Given he is a long shot at playing looks more an experience thing. In saying that you would think he has a ton of experience from T20 and partly ODIs. He did perform well in the A tour and I guess the selectors don't have faith in Ferguson who was the other contender.
Warne-Muralidaran Trophy (Australia in Sri Lanka) Aug-Sep 2011
- Thread starter angryangy
- Start date
Don't think at all! That'll at least give you a shot at being made a selector!
ferg512
International Coach
Hmmm I'm not so sure tbh. I really thought that was one of Australia's problems in the ashes, there wasn't really any steadiness to their attack. The thing with Copeland is going at less than 2 runs an over as he does, allows for Harris, Johnson etc. to attack from the other end. Bollinger probably was given a bit of a raw deal, but I would definitely stick with Copeland for the time being. In saying this I haven't actually seen any of this game at all, I'm just going from what I saw of him in the shield final but were the batsman having much trouble with him?
Rehan_24
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
Finally they won a test match. Congrats Aussies. Really wanting to see them win after the defeats in the recent past. I hope Aussie batting will click in the next test. Great Win and very comfortable in a way Couldn't view the match due to my busy schedule, but eager to watch the New Australia talent.
I'm not sure he can. I'm not sure any of the current spinners can. Lyon might have the best chance at it (or Hauritz), but if you're going to play him with 3 loose cannons eg. Johnson, Siddle, Bollinger (say Harris gets injured again..), then I don't think Lyon can do a holding job by himself against good players. So IMHO, one of the fast bowlers need to be able to bowl a holding role.
I'd keep going with Copeland to see how long as he's effective, because he's a better donkey bowler than any of our spinners. And the more Tests he gets the better we'll see about those concerns: How sustainable is a 125kph bowler? How will he go on flat pitches? If Australia can't take 20 wickets and need a quicker bowler, OK get rid of him, but until then I love what he brings.
Long term, I kinda agree with your vibe though. Bollinger or Siddle should step up. But also, Hilfenhaus would hopefully have improved long term as well, and I like him better than Doug or Siddle. Or maybe by then 'the chosen one' Pattinson will be in the side...
My first question is: who has actually picked him?? Is Hilditch still in the building?? Is it the on tour selection team of Clarke, Nielsen, Chappell??
2nd question is: if they were worried about Usman's credentials batting at #6, then WHY have they picked an opener/top order guy as cover?? That gives them Marsh, Usman and Warner who are all top order guys and only Ponting's spot available. Seems a dumb call.
3rd point: if Clarke is involved, it's going to start the whole 'captain's are too biased to be selectors' deal again. A NSW guy with nothing substantial on his record, picked by a NSW captain....not a good look.
Warner did well in Zimbabwe, but are the reserves really that bare? Katich aside...who else was there? Cosgrove would have to be in searing form to get a cap, I'd guess. Chris Lynn? Might be better on more familiar wickets...James Hopes and Ben Rohrer are the only other guys I can see who scored 500 Shield runs at over 50 last season. Man, what a shabby season for the batsmen...
OK, maybe Warner isn't so bad 
I'd like to see Copeland given a go against SA and India which will basically cover all the conditions he should face in Test cricket. SA will suit him while the Aussie conditions will go from spin, to flat to bouncy. I still have faith in our system that the massive haul of wickets Copeland took weren't by fluke and given he took a 5 fer in the tour match against batsmen from SL it can't be all that far off.
From what I heard Cox and Chappell are still part of the panel so I'm assuming they made the pick.
From what I heard Cox and Chappell are still part of the panel so I'm assuming they made the pick.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
You are presuming here that Harris gets injured and if that is the case then sure pick Copeland to give the attack some stability.
However if its a case going forward where Harris is going to be fit regularly, then Bollinger has to play. Bollinger also isn't a loose cannon quick, Johnson and Siddle more so fit that description, since lets not forget Bollinger before the dumbass selectors started treated him like a fool before the 2010/11 Ashes (along with his injury) - he was bowling leading AUS test attack like a true spear-head mixing high pace with accurate lines and lengths between West Indies 2009 - India 2010.
He showed further evidence in the ODI series in SRI that none of that ability is gone and he really should be taking the new-ball with Harris in tests, of that it really shouldn't be much debate AFAIC.
With regards to Lyon, i think although he will have tough days ahead, i think he showed enough evidence in his first test that long term he can fall into the traditional off-spinners role of bowling discipline lines and lengths at one end for long spells while the quicks attack/rotate at the other.
Plus also a firing Bollinger/Harris/Johnson three-man pace attack should be taking wickets and be fairly accurate too i.e how Anderson/Broad/Tremlett or Bresnan were doing for ENG recently. So its not a situation where every test we are going to need a spinner of Copeland like quick to hold down and end because we are worried about the aforementioned quicks leaking runs like a bursts pipe.
If i were to guess i certainly think his pace makes him sustainable in tests especially if he can move the ball - look a Praveen Kumar recently and i recall seeing Copeland bowl on live internet stream on some green wickets in shield cricket last season and he really seamed that ball around alot - which tells me he might me more dangerous in overcast conditions. In S Africa he could a interesting if AUS encounter a greentop and decide to play an all pace attack for eg.
On flat pitches as we saw in the 1st test he may be forced to being the donkey seamer. But if the other two quicks + Watson can reverse swing the ball and the spinner can get the ball the turn on when those flat pitches begins to wear, he would have still done a job.
So really i think overall he has much use in the AUS test team, just that i dont think he should be starting ahead of Bollinger at all.
We and most AUS fans were in unity in selecting Copeland for the opening test since we all felt the need for an insurance policy bowler who can tie down and end, given the worries that was around about how eratic the quick's (Johnson) could be and how a green Lyon might be target by the SRI batters.
However as aforementioned, the performances of Harris, Lyon, Johnson and Bollinger (in the ODIs) tells me that the need for Copeland's skills on a regular basis is not that important for the test side as we may have thought coming into this test series after the Ashes debacle.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
I just think Copeland is slow because he's the wiriest international cricketer since Bruce Reid; I wouldn't say that's all she wrote if he can build some upper body strength.
About Warner; to be fair, he's been in good form and if you have a look his first class stats are now pretty shiny. In terms of picking a guy as cover, I don't think it's a bad idea to pick someone who has made runs in the last 3-4 months, because that is the guy who is going to come in with no match practice... but he's still probably NSW's 7th or 8th best batsman. I don't think opening experience is a big deal in this case, because he's not an out-and-out top order player. I think he just bats up the order because he's got a good eye and will happily mash up hapless quicks. In terms of keeping out good bowling, I'd probably rather see him at 6 anyway.
About Warner; to be fair, he's been in good form and if you have a look his first class stats are now pretty shiny. In terms of picking a guy as cover, I don't think it's a bad idea to pick someone who has made runs in the last 3-4 months, because that is the guy who is going to come in with no match practice... but he's still probably NSW's 7th or 8th best batsman. I don't think opening experience is a big deal in this case, because he's not an out-and-out top order player. I think he just bats up the order because he's got a good eye and will happily mash up hapless quicks. In terms of keeping out good bowling, I'd probably rather see him at 6 anyway.
sami ullah khan
Panel of Selectors
What a superb showing by the Aussies. I personally did not give them any chance at all but they proved me wrong or what? Great achievement by Ponting on his 100th successful test. I think this achievement surpasses that of Sachin when he get his hundredth 100. I am looking forward to second test. Expect Lankans to come out fighting. I think they underestimated the Aussies who seem to have worked out a good plan against the home team.
I guess I'm just a little sceptical
Harris is almost 32 and hasn't shown much ability to string together games. He's probably our best bowler at the moment, but unfortunately I can't remember a season where he hasn't been injured. Looking through his cricket archive stats, 2007/08 seems to be the last season he had where he played the full season.Doug's hit 30 years of age too and I don't think he's got that spell-to-spell, innings-to-innings consistency. He seems to get wickets in clumps which may or may not be related to fitness, concentration, his hair piece - whatever. I just don't feel comfortable turning to Doug in a tight situation. Doug seems to me the type of bowler you throw the ball to when you need something to happen/something miraculous. But that's what Mitchell Johnson is there for - do we need 2 of them? Maybe, I don't know...
Of course, more opportunities for Dougie might prove me wrong. Hopefully our new selectors will see the need to send him on 'A' tours for example...You're right too in that the ODI bowling has been good. He just needs another shot in the longer stuff.
But bottom line: Bollinger and Harris aren't the future. That's why we need to see what Copeland's got. He's got 5 years on Dougie so he's a better longer term option.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
I'm not so sure there's some kind of universally good attack to be made. I think aggressive fast bowling can work well against India, at least where conditions suit, but against England, pressure and low error rates come to the fore. The role of spin is also very different against different teams. Against India it often seems like it's not really worth having a spinner, because they'll make runs even if they give up 8 wickets. On the other hand, against England, a decent spinner can provide tidy overs and a wrist spinner or doosra bowler is a quite viable weapon.
ferg512
International Coach
Sri Lanka v Australia, 1st Test, Galle: Galle dustbowl rated 'poor' by ICC | Cricket News | Sri Lanka v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo
Absolute joke if you ask me, sure the pitch was not great but it was a result wicket and got the bowlers in the game. What makes it worse is that it will probably make Sri Lanka go back to producing those 600 vs 600 pitches which no one wants to see.
Absolute joke if you ask me, sure the pitch was not great but it was a result wicket and got the bowlers in the game. What makes it worse is that it will probably make Sri Lanka go back to producing those 600 vs 600 pitches which no one wants to see.
Similar threads
