Jackson Bird, Chadd Sayers and the rest of your ilk, your match-winning bags and valuable economy rates are worthless to us. Can you please peddle your impressive stats elsewhere and leave Darren Lehmann alone.
I’m giving you this friendly reminder as there’s been some talk around the traps since you fellas were fairly overlooked to bolster Australia’s severely reduced pace attack for Hobart.
Like your stock ball, this is an honest delivery with a touch of zip, but it’s for a good cause – the national cause.
>> A WEST INDIES XI PICKED ON THE BRILLIANCE OF THEIR NAMES
>> WEST INDIES UPSET? NOT BLOODY LIKELY
So shut up and hear me out.
Firstly, this is nothing personal. We’ve seen you roll them over, and your game is on the selectors’ radar. At least that’s what we’ve garnered from Rod Marsh’s cryptic comments which we deciphered as either a confirmation of you being ‘in the mix’, or him having a mild stroke.
In fact, someone’s just handed us your numbers, and they’re actually very bloody impressive. So impressive that you’re numerically ahead of all your state-based rivals. Nearly so impressive one would be forgiven for describing them as ‘compelling’ and ‘undeniable’.
Geez, on further inspection, it looks like you’ve both gone out and taken critical wickets that have resulted in you heavily influencing some positive outcomes for your teams! I’ve got to fit this in a coaching manual somewhere. It’s some real rare honours board shit.
But while your evidence has really charmed us, regrettably, it’s not the cricket we’re about here in Australia. While taking wickets and keeping the runs down is pretty grouse, it’s got nothing on shattering the speed gun and tickling up blokey commentators into gushing about ‘good heat’.
You see, while you are steady, intelligent and rat-cunning, you’re totally un-sexy. You tend to overthink things, and the last thing we need is someone to come in and stuff things up by thinking too much.
We know to avoid your cerebral type. You’re probably the sorts of blokes who overthink James Bond films, professing to enjoy them for the glamorous espionage and geopolitics, when in reality, all they’re good for is sex and gadgets.
Do you get what I’m saying? We need hyper-intensified nasties who don’t think too much, not these intelligent man’s cricketers who like to deeply ponder and read books and stuff. Just look at where thinking took a rare unit like Stuart MacGill and all the booze-ups he was subsequently not invited to.
Boys, what I’m saying is that we need a vapour trail singing off the back of your outswinger and we need it delivered with a volley of offensive language. We need you to frighten batsmen into soiling themselves first, and then into taking their wicket second. I can’t dumb it down anymore.
We need you souped-up and barely street legal like a V8 or a stolen Skyline. Sorry guys, with Josh Hazlewood and Peter Siddle, we’re at full carrying capacity for Kia Ceratos.
Really, the best advice I can give you for possibly jagging a complimentary 13th man call-up is to take up batting or wicketkeeping or even a massage therapy course. Because while ever Boof has a tendency for liking it hard and fast, he’ll keep swiping left on your profile.
Actually, let’s just save the hassle and call stumps on this relationship now. I can’t remember the last time there was talk around the scene of you ‘badging’ anyone, plus we’ve got some other guys out the back who haven’t bowled for eight months who are cherry ripe.
Honest servants, valiant competitors, yada yada yada. You’re all of those platitudes. But really, if you don’t leave now you’re taking up a spot for a mouthy tearaway who can really ‘ramp it up’ and brown some creams, and that’s unconstitutional.
So please, be on your way before it starts to look like you’re hoarding a domestic spot for personal and team gain.
But besides that, no hard feelings and all the best for the future! And don’t forget; work your backside off in the nets and incur a stress fracture or two searching for that extra yard of pace, and then we might talk. Just look at Pat Cummins, it’s worked beautifully for him.
Again, don’t take this as a personal attack, it’s just personally you’re too slow. For now, just leave your resume at the door. And don’t call us, we’ll call you. We’ll keep an eye on those – what do you call them again? – “wickets” and “economy rates” and stuff.
Keep your chin up, guys. You’re still firmly in all of our Rodneyisms; in the mix, in our thoughts and, best of all, on the pecking order.
Somewhere between Brad Williams and Wayne Holdsworth.
Stevo
Guest
I think you mean <140
damo
Guest
Good article, although I'm not personally convinced that it is totally true (even if Lehman has form with some of his statements in the past) but it did make me think to the very recent retirement of Mitch Johnson. I know pure pace & aggression was not & may never be responsible for something like what happened to Phil Hughes, but the fact that a man who made a fair portion of his reputation & thus career on being, well quite literally, terrifying, expressed how he felt about his role & the potential for injury of others, well it gave me pause for thought when it seems that our national team may have written off players who bowl at the stumps (outside off at a good length consistently) in favour of those who produce sheer pace, even if it lacks the accuracy of slightly slower bowlers. I understand all the vagaries etc of the situations that sheer pace induces/introduces, but I suppose just for a moment I pondered the loss of guile & variation from our game that an obsession with sheer pace might bring. In the same manner that the enormous & well crafted bats now offer hitting power that is changing the game we know. Will the future elite bowler have to be a an even faster variant of what we have now ? Or would we be better off developing the type of bowler who lacks what might be considered "express" pace, but nullifies the big bats & gets wickets regardless ? Or will pitches become green tops that offer only the fastest a chance lest they be belted clean out of the stadium a la T20 style carnivals ? I suppose I see 2 things- one is that truly express pace bowlers are in reality, few & far between, & 2 they get injured more easily because of the stress on their bodies. So even picking only certain players based on a very narrow parameter is going to be difficult, so if we neglect the different styles available, at what point do we hinder our success in the very pursuit of it ?
Bugs
Guest
I always think of when Kasprowicz kept Lee out of the side for 12 - 18 months. They were the best fast-bowling unit in the world - all right armers, all bowling under 140k: McGrath - low 130's Gillespie - high 130's Kaspa - mid to high 130's Nothing wrong with all being right or left armers, or all bowling roughly the same speed. They were clever bowlers, extracting small amounts of movement, without bowling loose balls that relieve pressure. In short, who cares how fast they are.
dan ced
Guest
Would you put him in the shield team? has he played grade cricket even to show he's in form? It's a sick joke.
Evan
Roar Rookie
Direct replacement if Siddle is injured. I would keep number 6 as an all-rounders spot and I don't think Faulkner's batting is up to scratch at the moment. If Mitch Marsh's batting doesn't improve I think Glenn Maxwell is the next in line.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
What's crazy about this whole situation is that the quicks for Hobart will be Hazlewood, Pattinson and Siddle. Coulter-Nile will be 12th man so he's been bowling in the nets in Hobart instead of actually playing a shield game for WA. Crazy
Gaz
Guest
Well said. Pick bowlers who can get the most out of the conditions. NZ and UK similar, we got it wrong last Ashes. If fit NZ tour bowlers I'd go would be Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood, Sayers. Doubt Cummins will be anywhere near ready so would look at Bird. Need guys who move the ball. Dorf and Paris could be bolters.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Aussies always pick bowlers who are under 140. Siddle, Haze and Mitch Marsh at present are in the team after all. But it's understandable that they'd like at least one quicker bowler. People are commenting as though the Aus selectors are ONLY interested in out and out quicks which is just nonsense. I would have expected better from this particular writer.
Andrew Pelechaty
Roar Rookie
Brilliant! I love the humourous yet cynical tone. Why does anyone who can't bowl serious "heat" - eg 140KM or above- even bother bowing anymore? :-) Extreme pace is sexy, which equals precious ratings for Channel Nine and more money. It's a flawless system!
Dave Edwards
Roar Pro
Wonderful writing. Australian cricket is all about being hard and fast. Not smart. Hard. And fast.
Azza
Guest
Don't forget that Siddle has been the standout performer in first class cricket over the past year or so. Something like 40 wickets combined at an average of 20 in Shield and county cricket. None of the other guys outside the team come close to that level over the same period of time.
Nate
Guest
Averaged around 130, his effort ball would hit 135. Still managed to get test quality batsmen out all the time so I don't really understand the obsession with having to be 140+.
cowcorner
Roar Pro
How fast was Glenn McGrath ? Anyone know? He took plenty of Test wickets and never seemed that fast although I reckon he would have seemed bloody fast if you were facing him.
Nate
Guest
Just wow....probably the best comment I have ever read on The Roar.
AREH
Roar Guru
I pretty much agree with this, and means Nevill basically a certainty to be shifted up to number 6, of which I think he's more than capable. Or are you suggesting as a direct replacement for Siddle? In which case M.Marsh stays in the side at 6.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
As others have said, Australia needed a like for like replacement for Starc, so Pattinson as a quick strike bowler was an obvious choice. They are not 100% sure of Pattinson's fitness, so they bring in Coulter-Nile as 12th man, who is also a quick strike bowler. There is logic in that. Siddle and Hazlewood should both play, so they take the slightly slower, swinging and/or holding bowler roles. The issue I have is putting Boland on stand by- what did he do to deserve that? As a Victorian, I should probably support my fellow Vic, but really, apart from his one inning where he took 7 wickets recently, he hasn't performed that well over the past season and a half. I would have liked to have seen someone like Bird or Mennie on standby, as the standby option was really as cover for Siddle or Hazlewood, considering Siddles back niggle and Hazlewood's issues with stamina after back to back tests. It looks now like that won't matter anyway as both of them are likely to play in Hobart. What will be interesting will be to see who they take to New Zealand. Faulkner has hardly been banging the door down with either his batting or his bowling, so I don't expect him to go. They should be seriously looking at Mennie and Bird for that tour. I would like to see them take the following bowlers to NZ: Lyon, Hazlewood, Siddle, Pattinson, Coulter Nile, Bird. If Siddle doesn't perform over the three test series against the Windies, then maybe bring in Mennie instead- he has had a great shield season so far and has been consistent over the past few shield seasons.
Evan
Roar Rookie
I liked the balance of our attack in Adelaide, Hazlewood the tall bouncy opener, who whilst not operating at +140 still hits the bat very hard. Starc the tearaway with genuine pace to rattle the batsmen and Siddle the line and length grafter who asks questions of the batsman's technique and temperament. Pattinson is the natural replacement for Starc, Coulter-Nile would also be more in the Starc role. Boland is more of the Hazlewood type, hits the pitch hard, but not a tearaway. Bird and Sayers are more replacements for Siddle - but I personally would pick James Faulkner in that role ahead of both of them - 179 FC wickets at 23 a piece and 2.9 economy rate. Also adds batting depth to cover the Marshes and has that X-factor.
Multiview
Guest
that maybe the best comment I ever read.....
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Siddle is in the spot that Bird would need to take. It's one or the other. So you can't say, "Siddle isn't that quick, so we should pick Bird too". They are only carrying one player who sends it down at >140. It's Siddle or Bird essentially.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I don't get how people keep going over this as if you have to bowl 90mph to get into the Australian team. Currently 2 of the 3 main quicks in the team don't fit that category. I think Pattionson's selection as a replacement for Starc is quite reasonable. Someone like Bird could well be in contention to replace Siddle or Hazlewood, but we don't want 3 pace bowlers like that. Someone who brings something a bit different is good to get a nice balanced attack. Siddle didn't do much in Adelaide, pretty much as I thought would be the case (having a good match in England where the English commentators admitted your medium pacer who doesn't do much with the ball but just put it on the spot can be successful) was never going to mean he'd be able to replicate that success back in Australia. If Siddle isn't able to do much over the next couple of matches then Bird may be in with a shot. I think Siddle also has the advantage of having more experience and with Johnson and Harris gone I think the selectors like the idea of avoiding making it an attack entirely of "youngsters". But he still needs to perform.