Peter Siddle bowled himself into the ground on day five of the Adelaide Test.
His heroic effort will never be forgotten by those who saw it. While his effort didn’t end in success for Australia, it did not truly end in failure either.
Siddle’s fitness is second to none in world cricket. He trains with AFL footballers to improve on his endurance and has done so for many years.
He is careful with his (vegan) diet and his recovery efforts are first class. He hits the ice baths regularly.
After Adelaide, Siddle’s fitness and recovery efforts were in the spotlight.
He himself maintained confidence that he would be fit for the Perth Test after only a three day break.
He consistently told journalists that his body felt good and that he had been getting plenty of sleep. Again he hit the ice baths and was careful to rehydrate properly.
Yet Siddle was left out of the team to play in Perth.
In a pre-game interview, Michael Clarke said that the decision to leave Siddle out was an easy one. Siddle hadn’t recovered well enough and it was obvious that he couldn’t play.
Do these mixed messages highlight another problem in Australian cricket?
Clarke and coach Arthur are both selectors. If Siddle himself had doubts about his fitness, would he confide in Clarke or Arthur?
Siddle publicly backed himself to be fit, so I think he would privately back himself too. Being desperate to play in such an important game in Perth, it would be hard to believe he didn’t back himself.
The problem with having the captain and coach as selectors is that a player can’t confide in either of them if he has doubts or issues that need to be dealt with.
Trying to hide injury, fitness or form issues within the team environment cannot be healthy.
sheek
Roar Guru
Andy Roo, I certainly agree Siddle's omission was weird, although I worded it poorly above. I think there are probably more problems with all the "extra" staff surrounding the team & their supposed input.
MrKistic
Guest
That does make sense dasilva. I hope it is working that way.
dasilva
Roar Guru
The fact is that the Captain is the most accountable for the results. When the team lose, the Captain gets blame and the captain is most likely get the sacked for it and not the selectors. So it makes sense for the Captain to be involve in the selection process. I don't mind Captain having a vote. If it's only selecting the XI out of the squad. So the selectors select the squad, the captain sees all the players training and then the captain has influence over the team If the Captain gets it wrong and shows bias to the incumbents than that will reflect on the captains results and then they are accountable for their own poor selection. Is it fair to punish a captain due to poor selection? In the past the captain may get the blame for poor results even though he has no official say on the selection which has a crucial influence on the results. The captain could easily get in a position where they are scapegoats for things out of their control. Now that the captain has official say on the selection, he is completely accountable for the results on the pitch and the selection. I think that is a good thing.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Its not clever to "try" players in the deciding Test of a series. If that is what they have done, it is either risky or stupid. If Siddle was fit, he should be playing. The captain should be able to say what type of team he wants, but should not be a selector. How often does Clarke even see players who are not in the national set-up? Is he ever going to reccommend a player he hasn't seen play over a mate he sees on a regular basis, or a couple of times a summer at state level? Highly unlikey, and that's not a dig at Clarke, its just human nature. Its understandable for away tours, after the touring side has been chosen because the captain's options are limited to those around him; but for home games and choosing initial touring squads it was a major step backwards. The coach simply should not have any say in selection. He has to be a "go to man" for anyone having technical or mental issues, without fear that they will lose their spot because of trying to improve their game.
Chui
Guest
Well summed up and spot on.
MrKistic
Guest
I think Clarke's obvious love for having Ponting in the dressing room shows more of a conflict in having him as a selector.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Sheek, I agree that captain nd coach should have input into the selection process, but the should not be selectors. They shold have an advisory role. I can't see how the crrent setup leads to a healthy and oen team environment.
Blaze
Guest
I think it was the correct decision, the guy bowled himself into the ground and was suffering after every ball he bowled, with a short turn around to the Perth test it was a no brainer to leave him out. I don't care how fit you say you are or if you train with afl stars, whom if you ask a vic, are the fittest beings on the planet, you can't be operating at your full potential after exhausting yourself like that 3-4 days later.... It's not as if he is a glen McGrath or shane warne to take the chance and know they will demolish a team at half strength either.... Seriously, siddle did a great job and did Aussies proud, but he isn't superman, and he isn't Australia's greatest fast bowler... Far from it. I think we are mixing talent with heart a little too much on this occasion. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
acorn
Guest
"I also wonder if the selectors used fatigue as simply a ‘cover’ to try other fast men. If so, it’s clever " Thats not clever that is lying.
sheek
Roar Guru
Andy Roo, There are no easy solutions here. Yesteryear's captains probably hated having a trio or quartet of mostly ex-test players tinkering with their team against their wishes. At least today's captain & coach have more control over selections. I can live with it, as long as everyone exercises their role wisely. But that's not always evident either, is it? I also wonder if the selectors used fatigue as simply a 'cover' to try other fast men. If so, it's clever if not kosher.