Mitchell Starc should not play in the fourth Test

I think Siddle was under rated, but not by the Poms, the Aussie fans have short memories as there were a good many of them slating Siddle before the series started saying that he shouldn't be playing. Always thought that he was quality myself.

When did Anderson rip the heart out of our batting? In the first test he picked up regular wickets in the 1st innings then went through our tail in the 2nd. In fact rather than having had one ordinary test, he's had one good one. Siddle went through England's top order n the 1st test, had England 3 for 30 in the 2nd test. Siddle and Harris did better if anything in the 3rd test, including having England in trouble in the 1st innings and on the ropes at a tentative 3 for 30 in the 2nd. I'm afreaid those two have shaded Anderson so far this series, but there's two tests to go. 5 is a bigger sample size than two. We all underrate Siddle too, but he just keeps going at you. He's as fit and tough as anyone. And when he's not bowling too short, he's a good bowler.

I think you have to be a little careful about saying best bowlers of the series at this stage. Anderson's first two Tests were exceptional, he then had a very quiet one at Old Trafford, as did all the England seamers really. A bowler who bowls excellent spells and rips the heart out of the batting will have a disproportionate effect on the result. Oddly enough, I think Broad has bowled quite well this series with no luck at all. Maybe he's due some. Of the Australians, Harris is a terrific bowler. Despite the appalling handicap of being Australian, I can't help but wish him well. Such a fine bowler to have had his career largely ruined by injury. I guess Simon Jones would swap places with him though. Siddle gets damned by that term "workhorse" but he's a bloody good one. You never feel he's that much of a threat either, but he takes wickets. Lots of them.

Look at the stats Jimmy. Siddle and Harris have been comfortably the best two bowlers of the series, even though they are bowling at England. Jimmy has taken very few top order wickets, most of them have been the tail. The top order have played him well. Starc and Bresnan have been similar, comfortably ahead of Finn, Broad and Pattinson. Bresnan is better than he looks. He looks innocuous, but must be respected. We can't say whether Bird is better or not this series as he hasn't played. Swann has killed both of our spinners.

"most of his dot balls are unplayably wide" So, you went through and counted, did you? Again, empty rhetoric and opinion.

I didn't write the article. What do you mean my article? You said this: "he spends 99% of the time releasing pressure on the batsman and leaking runs". Pretty hard to take someone seriously when there is such absurd exaggeration. That means he bowls one decent ball every 17 overs. That's a poor response from someone who wants to be taken seriously. You call someone a hyprocite because they missed the age by 1 year? The one year makes no difference to the point made.

Ben, I don't know about them being comfortably behind Bird et al. Siddle and Harris are quality, I honestly can't comment on Bird, although I suspect that he's maybe not quite as good as some posters on here would have us believe( the new Pigeon ) otherwise I venture that he would have played already. Broad is a funny one, he can go for ages looking pretty ordinary then he goes and wins a test match on his own, Bresnan is solid. Tremlett, Onions and Finn as back up is pretty handy, all of them have had success against Australia.

If the Australian seamers got to bowl to the Australian bats, they would tear them apart. I rate Anderson and Swann but Bresnan, Finn and Broad are comfortably behind Bird, Harris, Siddle etc. England is an injury away from having a very poor bowling line-up. In the meantime, if Australia can't learn to contain Swann and Anderson the overall quality really doesn't matter.

Cav mate, the Aussie bowlers have outperformed the English bowlers have they? Funny how one good test match which actually ended in a draw suddenly negates the two previous losses.

Who's on first, what's on second.

Our best attack would be Harris and Pattinson, with Siddle and Lyon. Harris should be rested. So that means we should play Siddle, Starc and Bird, with Lyon. I wouldn't mind Faulkner and/or Agar getting a go instead of Starc or Lyon.

Starc's economy rate is very misleading. As the author pointed out, most of his dot balls are unplayably wide. That may be irrelevant for one day games, but it won't do for Tests. Test match bowling is all about building pressure by forcing the opposition to play every ball. At the moment they get a break on 4 misdirected balls in every Starc over. His new ball spells, in particular, have generally been diabolical. None worse than that ridiculous full toss straight to second slip. Not even Johnson ever served up rubbish that rancid. Starc is Mitchell 2.0. And I don't mean that in a good way.

The previous comments have conveniently left out the fact that Bird and Faulkner have played no Tests yet so have no stats on this tour. Nick Richardson's comments are a true reflection of almost all of Crickets writers. I would use this opportunity to put in both Bird and Faualkner although I suspect this will not happen. The Australian bowlers have performed better than their English counterparts but we have another 6 or 7 tests to go, are we to face the English Team with the same team time after time or blood players with proven first class cricket stats behind them. The new Coach may be better with the men but he still looks like a better deputy than an actual coach. His performances in front of the media are pretty ordinary and his appearance could do with some polish

This article is full of empty opinion. Look at the series stats. You might want to do some research before submitting an article like this. For the bowlers Anderson 15 wickets @ 26, E/R 3.03, 23% of overs bowled have been maidens Siddle 16 wickets @ 21, E/R 2.80, 28% of overs bowled have been maidens Swann19 wickets @ 27, E/R 3.00, 15% of overs bowled have been maidens Harris 11 wickets @ 18, E/R 2.4, 27% of overs bowled have been maidens Starc 8 wickets @ 27, E/R 2.71, 24% of overs bowled have been maidens Broad 6 wickets @ 52, E/R 3.06, 21% of overs bowled have been maidens Lyon 1 wickets @ 103, E/R 2.71, 31% of overs bowled have been maidens Starc is great at removing the tail and also gets top order wickets. His accuracy is constantly improving, as expected for a 22yo. He is a very good bat for an 8/9. You'd be nuts to write him off. I'd play Bird and Siddle. Play Harris if he is up to it. And then it depends on whether we play a spinner at all. Starc deserves to be around the group of top 5 fast bowlers, and you need a group that size to be competitive.

The bowling attack at Durham will be Siddle Starc Bird. It should probably be Siddle Starc Bird, though Siddle Faulkner Bird would also be reasonable if Faulkner was in the Durham squad. Harris is too brittle to bowl three in a row, he looked wrecked after England's first innings, and there's no reason to risk him now. Even at OT, probably the only reason Clarke declared rather than batting to 650 at stumps on day 2 and trying to win by an innings was that he was conscious that Harris couldn't bowl a possible two and a half days straight. I'm no Starc fan, I don't think he's even the second best Mitchell being talked about for Australia, but with Pattinson injured and Harris unfit I don't think they have a choice.

Totally agree. Mitchell Starc is no different to Mitchell Johnson...well actually Mitchell Johnson has won Australia a couple of tests on his own back. Starc is as erratic as Johnson if not worse. He very rarely ever bowls well with 1st new ball. Jackson Bird is absolute no brainer selection for everyone except the selectors...