Australia's no-nonsense, non-tweeting, banana-eating vegan from Victoria proves again that he is the perfect bowler to bore out England's dangerman
Forget Mitchell Johnson, the nation's new hero, for a moment. And consider Peter Siddle. By Sunday night he only had five wickets in the series. Yet he had played an integral part in Australia's success. He has dismissed Ian Bell once – in Brisbane – and more strikingly Kevin Pietersen twice in Adelaide. If he only dismisses Pietersen in this series that would be enough to satisfy the Australians.
Dispatching Pietersen in Adelaide is quite a coup for Siddle since this has been KP's patch. In 2006 he hit a total of 160 runs here; in 2010 in his one innings he clocked up 227; in 2013 there were just 57 runs in his two innings at the end of which Siddle was surrounded by beaming companions, offering their heartiest congratulations. Pietersen remains the most coveted English wicket; he is the batsman who can do the most damage; he is also more annoying than Ian Bell.
Siddle has now disposed of Pietersen nine times in Test cricket; no international bowler has dismissed him more often and he is equal top of Siddle's list of victims – alongside Matt Prior. It's an odd duel, one of opposites. Pietersen is not one to disdain the highlife. Offer him the chance to drive a Lamborghini, which was the case on the last Australian tour, and he will happily do so – quite fast. He is courted by the IPL for his runs and his glamour. He has celebrity friends and a Chelsea flat, maybe one of the reasons he left Hampshire and Nottinghamshire.
Then there is Siddle, the no-nonsense, non-tweeting, banana-eating vegan from Victoria. (I'm not absolutely sure about the tweeting but he could help develop the very credible theory that real men don't tweet). The IPL does not appear to have come knocking at his door; he bowls honest, yeoman fast medium. In his youth he was a competitive woodchopper, hardly the height of glamour. He has just agreed to join Nottinghamshire in 2013.
Siddle did not appear to be on Pietersen's radar before the series began.
Then Pietersen was asked whether he was bothered by the frequency with which Siddle had dismissed him. He protested that he was not aware of such a statistic. He probably is now.
A pattern is emerging. The Australians are not that keen to launch Johnson at Pietersen, though he did dismiss him in Brisbane. Johnson will get Pietersen's juices flowing and that is when anything might happen; he just might catch fire. Instead the preferred strategy is to bore Pietersen out and the best person to do that is Siddle, the self-effacing, unpretentious workhorse in the Australian attack.
Siddle nags away around off stump; he is prepared to bide his time, to starve his prey. There might be a couple of slips; there will be two short mid-wickets. He gives nothing and Pietersen is prone to get restless. In the first innings at Adelaide Pietersen opted to assert himself. Having been beaten by a ball that sped through his gate, he seemed to have decided that he had had enough of this. Siddle, the honest journeyman, should not be allowed to torment him so.
Next ball Pietersen shimmied down the wicket with aggressive intent, aiming for his favourite region of midwicket. And so he flicked and fell once George Bailey had completed his juggling act on the leg side. Pietersen was pilloried for his profligacy.
On Sunday in England's second innings he was more dutiful. Except when facing Steve Smith Pietersen was wearing his hairshirt. His was a patient innings of two and a half hours with few frills or flicks. The pundits could hardly complain. But Siddle would get him again. It was not a great shot from Pietersen but the intent was what most have been craving; he was trying to defend albeit with a crooked bat and indecisive feet and the ball, having taken the inside edge, deflected on to the stumps.
Pietersen had tried to play the appropriate, responsible innings. And 53 is not so bad. Yet even after 100 Tests there is scanty evidence that Pietersen is capable of delivering the long, defensive century. This may not be within his compass. He has 23 Test 100s to his name. Has any of them been ground out?
This leads one to challenge the trigger reaction to another "irresponsible" stroke, the routine castigation. In this series England are going to be condemned to playing "catch-up" cricket. The Australians would welcome playing against a Pietersen batting with self-imposed restraint; they are very wary of the one who is hell-bent on taking them on with adrenaline coursing through his veins. That is when Pietersen is dangerous. He must be allowed some licence to play those idiosyncratic shots of his and entitled to take the Aussies on when the odds are in his favour – after due reconnaissance. Then, perhaps, he might free himself of the shackles so assiduously imposed by Siddle. Reported by guardian.co.uk 21 hours ago.
Forget Mitchell Johnson, the nation's new hero, for a moment. And consider Peter Siddle. By Sunday night he only had five wickets in the series. Yet he had played an integral part in Australia's success. He has dismissed Ian Bell once – in Brisbane – and more strikingly Kevin Pietersen twice in Adelaide. If he only dismisses Pietersen in this series that would be enough to satisfy the Australians.
Dispatching Pietersen in Adelaide is quite a coup for Siddle since this has been KP's patch. In 2006 he hit a total of 160 runs here; in 2010 in his one innings he clocked up 227; in 2013 there were just 57 runs in his two innings at the end of which Siddle was surrounded by beaming companions, offering their heartiest congratulations. Pietersen remains the most coveted English wicket; he is the batsman who can do the most damage; he is also more annoying than Ian Bell.
Siddle has now disposed of Pietersen nine times in Test cricket; no international bowler has dismissed him more often and he is equal top of Siddle's list of victims – alongside Matt Prior. It's an odd duel, one of opposites. Pietersen is not one to disdain the highlife. Offer him the chance to drive a Lamborghini, which was the case on the last Australian tour, and he will happily do so – quite fast. He is courted by the IPL for his runs and his glamour. He has celebrity friends and a Chelsea flat, maybe one of the reasons he left Hampshire and Nottinghamshire.
Then there is Siddle, the no-nonsense, non-tweeting, banana-eating vegan from Victoria. (I'm not absolutely sure about the tweeting but he could help develop the very credible theory that real men don't tweet). The IPL does not appear to have come knocking at his door; he bowls honest, yeoman fast medium. In his youth he was a competitive woodchopper, hardly the height of glamour. He has just agreed to join Nottinghamshire in 2013.
Siddle did not appear to be on Pietersen's radar before the series began.
Then Pietersen was asked whether he was bothered by the frequency with which Siddle had dismissed him. He protested that he was not aware of such a statistic. He probably is now.
A pattern is emerging. The Australians are not that keen to launch Johnson at Pietersen, though he did dismiss him in Brisbane. Johnson will get Pietersen's juices flowing and that is when anything might happen; he just might catch fire. Instead the preferred strategy is to bore Pietersen out and the best person to do that is Siddle, the self-effacing, unpretentious workhorse in the Australian attack.
Siddle nags away around off stump; he is prepared to bide his time, to starve his prey. There might be a couple of slips; there will be two short mid-wickets. He gives nothing and Pietersen is prone to get restless. In the first innings at Adelaide Pietersen opted to assert himself. Having been beaten by a ball that sped through his gate, he seemed to have decided that he had had enough of this. Siddle, the honest journeyman, should not be allowed to torment him so.
Next ball Pietersen shimmied down the wicket with aggressive intent, aiming for his favourite region of midwicket. And so he flicked and fell once George Bailey had completed his juggling act on the leg side. Pietersen was pilloried for his profligacy.
On Sunday in England's second innings he was more dutiful. Except when facing Steve Smith Pietersen was wearing his hairshirt. His was a patient innings of two and a half hours with few frills or flicks. The pundits could hardly complain. But Siddle would get him again. It was not a great shot from Pietersen but the intent was what most have been craving; he was trying to defend albeit with a crooked bat and indecisive feet and the ball, having taken the inside edge, deflected on to the stumps.
Pietersen had tried to play the appropriate, responsible innings. And 53 is not so bad. Yet even after 100 Tests there is scanty evidence that Pietersen is capable of delivering the long, defensive century. This may not be within his compass. He has 23 Test 100s to his name. Has any of them been ground out?
This leads one to challenge the trigger reaction to another "irresponsible" stroke, the routine castigation. In this series England are going to be condemned to playing "catch-up" cricket. The Australians would welcome playing against a Pietersen batting with self-imposed restraint; they are very wary of the one who is hell-bent on taking them on with adrenaline coursing through his veins. That is when Pietersen is dangerous. He must be allowed some licence to play those idiosyncratic shots of his and entitled to take the Aussies on when the odds are in his favour – after due reconnaissance. Then, perhaps, he might free himself of the shackles so assiduously imposed by Siddle. Reported by guardian.co.uk 21 hours ago.