Peter Siddle: massive heart but is heart enough?

I have been critical on this blog about the continued selection of Peter Siddle in the Australian cricket team. The end to Siddle’s Ashes series has done nothing move me away from that view.

There can be no doubt of two things when it comes to Peter Siddle:

1. He has been a valiant servant of the game in Australia during a period of down performance by the team; and

2. If some of Australia’s younger players showed as much heart as he does every time he steps on the field in a baggy green cap, then Australian cricket would be a much better place.

Despite those factors, it strikes me in the aftermath of a 3-0 flogging by England now is the time to consider whether Siddle continues to lead the Australian bowling attack into the next series which is only 86 days away.

For that purpose I have examined the last 10 test matches Siddle has played in and come to the unmistakeable conclusion that on form there must be a massive question mark over his selection. Consider these numbers for Siddle and Australia this year (given that all of the test matches have been played in 2013):

· Australia has won 1 test match, lost 7 and drawn 2. Australia has not won any of its last 9 test matches.

· Siddle is Australia’s highest wicket taker during that span with 29 wickets at an average of 32.06. This is entirely understandable though flattering statistic given that Siddle is the only bowler from Australia who has played all 10 test matches in 2013.

· The more compelling statistic is that Siddle has only averaged 1.6 wickets per innings during that 10 match span (there having been 18 innings for the bowlers in that period).

· In the last 3 test match innings bowled by Siddle he failed to take a wicket and his captain only bowled him 3 overs of the 40 bowled by Australia as it strived for victory in the final test match of the series.

· During this same period, Siddle is striking every 11 and a half overs.

Are these the numbers of the leader of a bowling attack? Many will consider that I am judging Peter Siddle harshly here given that Australia has hardly been in the best form but it begs the question as to what the other “leaders” of bowling attacks in other test teams have done during the same span. Here are some numbers for the bowlers that I consider to be the leaders of their respective bowling attacks:

· James Anderson (England): 10 test matches, 41 wickets, average 28.12.

· Dale Steyn (South Africa): 5 test matches, 33 wickets, average 12.36.

· Ravichandran Ashwin (India): 4 test matches, 29 wickets, average 20.10.

· Trent Boult (New Zealand): 7 test matches, 23 wickets, average 29.13.

The top three bowlers from list play for teams that have been undefeated in 2013. Trent Boult plays for New Zealand which has put up a record of 7:0:4:3 during the same period. He averages though 2.1 wickets per innings.

Looking at those numbers: is Peter Siddle really the leader of the bowling attack that Australia needs lift it out of the current doldrums that Australian cricket is in? This is particularly so with the re-emergence from injury of Ryan Harris. For the record his numbers in England were: 4 test matches, 24 wickets at an average of 19.58. Those are numbers that put him in the Anderson, Steyn and Ashwin category.

There can be no denying Siddle’s heart and there can be no denying that he is a fantastic team man. I have commented in the past that on unhelpful wickets Siddle is a little predicable and lacking penetration. Australia needs now to look to the future and build a bowling attack around Ryan Harris rather than Siddle which will lead to the question of whether Siddle’s heart is enough to keep him in the running for a bowling attack he is not leading given that lack of penetration.

The first test at the Gabba is 86 days away. It could also be said that the start of Australia’s rebuilding of its test team, its ranking (which has now slipped to 5th in the world) and its reputation also begins in 86 days and that rebuilding phase cannot occur in my view whilst Australia includes Siddle in the line-up. Now is time for a change because relying on heart is patently not enough.

The Ashes Wash Up: Winners and Losers

The first instalment of Ashes 2013/14 is now over and the obvious winner was England given that they won the series 3-0. That said, as with any series of sports contests there are winners and losers, either actual or metaphorical, from both sides. Here are my winners and losers from Ashes series part 1:

Winners:

Ian Bell: The numbers make for excellent reading don’t they: 562 runs at an average of 62.44 and three hundreds. The numbers alone would be impressive but it also must be remembered that often Bell strode to the wicket with his team in trouble and, more often than not, got them out of said trouble. I never thought I would say this about Ian Bell but I don’t think there is a better cover / square driver in the game today save for Hashim Amla at his best. A great series from a batter who has gone from being good to be the precipice of being great.

Ryan Harris: The Australian selectors didn’t think he was up to the rigours of a full test series and thus held him back him from the first test. He played the last 4 tests and was the man of the series for Australia by, it must be said, a fairly long way. Again the numbers make for excellent reading: 24 wickets at an average of 19.58 in a losing team is nothing short of spectacular. More to the point though, every time he had the ball in his hand it looked like things would happen for Australia. One can only hope that Harris will be fit for all 5 tests of the Australian summer because this would have been a very different series for Australia without him.

Stuart Broad: Public enemy number one in cricket in Australia and I reckon he would be pretty happy about that to be honest. He is the blue print for what a bowling all-rounder should look like. An imposing bowler on his day and valuable with the bat. His failure to walk in the first test was lamentable but it should not the main memory of Broad from this series: do not forget his bowling at Chester-le-Street which was some of the best fast bowling I have seen for some time. 22 wickets at 27 and 180 runs at 25 are great returns for a bowling all-rounder.

Steve Smith: I confess that until his century in the last test I still had a bit of a question mark in my mind about Steve Smith and his place batting at number 5 in the Australian batting order. I believed that he had done enough to warrant retaining his place in the batting order but was concerned that batting at number 5 may have been just a little too high for him. His 138 not out at the Oval killed off any lingering thoughts in my brain of that. Probably the only player “on the fringe” to take his opportunity for Australia in this series and he will now go into the Australian summer solid in the knowledge that he will have a clear run at the selection table for some time to come.

Losers:

Ed Cowan: Selected at number 3 in the first test was out to two ordinary shots in both innings and then jettisoned. He does not appear to be in Darren Lehmann’s plans for Australia moving forward so it would appear that that one test match this series was his one chance to impress the new boss. With Chris Rogers getting the job done with the opportunity he received it look likes Cowan will not be travelling the Sheffield Shield circuit this summer.

Jonathan Trott: At the start of this series was clearly England’s key man with the willow with a record to boot. Australia seemingly have worked out his technical deficiencies and have, successfully, strangled his scoring opportunities so as to render his role in the series minimal. Given his difficulty with the short ball on these, it must be conceded, slow wickets, one can expect that Australia will run a similar game plan on the hard and fast wickets at home. He will have much work to do to regain the aura of the past for this coming home series.

Simon Kerrigan: Brought into the team for the Oval test match as an obvious replacements for the now out of favour Monty Panesar and seemingly on trial for the Australian summer to say that he choked under the spot light would be an understatement. Only given 8 overs by his captain on a spinners wicket is indicative of how well he went in his chance to shine. If not selected for the summer tour, he risks becoming the punch line that Tahir and McGain have already become.

ICC: From umpiring to DRS to bad light issues it has not been the best of tours for the ICC and particularly the elite umpires panel. It is apposite to say that umpires suffer from bad form as much as players do and the umpires in this series have been woefully out of the form at best which, for a series that is one of the jewels in the test cricket crown, has caused a massive black eye for the rulers of the game. This series has also thrown up an obvious problem that the game has: educating the fans on what the rules actually say. The vitriol pointed at the 3rd umpire / DRS official, wrongly as it turns out, is alone indicative of that.

All in all it was an exciting series that was book ended but question behaviour off the field by some of the combatants. It was no 2005 series or even a 1989 series in its excitement or importance for the fans. There are only 86 days to go from today before the first test starts at the Gabba which is a series that promises just as much excitement and, if anything, a more hard-fought series than we have seen this time out.

Poetry: Fixated by Malcolm Varner

This is the second Varner poem I have posted. This one is from his second book Looking Beyond the Storm: Now the Rainbow is Out and is a cracking work. If you are looking for a book of poetry to add to your collection you should look for this one.

My eyes are fixed on what’s above
For to look below prevents my growth.
And should I fall, well that’s okay.
For when I recover, I’ll still stand tall.
The sky is limitless and calls for me
To jump, fly, to propel into its eternity.
The universe is the destiny of my dreams
And the keeper of my visions.
And as long as my eyes are fixed above,
My soul cannot be held down.

Cricket: When is it ever appropriate to urinate on the pitch?

It has been reported widely today that the English cricket team celebrated their win of the Ashes series at the Oval overnight by having a few drinks in the middle of the field and then, for some players, urinating on the field. This is all allegation at this stage but if it is true this is a disgrace frankly.

Are you kidding me England? After the furore over David Warner’s tap on the chin of Joe Root and angst over Darren Lehmann’s comments regarding Stuart Board in which the ECB have taken the absolute high ground (rightly I concede) what ground will they take now?

I get that sometimes a bunch of guys sitting around in a park having a beer might not try to find a public convenience to relieve themselves and rather might find a close by tree to do. But to do so in the middle of one of the great cricket ground of the world smacks of the arrogance of these guys.

I was more than happy to salute the victory of the England team in this series: they played better cricket as a team when it mattered. The fact is though that throughout this series they have done their best to take the moral high ground and paint Australia’s players and administrators as wild colonials. Last time I checked though said colonials have not taken a mid celebration leak on the middle of one of their fields. Or at least if they have they had the decency of doing so when no one was in the ground.

Hang your heads in shame England cricket! And if the ECB does not come out massively against this abhorrent display then they ought hang their heads in shame too. One wonders if they will do so or if they will continue to show the arrogance of their players and just laugh this off!

Poetry: A Farewell by Lord Tennyson

Keeping with my current focus on the work of Tennyson here is my other favourite Tennyson poem.

Flow down, cold rivulet, to the sea,
Thy tribute wave deliver:
No more by thee my steps shall be,
For ever and for ever.

Flow, softly flow, by lawn and lea,
A rivulet then a river:
Nowhere by thee my steps shall be
For ever and for ever.

But here will sigh thine alder tree
And here thine aspen shiver;
And here by thee will hum the bee,
For ever and for ever.

A thousand suns will stream on thee,
A thousand moons will quiver;
But not by thee my steps shall be,
For ever and for ever

The Ashes: 5th Test Australia Player Ratings

Given the lack of play in this test match it is a little difficult to hand out ratings for the Australians. There is limited evidence to go off, and a lot of it is more ODI type cricket in nature, but based on that limited evidence this is how I rate Australia’s players:

Chris Rogers: 5 out of 10

Was obdurate in defence in partnership with a rampant Shane Watson and then was dismissed to an innocuous delivery from Swann. Must work on his method against spin bowling. Bizarrely did not get a bat in the second innings.

David Warner: 2 out of 10

Got out in the first innings just way you expect Warner to: fending at a ball outside off stump that he could have left alone. Sick of hearing: “that is just the way he bats”. In a second innings that ought to have been made for him could not get the job done.

Shane Watson: 9 out of 10

Under more pressure than any other player in the Australian team and responded with an attacking innings early that then morphed into a quality hundred. Took a knock to the head and showed immense courage to stay on the field. Elevated to open in the second innings and picked off some quick runs before hitting Swann to long on. Australia is a lesser bowling attack with him not in it.

Michael Clarke: 3.5 out of 10

Has never played a worse 7 than that he did in the first innings. Completely out of sorts albeit scored at a run a ball when chasing a declaration. Tactically courageous with his declaration. Questionable tactics in the field, particularly in the first innings, in not bowling Lyon early enough and not attacking despite his position of strength in the game.

Steve Smith: 9 out of 10

The fidgeter started with the streakiest of shots but after that put on a masterclass of middle order batting. Benefited from a strange decision to bowl Trott whilst in the 90s. Did not really get going in the declaration chase. Has come of age in 2013 and made the number 5 spot his own.

Brad Haddin: 7 out of 10

Dug in with Smith to get him to his hundred and then attacked when fast runs were needed. Golden duck in the second innings can be excused given the situation. Immaculate with the gloves as always. Did his job again and now holds the dismissals world record.

James Faulkner: 7 out of 10

Came in in a ODI type situation in both innings and got on board with the need for fast runs. Took wickets at key junctures for Australia albeit again in ODI type situations. Bowling on the 5th morning was overshadowed by his big mouth.

Peter Siddle: 5 out of 10

Did his job with the bat as nightwatchman. His limitations with the ball on unhelpful wickets again shown in full colour in England’s innings. Will charge in all day but has a sameness about him when not assisted by the wicket. Only given 3 overs in second innings which is an indictment on his form at the moment.

Ryan Harris: 7.5 out of 10

Looked the pick of Australia’s bowlers whenever he had the ball in his hand and again showed why he is the bowler most feared by this English opposition. Australia’s best by a fair way this series.

Mitchell Starc: 6.5 out of 10

Took two wickets during a good spell of bowling but is still too inconsistent and seemingly unable to bowl line and length on day 3. Sick of hearing “he is a wicket taker” as though that makes releasing all pressure on the batters all ok. Showed as much in the second innings when he could not contain any batter for England in the run chase.

Nathan Lyon: 6 out of 10

Bowled some of his best bowling as a test cricketer for, again, limited rewards. Despite easily being Australia’s best spin prospect does not get the support of his captain by way of attacking fields. In and ODI type situation in the second innings did not take wickets which were needed. Must be wondering what he has to do to get the support of the captain.