Aussie bowlers to turn the Ashes into the Bashes

So are you suggesting that a return in this time frame of 76 wkts at 25.65, econ rate of 2.92, from 19 tests with avg 4 wkts per test and now our only top 20 rated bowler - are you suggesting that he sbould be dropped on tbe back of this? And for exhibited improvement I suggest this is illustrated by the contrast to his first 22 tests prior. 74 wkts at 32.11, econ 3.07 at about 3.5 wkts per match. That to me suggests that your assertions are largely baseless. And given all indications from the people that count are that Siddle will play the first test I do suspect that those who continually try to deny Siddle are closing their minds sadly enough to a fine servantof our TEST team (and there are too few of those these days).

Avon River, You dismiss Siddle's previous bowling record in England and against England as too log a go to be relevant. When I point out that his most recent form, this season in England, doesn't suggest any significant improvement on his previous efforts you once again dismiss it as irrelevant. I maintain that Siddle's Test record over the last two years should not classify him as an automatic selection for the Australian team, although I do expect he will be. His series averages range from 16 to 51, economy from 2.39 to 3.51 and S/R 32 to 96 It all suggests that his performances are very much dependent on the opposition, for me, that is not a sign of a must select bowler. 2011 v SL – av. 22.75; econ 2.60; S/R 52.5 2011/12 in SA – av. 51.25; econ 3.51; S/R 87.5 2011/12 v NZ – av. 23.22; econ 2.67; S/R 52.0 2011/12 v Ind – av. 18.65; econ 3.45; S/R 32.3 2011/12 in WI – av. 38.33; econ 2.39; S/R 96.0 2012/13 v SA – av. 38.00; econ 2.92; S/R 77.8 2012/13 v SL – av. 16.93; econ 2.62; S/R 38.7 2012/13 in Ind – av. 33.88; econ 2.75; S/R 73.7

No - you're right. Being lion hearted alone isn't enough but it doesn't hurt as part of the package. And the numbers arguably put him at #1 for Australia. And he just happens to be the most lion hearted of the bowlers which helps over a 5 test series. Btw - be careful reading too much into a couple of tour matches. They rarely reflect upon tests. Bowlers go through the motions in particular in effectively a preseason hit out with the aim of peaking for the tests.

Why do so many fans want a very inexperienced line-up as our attack? That is more likely to end in tears than having at least one bowler who has bowled in test matches in England before.

never been a big siddle fan ...and sure he has a big heart and taken a few wickets ...he would the one missing out in my team

While Siddle is undoubtedly lionhearted, that in itself should not be enough to secure a place, neither should experience alone, learning has to come from that experience. His form thus far in England this 2013 season does indicate any substantial improvement, in 3 matches he has bowled 76.2 overs for 4 wickets @ 58.50, meaning an econ rate of 3.5 and S/R of 99.5. There is nothing to suggest he is any better able to adapt to English conditions than last time.

Re England as an opponent from 3-4 yrs ago. Relevance on current form is limited however experience is learned. It might be good to have at least one bowler with experience of the conditions. That series started with Hilfy & Johnson the new ball attack. By the 3rd test Johnson was relegated and Siddle given the new ball and he did okay - 3/89 (a bit exe) , 5/21 & 1/50 , 4/65 & 0/69. Yep. He was more expensive than he is these days. To me this is the guy to back in. The last home Ashes Siddle was a courageous lone hand amongst an abysmal team in Melb, had a good day at the Gabba. Adelaide was forgettable for all. Was barely req'd in Perth. The odd thing is that people fondly recall R.Harris taking 9/106 in Perth. But on less friendly circumstances he only managed 0/91 at the MCG 2/84 in Adelaide. Alas our batting was so horrendous too.

Avon, Siddle was not the best bowler in India. He took one 5for and 4 of those where bowlers. He can't get top order batsman out.

Could the reason you don't mention Siddle's econ against England, our actual Ashes opponent, be because it does so much help your argument? Siddle's econ is worst against England, 3.56, worse than any other econ rate you have quoted. It is even worse in England at 3.81, so selecting Siddle for the Ashes because of his econ rate doesn't appear as straight forward as you try to make it out to be. The huge question mark over Siddle continues to be his ability to take important wickets in 2nd innings when pushing for victory, while his overall S/R is 57.6 his overall 2nd innings strike rate blows out to 71.4 and against England to 135.5, in England it improves slightly to 93.5. You, and other, Siddle advocates blame any such poor figures on inaccuracy from the bowlers at the other end, not allowing to build pressure, but its primarily the same bowlers bowling in partnership with Siddle in both the 1st and 2nd innings. Do you have any evidence to suggest their economy rate gets significantly worse between the 1st and 2nd innings of matches similar to Siddle's worsening S/R?

Gee. I dunno. I just seem to recall a guy named McGrath who likes the idea of tight bowling and building pressure. Might be something to it? Starc is the fodder bowler if anyone is. How about Pattinson, Bird and Siddle. Note too that Pattinson, Harris, Starc & Bird combined have only 33 tests between them. Siddle has 41 tests. I'm astounded people want such am inexperienced pace attack by leaving out Siddle who is our best bowler across the last 3 series (not much point going back further although to find Harris' last test we need to...early-mid 2012 for 12 wkts at 30.) Nick please note the Siddle avg and wkt tally and combined with our best frontline bowler econ rate then he is still the man for the 3rd quick role. Key really is the 5th bowler. Can Watson bowl 5-7 overs an innings?

If both are picked than that leaves one strike bowler. Also having Siddle there it almost leaves alot of the new ball work to Bird.

They're similar, but they're not the same bowler. Siddle is faster, Bird is taller, Bird moves it a bit more, Siddle bowls fast late in the day. They can work in the same team, though I'd only pick one of them.

Bird and Siddle in tandem? It's a waste of a bowler to have bowlers of the same mould. Also how does an economy rate matter in tests? Siddle bowls fodder and nothing else, back of a length fodder.

Perhaps it may surprise you that Siddle went at 2.62 per over v SL with 15 wkts. Better econ than Bird, Lyon, Johnson & Starc in order from 2.82 to 3.44. In India Siddle was the best econ rate (2.75) with 9 wkts. Only Henriques also got sub 3 @2.92 but onlyproduced 2 v.expensive wkts. I'm not sure on what basis you don't like Siddle - but on test match criteria he should be our first pick bowler. And v RSA econ 2.92. Starc is the guy to query. Last 3 series 20 wkts at 34.8 and econ of 3.74. Johnson was better with 15 wkts at 26.33 at econ of 3.55. Compare to Siddle 33 wkts at 27.3 and econ of 2.78. Too often the problem has been the lack of effective bowling teamwork or partnershipd. Siddle could build pressure but lacked support at the other end. Bird and Siddle in tandem might work?

this all assumes that the english bowlers will have to bat or at least bat with any pressure on them which is far from a certainty.

Good read. But a consistent line and length with the ball pitched up would be the best way to go. Having someone like Bird to keep the runs down and the pressure on from one end is enough.. That's been one of the Aussie attacks problems in recent times. No consistency in the bowling and wayward line and length. That's why I wouldn't pick Peter Siddle. Bowls to many hit me boundary balls.

Why not get Pato to do what Johnson did to Sri Lanka. Quick short at the body.