***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by adub

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

I like your words and numbers. Surprised at the vs Harris tbh.

[adub]

Originally Posted by uvelocity

I like your words and numbers. Surprised at the vs Harris tbh.

Not really a surprise. Harris' first tests and Doug was in good form in tests 1 & 2. Adelaide hurt Dougie's average more than Harris' in test No. 3.

[adub]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

I don't understand how people lump Siddle into the same category as Johnson. I think that they are completely different bowlers.

Siddle gets tagged as an inconsistent bowler, but I fully believe that he's learned a great deal being in the Test setup for the past 3 years. His performance in the final Test vs Sri Lanka was encouraging, he said he realized he needed to pitch the ball up more and for the most part, he did this. The delivery to dismiss Sangakarra who was looking sublime on 79 was a beauty.

That's the problem with Siddle, he's a ****ing tease. His 6/54 in Brisbane was some very good bowling and as has been noted plenty of times consisted mainly of good full fast bowling. He also bowled a super spell in Melbourne to take 6/75. So how the **** does a guy with 2 6-fers take only 14 wickets in a 5 test series? Simply because he bowled two good innings of full straight stuff and another 5 innings of short wayward garbage.

Yeah his 4-fer in Colombo was good work, but if he keeps up with his usual plan he won't take more than 1 wicket in an innings before Christmas.

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by adub

short wayward garbage.

to ludicrous fields it should be well noted.

[adub]

Originally Posted by uvelocity

to ludicrous fields it should be well noted.

That does look like one problem that is being addressed under the new management.

[uvelocity]

Clarke's fields have been super.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by adub

That's the problem with Siddle, he's a ****ing tease. His 6/54 in Brisbane was some very good bowling and as has been noted plenty of times consisted mainly of good full fast bowling. He also bowled a super spell in Melbourne to take 6/75. So how the **** does a guy with 2 6-fers take only 14 wickets in a 5 test series? Simply because he bowled two good innings of full straight stuff and another 5 innings of short wayward garbage.

Yeah his 4-fer in Colombo was good work, but if he keeps up with his usual plan he won't take more than 1 wicket in an innings before Christmas.

I don't think it's fair to say that a 26 year old isn't going to take more than a wicket an innings until Christmas because of his past performances, it's pretty important to remember that Peter Siddle was one of the cricketers who actually performed quite well during the Ashes.

Speaking of Christmas, since the fat man last turned up, Siddle has taken 6/75, 1/111 and 4/91, so 11 wickets at 25.18 in Test Cricket

I agree that Peter Siddle has been disappointing on occasions, but hey I'm pretty sure he's improved especially now with Craig McDermott as the bowling coach.

Harris deserves to be the first bowler picked, but if he's not fit the first bowler I would be picking is Siddle.

[adub]

Why isn't it fair? Of course prior performance does not guarantee future returns, but Siddle has to change up from what he has done in the past to become a consistent player. Can he do so - I actually hope so, because like you intimated, when bowling at his best he is the closest thing we have to Harris. Being with Billy and talking about the need to keep it full bodes well, but I've been burned too many times before by Siddle to be getting excited until he actually does start performing consistently. Everything else is just the same sort of glossing over faults that keeps Johnson in the side no matter how horrid he bowls.

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by adub

Why isn't it fair? Of course prior performance does not guarantee future returns, but Siddle has to change up from what he has done in the past to become a consistent player. Can he do so - I actually hope so, because like you intimated, when bowling at his best he is the closest thing we have to Harris. Being with Billy and talking about the need to keep it full bodes well, but I've been burned too many times before by Siddle to be getting excited until he actually does start performing consistently. Everything else is just the same sort of glossing over faults that keeps Johnson in the side no matter how horrid he bowls.

The key point is that I believe he has already changed, of course he needs a truly dominant series before more people are convinced.

Also, on the Siddle vs Bollinger comparisons, it's just unfortunate that in Siddle's good games Bollinger has been injured or overlooked.

I like Bollinger and if my job was to pick the 3 best quicks and not worry about batting or image or anything else I would opt for Harris, Bollinger and Siddle.

The last time I didn't actually name Johnson in my team he went berserk at the WACA, so hoping history repeats in this series vs SA.

[SamSawnoff]

Originally Posted by adub

Why isn't it fair? Of course prior performance does not guarantee future returns, but Siddle has to change up from what he has done in the past to become a consistent player. Can he do so - I actually hope so, because like you intimated, when bowling at his best he is the closest thing we have to Harris. Being with Billy and talking about the need to keep it full bodes well, but I've been burned too many times before by Siddle to be getting excited until he actually does start performing consistently. Everything else is just the same sort of glossing over faults that keeps Johnson in the side no matter how horrid he bowls.

I'm not a huge Siddle fan but he has a really lovely repeatable action and if he could find a brain, there's no reason why he can't be a very solid international performer.

He's got far more mongrel in him than Johnson will ever have.

It is contingent upon the brain thing though.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by adub

and as I said that's crap. Who says they don't want him in the side? Do you see him celebrating his ODI wickets like Pat Malone? Of course not. The only evidence for some sort of contention that he isn't wanted is that no one currently in the side is coming out in public and saying 'Hey Johnson and Siddle are really ****, please drop them and select Dougeh!"

Yeah that's compelling evidence.

Numbers don't matter? Funny stuff. Of course guys want to play with the guys with the bad numbers. They make it so much less likely to win tests. Oh wait...

Alrighty, you tell us why he's not in the side since you clearly have the inside track.

[adub]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Alrighty, you tell us why he's not in the side since you clearly have the inside track.

Where have I said I have the inside track? I've merely questioned those who are making claims of other players not being keen on him and presenting as their evidence the fact no one has publicly called for his inclusion.

Now if you had said Ricky didn't want him, I could come at that. His post Adelaide comments would give a fair indication to that line of thinking, and I think we can agree Hilditch isn't a fan, but then Hilditch is a dope. That would explain why he isn't in the side now and why he only got the last contract behind guys like Smith, Cummins and Pattinson. However all of them, Ponting, Hilditch, Cox, Chappell and Nielsen are now no longer relevant to the question. And for good reason. It could take a while as the new selection panel hasn't even been put in place yet, but I'm pretty confident the "Doug is unfit and lazy" meme will be put to bed soon enough. The incumbent bowlers in the side won't get the same same kid gloves treatment they've enjoyed over the last few years so they'd better perform or he'll be right in line to replace them.

[Sylvester]

Siddle is a younger version of Harris, he's capable of picking up wickets on any deck at any time. Has his devastating spells like Johnson but you would have more confidence in him keeping it tight. Consistency is the key, if he goes well in the next 3 test series then he'll be a lock in for a long time.

[adub]

Originally Posted by Sylvester

Siddle is a younger version of Harris, he's capable of picking up wickets on any deck at any time. Has his devastating spells like Johnson but you would have more confidence in him keeping it tight. Consistency is the key, if he goes well in the next 3 test series then he'll be a lock in for a long time.

He has the potential for sure. I've noted the similarities to the way Harris bowls before. BUT - only when he pitches it up. IF he can maintain that full length and good line he bowled in Colombo, Brisbane and mostly in Melbourne then I have no problem with him in the side at all, but as his critics have been saying for around two years, he's just too inconsistent. Someone mentioned he had a 6/fer and a 4/fer in his three test innings in 2011. I would counter that with his failure to take a single top order wicket in Zimbabwe, and failure to take any wickets at all in the warm up game in SL. These efforts cost him his spot in the first place, so coming in and having one good innings shouldn't necessarily be the end of it.

He seems to get the red mist and delude himself that he has to be digging it in short and attacking the body. Then he is utter tripe. Any half decent batsman just picks him off. Whilst we have Harris in the side Siddle should be working on his consistency for Victoria (and I will concede he did have a very solid Shield season last year). As good as Harris is adding Siddle brings a little too much sameness to the attack for my liking. If Harris is out then yeah call Pete straight in as a like for like replacement. But I think he should bide his time a little as Harris' understudy and prove his consistency a bit more before coming into the side full time. Bowling full and straight I enjoy his work, bowling short I just want to throw stuff at the TV.

[TumTum]

Originally Posted by Sylvester

Siddle is a younger version of Harris, he's capable of picking up wickets on any deck at any time. Has his devastating spells like Johnson but you would have more confidence in him keeping it tight. Consistency is the key, if he goes well in the next 3 test series then he'll be a lock in for a long time.

Harris gets more movement though.