***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[Debris]

The obsession with pace seems a bit strange to me. Pollock, McGrath and Clark seemed to take wickets without it. Don't see why Copeland wouldn't be the same.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The obsession with pace seems a bit strange to me. Pollock, McGrath and Clark seemed to take wickets without it. Don't see why Copeland wouldn't be the same.

In all fairness, even in their cricketing dotages, each was quite a bit nippier than Copeland. McGrath and Pollock were considerably quicker when they debuted too.

 

[Furball]

In all fairness, even in their cricketing dotages, each was quite a bit nippier than Copeland. McGrath and Pollock were considerably quicker when they debuted too.

If the McGrath of 2004-07 showed up again in Shield cricket he would struggle to get picked because he lacked pace. McGrath owed his continued selection to the fact that he was Glenn McGrath.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If the McGrath of 2004-07 showed up again in Shield cricket he would struggle to get picked because he lacked pace. McGrath owed his continued selection to the fact that he was Glenn McGrath.

Pietersen's ribs would beg to differ. Could still slip a quick one in when he needed to.

Plus he was still regularly up and over 80mph, Copeland more like a 75mph bowler.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Way too much importance is being placed on pace in the air. A host of other factors contribute in how quick a bowler is felt by the batsman. It's much more than a number indicated by a speedometer that one sees on his idiot box.

The same digital speedometer that for some reason shows that most short-pitched balls are slower than full-pitched ones. Ask any top order batsman what he thinks about that!

 

[Furball]

Pietersen's ribs would beg to differ. Could still slip a quick one in when he needed to.

Plus he was still regularly up and over 80mph, Copeland more like a 75mph bowler.

Pietersen had his ribs broken because he batted like a spaz and wandered down the track to McGrath. And I don't really remember McGrath in his twighlight years really being much above 80mph.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He was a yard or two quicker than Pollock when they were at similar stages of their career. He'd basically straddle 130km/h, end up being either side of it most of the time; basically the same as Stuart Clark was when he first started playing for Australia.

 

[Burgey]

If the McGrath of 2004-07 showed up again in Shield cricket he would struggle to get picked because he lacked pace. McGrath owed his continued selection to the fact that he was Glenn McGrath.

And the fact he kept taking wickets. That probably helped.

 

[Furball]

And the fact he kept taking wickets. That probably helped.

That's what I meant when I said he got picked for being McGrath.

 

[howardj]

I think Copeland really needs to be given a good ten tests or so to see just how he will cope at the top level. We gave Hilfenhaus far longer despite him averaging incredibly poorly the whole time. We have to have faith in our domestic system. Copeland is the best performing bowler in the last season and despite him being from NSW and therefore being massively overrated and overhyped, deserves a go. I credit him with playing a big part in our win in Sri Lanka. He applied very good pressure the whole time and found the edge quite regularly, even though his wicket tally doesn't reflect that.

I can't believe we're talking about dropping him for a guy with only 3 shield matches under his belt. Warne had more before we picked him and he took a good two years to prove his worth.

Agree massively.

He and Harris put a floor under our attack.

Even if they're not getting wickets, they are applying pressure and are always 'at' the batsman.

FFS we just won a series.

Let's not abandon something that works.

We don't have that luxury.

 

[adub]

Agree massively.

He and Harris put a floor under our attack.

Even if they're not getting wickets, they are applying pressure and are always 'at' the batsman.

FFS we just won a series.

Let's not abandon something that works.

We don't have that luxury.

Yep, Copes and Harris is the first new ball partnership we've had in a while that both did a bit with the new ball to create chances AND kept the run rate down. Definitely deserve the chance to show they can do it in different conditions and against different batsmen. It's the first change bowler's spot that should be under the microscope.

 

[Burgey]

Agree massively.

He and Harris put a floor under our attack.

Even if they're not getting wickets, they are applying pressure and are always 'at' the batsman.

FFS we just won a series.

Let's not abandon something that works.

We don't have that luxury.

Yep, Copes and Harris is the first new ball partnership we've had in a while that both did a bit with the new ball to create chances AND kept the run rate down. Definitely deserve the chance to show they can do it in different conditions and against different batsmen. It's the first change bowler's spot that should be under the microscope.

Can't argue with any of this. A lot of Australia's success during the McGrath-Warne era was founded on an ability to dry up runs, even on flat decks. It's easy to forget when you look back at their brilliance, that a lot of those wins were ground out by bowling with enormous discipline.

They were a great side, of course, and a lot of elements went into their success. But an ability to bowl tight lines and lengths was a big part of it.

 

[Top_Cat]

McG was actually around the mid-140's when he was really putting in, the decision to bowl within himself was a deliberate one.

Re: the bowling, even without the greats, it hasn't been woeful the past couple of years. A few Tests aside, it's been relatively good. Generally speaking, you'll get solid value from any combo of Johnson/Bolly/Copeland/Siddle/Hilf (yes, even Hilf)/Harris/etc.

The biggest problems for the team as a whole have been with the bat. It's easy to blame the bowlers when the oppo gets 400+ but when that score has been in response to being rolled for <200 (sometimes < 100), well......

 

[Burgey]

McG was actually around the mid-140's when he was really putting in, the decision to bowl within himself was a deliberate one.

Re: the bowling, even without the greats, it hasn't been woeful the past couple of years. A few Tests aside, it's been relatively good. Generally speaking, you'll get solid value from any combo of Johnson/Bolly/Copeland/Siddle/Hilf (yes, even Hilf)/Harris/etc.

The biggest problems for the team as a whole have been with the bat. It's easy to blame the bowlers when the oppo gets 400+ but when that score has been in response to being rolled for <200 (sometimes < 100), well......

I think it's fair to say every loss we've had in recent times has been accompanied by a woeful batting performance.

 

[Top_Cat]

*caused by

 

[Furball]

*caused by

Yep.

The Ashes series was the only one in which the bowlers significantly underperformed.

 

[howardj]

It seems, with the selection of Cummins, my Ashes Aftermath paper made its way into the halls of CA's Jollimont offices, and is being adopted at least in part, and I quote:

We need to blood and persist with some youth. I remember 1993-1995, when performing players like Jones and Boon were shown the door, and even Allan Border. In were brought young punks like Warne, McGrath, Slater, Martyn, Ponting, Hayden, Langer etc. Arguably, they all debuted before their time, and eventually got dropped. But they all made it back, no doubt hardened by the Test match cauldron. The point is that if you’re a good young player, Test cricket accelerates your development, it doesn’t stunt it.

The selectors need to invest in a core group of young players and give them time and get some games into them. I’d rather fail with a young team with some upside, than get lapped like we were last summer with older players in the team with no upside. It’s not about youth for youth’s sake, but rather selecting guys with upside to their games – and mostly such players happen to be young. When nobody is really performing, go with guys who have an upside.

It’s time to invest in young guys like O’Keefe, Usman, Smith, Paine, Cummins, Copeland, Pattinson, Lynn, and Ferguson - not fill the team with 29 year old debutants like North. Debuting guys at that age is in many cases dead-end. We need to plan not for our next Ashes series, but for our next era of dominance (like we did back in 1993-1995, see above). You can only do that by casting a little way forward, and investing in youth

 

[SamSawnoff]

Yep.

The Ashes series was the only one in which the bowlers significantly underperformed.

During the Ashes, posters on AGB were running a list of shame with number of sub 300 scores by Aus in the past three years.

It was endless.

 

[Furball]

Yeah but your point about 29 year old debutants is stupid.

 

[Furball]

During the Ashes, posters on AGB were running a list of shame with number of sub 300 scores by Aus in the past three years.

It was endless.

If you were to compare the number of times the batting failed with the number of times the bowling has failed then the batsman would 'win' that particular accolade by a stmile.

And yet, what real changes have been made? Marcuss North has been dumped, as has Katich. Watson has been allowed to continually underperform, Ponting is bulletproof, Clarke lost form for 6 months (and had more than enough credit in the bank to be retained) and Hussey was allowed to stink up the joint for 2 years.