Just over a week ago, Peter Siddle looked set to be a passenger on this Ashes tour, seen only in training gear or sitting on the Australian balcony.
Now he could have a massive role to play to ensure the urn isn’t handed back.
With Mitchell Starc a strong chance to miss the second Test starting on Thursday, Siddle is the only realistic option to replace him.
For all his talent, Pat Cummins is as raw as it gets, having not played a first-class game in two years and only two matches since making his Test debut in late 2011.
The frailty of Ryan Harris’s body has deprived Australia of their attack commander, a remarkably incisive and consistent operator who made his bowling colleagues more effective.
Above anyone, Mitchell Johnson will have felt the impact of Harris’s absence at Cardiff. Johnson’s record has been considerably worse in Tests which Harris has missed in recent years.
Simultaneously threatening and frugal, something only the greatest Test bowlers can achieve, Harris was the perfect partner for the less accurate, less predictable, and less self-assured Johnson.
In the pinpoint offerings of Josh Hazlewood, Australia have as best a like-for-like replacement for Harris as they could possibly hope.
Among Hazlewood’s myriad qualities, though, leadership is not yet one of them. It is this attribute which Australia’s attack most missed as they were steamrolled by a bold England side in the first Test.
Without Harris at the helm, the bowling unit looked rudderless at times. By far the most experienced member of Australia’s attack, Johnson has always given the impression he prefers to be a support act rather than the headliner.
Hazlewood shapes as the man who can lead Australia’s attack in the future. However, with just six Tests under his belt, he remains on a learning curve and in need of support from wiser heads.
Starc, at this stage at least, appears to be similar to Johnson – a confidence bowler happier to work in the slipstream of others.
He, too, would desperately love to be playing alongside Harris, who led with words as well as deeds.
Regularly Harris could be seen wandering over to less experienced pacemen in between deliveries or overs to give them reassurance, encouragement or guidance.
It is this kind of low profile but invaluable input which seemed thin on the ground in the first Test. Should he be given the opportunity, Siddle can help fill this void.
Revered in Australia for his heart as much as his skill, Siddle is a vastly experienced cricketer.
With 56 Tests plus 10 matches in England to his name, he knows the demands of Test cricket and is familiar with playing conditions which are still foreign to Hazlewood.
Lord’s must be an intimidating venue for young players, particularly pacemen who must adapt to its bizarre and extravagant slope.
Siddle’s on-field advice would be of great value to Hazlewood. While he could enhance Australia’s attack with his leadership, he faces a massive challenge to have an impact with the ball.
As expected, the pitch at Sofia Gardens was sleepy, offering minimal encouragement to bowlers, and similar conditions look likely throughout the series.
Siddle used to be suited to these kind of decks. His supreme fitness, relentless endeavour and admirable control allowed him to stay at the batsmen, offering them few easy runs.
But that was when Siddle was considerably quicker – when he operated consistently above 140km/h and could push the speed gun up to 150km/h.
About two years ago, Siddle suffered a sudden and sharp decline in pace. Since then he has typically bowled in the 130-135km/h range with his effort balls nudging 140km/h.
This loss of velocity has significantly curbed his effectiveness. To be a successful Test bowler at this kind of gentle speed, typically you must have something exceptional about your bowling.
Think Shaun Pollock’s wizardly swing or Glenn McGrath’s disconcerting bounce. Siddle has never got much swerve on his deliveries and at 187 centimetres doesn’t earn unusual lift off the pitch.
Without that extra 10km/h of speed, he has remained an accurate and economical bowler. Rarely has he bowled poor spells. The problem has been the proliferation of spells in which his opponents have looked at ease.
This has been particularly noticeable since the last Ashes in England, during which he was solid, taking 17 wickets at 32. In his 10 Tests over that period, Siddle has snared only 25 wickets at 39. He has been very economical, conceding only 2.81 runs per over, but his strike rate has blown out to 84.
After the rollicking rate at which England scored in the first Test, Australia would benefit from the type of control Siddle can offer.
The question is whether he can be incisive enough against an England side now overflowing with confidence.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
They struggled, especially in the first innings with the ball swinging too much, straight out of the hand, and struggled to control it. The length was probably a bit wrong too, there was a lot of talk about Australia bowling too short, but they bowled just as many too full. They need to adjust their length a bit to get more on that fullish but not quite drivable length that England mostly stayed on. They did get better as the test went on. In the second innings Starc's economy was 3.75, Hazlewood 3.76. So I don't know that saying Hazlewood is frugal and Starc expensive is necessarily the case. If Starc is a bit off then he gets expensive, but so does Hazlewood. One of the things in the World Cup with Starc (yes, I know we are talking white ball cricket in Australia) was not only that he took so many wickets, but even bowling at the times batsmen were hammering everyone else he was almost unhittable. When he gets it right he can be very hard to score off, and if he can play every match this series (he should get through the anke issues and play the second test) then he'll just get better as the series goes on.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Starc had 2 wickets in the second innings and one was an early, top-order wicket. So at most he only had one wicket towards the end of England's second innings. He had 4 top-order wickets and 3 lower order wickets. People need to stop suggesting he just knocks out tail-enders!
MJ
Guest
With Harris in the team, we were genuine contenders for best test team in the world. Without him, we're not. It's that simple.
Andrew
Guest
That sounds awesome
Andrew
Guest
You mean the stats against a mediocre W.I. you don't believe they can be of any worth do you? Just like Watsons 50, 80?
ColinP
Guest
It does mean that Watson will get another life though, experience and all that...he undroppable.
Don Freo
Guest
Yep.
Don Freo
Guest
Not the best until Shaun plays too.
Don Freo
Guest
I think Behrendorff is our best swing bowler.
Don Freo
Guest
It's funny how people give bowling figures as if the rest of us didn't know them. How about a reminder of their figures for their previous 2 tests?
Nathan Archer
Roar Rookie
Number 6 and 7 slots will look a lot better in my view. If they can both contribute with the bat then it will make a huge difference. Having marsh as an aggressive batsman followed by a more circumspect Neville could be a good combination. Obviously both have their other key roles to play. We shouldn't forget to recognise Haddin for his achievements. What a difference he made to the 13/14 Ashes. Hope all is ok on the home front though you don't miss games lightly when you are that close to the edge!
Nudge
Guest
Absolutely James. Everything completely crossed. Haddins just about the most popular bloke in the team. Reckon they will be fired up.
jamesb
Guest
Yeah the reports suggests that Haddin may miss the second test for personal reasons..So it does look like Nevill will make his test debut. If that's the case, I hope everything is alright in Haddins personal life.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Brad Haddin OUT for Peter Nevill....that's the reports. You'd think this can only help Australia given how inept Haddin has been with the bat for 18 months. Great that a guy like Nevill is able to debut while in such white hot form - having averaged close to 60 with the bat the past two years. If the right thing happens and Watson is dropped for Marsh then suddenly England will have the challenge of playing Australia's first XI.
dan in devon
Guest
they were looking at a lead of just over 300 at one stage. I think you misunderstood what I said - quite simply I don't think the Australians need to panic just yet. Lords will be more favourable to the Australians and Boycott will be changing his tune.Certainly, Balance would not have survived on a quicker pitch and alot of balls would not have dropped short either. England played well in fairness to them but I am simply saying that the Australians should not be judged on their performance at Cardiff alone.
James
Guest
so if the game had been played at the waca and if johnson and starc had not bowled so short of a length then both of them would have been more effective. very astute observation. i dont see how being bowled out in the second innings for 290 with your last few batsman swinging away madly because they already had a 350 run lead is a bad thing.
Rob JM
Guest
He has taken 15 wickets in his last three first class matches for lancashire. Shame he is not available (for at least two matches)
slg
Guest
you are joking, slower balls are good in the limited overs formats but they rarely take wickets in the longer forms. At Faulkner's pace he needs to get signficant swing or seam and he does neither. Gun limited overs player, good longer form player- but not good enough to play test cricket
dan in devon
Guest
ok a poor metaphor; i mean that their "status" was inflated by the slowness of the pitch. Boycott was raving about the English players over here - but they for rolled for 290 in the second innings. If the pitch was not so slow, they would have struggled against Johnson and Starc and there would have been less chess puffing from Stokes and Broad. If Australia had showboated they way Broad did on day 4 then it would have been all over the media.
James
Guest
really? im surprised by that, i would have thought it would then be appropriate. australia didnt play bad, they played silly in the first test and so most of the team should be given another chance. not watson.