***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[Jayzamann]

Not now Midge.

 

[Spark]

Johnson thrives in Saffie conditions. The Aussie attack looks more powerful than that of the hosts, especially when you add Harris who is the best form out of all the bowlers in both teams, into the mix.

Huge call. Don't rate SA's 3rd seamer, I take it?

 

[uvelocity]

attack being so inconsistent, for so long,

gabba 2nd dig was terrible, but really it's been our batting - punter and clarke in particular.

 

[Howe_zat]

it's not really perplexing is it? we've literally been through this before and it wasn't fun. and it's not as if Siddle has had a season in the shield to remove our fears of him not being any different. surely you can understand why we're not overflowing with joy?

Sure, but I'd be happy that a reserve bowler seems to be capable. And not writing off the next two years.

It's not because Copeland is new, it's because of what he represents. His style of bowling and mentality is almost the opposite of Siddle really. When you see your attack being so inconsistent, for so long, when a bowler like Copeland comes along it's a breath of fresh air. He may or may not be successful in the long term, but the idea that he has to potential to provide a lot of stability to the side is very appealing. That's why he is pretty popular around here.

If that's your opinion then go nuts, I won't argue. It's just worthwhile to remember that potential is just that. A lot of the time, players who are earmarked as consistent tend to have bad days as much as the next bloke, and then don't have the starring performances to make up for it. For a player with "consistency" or "reliability" as his MO, we need a hell of a lot more evidence for it to be the case than a bowler with another game plan. It's always a gamble to bring in the newer player, regardless of whether they're picked to be reliable or a tearaway, because we've such little evidence at this level.

We've seen very little of Copeland, and if a relatively decent international bowler like Siddle is bowling well at the moment, it's not a travesty to pick him. It's certainly not grounds to write off the next two years, because none of us can really predict what a new bowler might be capable of in that time.

 

[Spikey]

yeah but the thing is we know Siddle is capable. He's shown plenty of times he could be one of the top bowlers in the world. He's also shown plenty of times he's a dumbarse, who'll repeat his mistakes time and time again and be a passenger in a team also featuring MJ which isn't something we can really afford. Hence the 'no MJ and Siddle' rule I came up with after the Ashes, which I'm pleased to see has become a bit of a law

If this was happening in 2012 after a season in the shield where's he shown to have fixed some of the flaws in his game eg mainly the whole bowl useless ineffective crap for 3-4 games then take 6 wicket haul thing, we'd be totally fine with it. As it is I certainly think some of us are justified to have fears about what will happen. and of course if Siddle was replacing MJ I'd be fine.


And of course i'll note my own preference for Dougeh being in the team for Copeland

 

[Spikey]

of course dougeh is gonna have to prove he is fit enough in the shield for NSW, while siddle will get to prove he's changed bowling for Australia #wrongwayroundinnit

 

[Ruckus]

Sure, but I'd be happy that a reserve bowler seems to be capable. And not writing off the next two years.



If that's your opinion then go nuts, I won't argue. It's just worthwhile to remember that potential is just that. A lot of the time, players who are earmarked as consistent tend to have bad days as much as the next bloke, and then don't have the starring performances to make up for it. For a player with "consistency" or "reliability" as his MO, we need a hell of a lot more evidence for it to be the case than a bowler with another game plan. It's always a gamble to bring in the newer player, regardless of whether they're picked to be reliable or a tearaway, because we've such little evidence at this level.

We've seen very little of Copeland, and if a relatively decent international bowler like Siddle is bowling well at the moment, it's not a travesty to pick him. It's certainly not grounds to write off the next two years, because none of us can really predict what a new bowler might be capable of in that time.

Yeah I don't think it's a travesty to pick Siddle at all - going from the last test match, and this match so far, it would be very unfair for him not to be picked. I still share Spikey's sentiment though that we've been throught this process so many times, and you can't help but feel a little pessimistic about the longer term outcome with someone like Siddle.

As for the first paragraph, I basically agree with all of that. Don't really get why you're stating those points though. New players have to be introduced at some time, and if they look like they could be the missing cog in the wheel, then you might as well give them a decent amount of matches to prove that.

 

[Spikey]

in any case if Lyon doesn't bowl better in the 2nd innings we could be going in with 5 seamers again....#learningfrommistakes

 

[Ruckus]

Na I really doubt it. Clarke seems pretty damn keen on using Watson a fair bit.

 

[Prince EWS]

in any case if Lyon doesn't bowl better in the 2nd innings we could be going in with 5 seamers again....#learningfrommistakes

Yeah because the last time Australia went in with an all-seam attack in South Africa it was disastrous.

Don't see them doing it without North or Smith in the top six though.

 

[Spikey]

Yeah you'd think there's no way it could happen but we've all thought that before...I guess Beer could grab the spot though

4.1 Parnell to Watson, OUT, short and straight, attempted pull-shot, skies it and is taken at mid-on, excellent catch


That's odd. Not a spinner, not caught at point/gully, not between 50-99. ITSTL.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah you'd think there's no way it could happen but we've all thought that before...I guess Beer could grab the spot though

4.1 Parnell to Watson, OUT, short and straight, attempted pull-shot, skies it and is taken at mid-on, excellent catch


That's odd. Not a spinner, not caught at point/gully, not between 50-99. ITSTL.

He got out like that in ODIs to left armers quite a few times when he first started opening.

 

[Spikey]

Oh yeah it's not totally surprising. He's gotten out plenty of times through bad pull shots...but it's really more of a dismissal I expect from Watson in the 50-99 area.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah because the last time Australia went in with an all-seam attack in South Africa it was disastrous.

Also both the Ashes matches they won in 2009 and 2010.

 

[Spikey]

and Melbourne and the Oval.....

With Watson in the team I just don't see the point of it ever again but I know it'll happen at some point. I mean in Perth Hauritz/Beer/Lyon/random spinner off the street could have done the job Hilf did. And given we're loathed to make difficult changes after a loss let alone a win....

 

[Ruckus]

Don't see them doing it without North or Smith in the top six though.

Yeah that's one of the most frustrating thing about this line-up - the fact you know the top 6 batsman are basically the ones that should be there, yet none of them except Clarke can provide some part time spin.

Given it's Newlands going in without a spinner wouldn't be ideal. And if Clarke intends to use Watson a lot, then having all pace seems pretty excessive. On the other hand though, it could ok if it frees up Watson from having to bowl at all, cause his batting form really seems to be suffering under this new Clarke bowling regime (might be coincidence though, I guess).

 

[Spark]

Melbourne a special case tbf, given Harris broke down fairly early on.

 

[Spikey]

Yeah that's one of the most frustrating thing about this line-up - the fact you know the top 6 batsman are basically the ones that should be there, yet none of them except Clarke can provide some part time spin.

uh didn't you see ponting landing BOMBS in the SL tour bro?!


ftr i think usman has been working on some part-time spin

 

[Howe_zat]

Melbourne a special case tbf, given Harris broke down fairly early on.

Happened on day 3, didn't it?

 

[Ruckus]

uh didn't you see ponting landing BOMBS bro?!


ftr i think usman has been working on some part-time spin

Yeah haha I missed that...heard it was some pretty monumental bowling though. Usman ain't in the side atm though, and might not be for a while.

Wooo, Hughesy down. It's gonna be a struggle this series...