 200 is a massive effort for us

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Tough choice for first opener dismissed.

Arrogant Warner or *snick* Burns. Tough choice.

 

[Loonerty]

I'm pretty sure for whatever reason, Team Victoria are arguing that Siddle is a better bowler because he's taken more wickets in his career. That's a silly thing to judge it on as if you extrapolate Hazlewood's wickets/innings to Siddle's number of innings played, it's well in front. I know the defence to this will be "HAZLEWOOD PLAYED WI" but Siddle has played shit teams in his career too.

Team Everyone-Else on the other hand is arguing that Hazlewood is a better option for us right now, which I agree with but they're obviously both playing now so the entire argument is useless.