We clearly see different things.
Siddle goes the journey, not just about pace and accuracy and all those things we talk about in fast bowlers, it's about the second innings of a pressure match where Siddle is still charging in giving it his absolute all, and somehow he is still taking wickets when other bowlers aren't. Siddle doesn't sound like much compared to the rest of our pace battery, but he brings something to the able that other bowlers don't IMO.
Well assuming you watched the two games Bird played, I'd be curious as to what you did see then, and how that was worse than Siddle?
Starc is not better than Siddle. He has bucketloads of ability but as a bowler right now he is terrible. All Siddle needs to be better than Starc is not bowl three half volleys or long hops every over.
Bird has been on the international scene for two and a half seconds. We haven't seen enough to get a good gauge.
Harris is better but can't put together two series in a row so it's irrelevant.
Proudly supporting Central Districts
The Culture of Mediocrity is forever, and is proudly brought to you by New Zealand Cricket in association with Grant Bradburn Sports and the Unholy Alliance
RIP Craig Walsh
See, here's the problem; you're looking to judge the better quick like it's a game of ICC, who bowls the bigger outie, faster, etc. So much more to the profession and who should be selected than that. Bird has potential but there's a lot to be said for a bloke who takes 150-odd Test wicket and averages < 30 when everyone's had a good look at him and knows exactly how he operates. He's no genius but neither is Bird, their methods are very similar. So what if he outbowled Siddle for a couple of Tests; Siddle's been doing it for years now. That alone deserves respect at the selection table.
You can't put Bird above Siddle because of two Tests. He bowled well, no doubt, but he's far less accomplished than Siddle at the moment. And, as I said before, the younger blokes can come in and throw everything at the oppo because they have the reliable **** at the other end. Siddle's plenty quick enough and if he had someone reliable at the other end, he'd arc up. But it's clearly not his role.
Last edited by Top_Cat; 03-07-2013 at 04:57 AM.
I thought the context was going into this first test (maybe I'm wrong), so the Harris point would be a bit moot then. If he is a better bowler for any given test, then you play him over Siddle if it comes down to it.
So he bowled too short in a tour game, so has everyone. He knows when the critical moments are and when to take his game to the next level.
Remember Adelaide last year? Clarke bowled him into the floor knowing he was our best bet to get du Plessis and de Villiers. He was limping off by the end.
It might be worth noting that neither Harris nor Bird have bowled a ball in anger at a first-class oppo this tour. Let's see how they go.
Last edited by LongHopCassidy; 03-07-2013 at 05:05 AM.
"The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber
RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.
Pattinson, Harris and BIrd as the frontline quicks is a risk on evidence, all three having broken down of late and one, we know, needing to manage a chronic injury. If Harris goes down mid-test, a workhorse to pick up overs would be a huge help. But preparing for a rainy day ahead of fielding your most dangerous quicks is a negative mindset and I can't imagine under Boof they'll be thinking this way, unless our numbers are telling us it's odds on. But then, catch 22. Fascinating selection quandaries everywhere.
EDIT: I thought Bird played in Hobart, my bad.
Last edited by LongHopCassidy; 03-07-2013 at 05:20 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)