Redbacks
International Captain
Would have been number two. 45 is the lowest score by a winning side.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Australia in South Africa
- Thread starter Spark
- Start date
Flem274*
123/5
From what I've gathered from the Aussie posters, looks are all he has to show for himself at the crease.
AlwaysProteas
U19 12th Man
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Both of the above are pretty accurate.
As I've said before, the Cam's always looked a bazillion bucks. It's why he's always been promoted ahead of time when he does hit a good score, even at under-age and grade level but he's never been a back-to-back tons sorta player in longer forms. Personally, continuously being put forward has hampered his long-form game, gets plenty of attractive 50-60's but doesn't grind the opposition into the dust like he should. He's actually a really nice dude (right up there with Massive Harris) so he probably lacks the killer instinct anyway.
Making it more frustrating is that he's hitting the ball beautifully right now. He had a good CLT20 and has batted really well in Ryobi Cup games so far. It's just not translating into FC runs which, if he's to be a genuine Test prospect, it has to.
Last edited:
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sounds like he is Aussie version of Vikram Solanki then. When he got runs he oozed class but was never good enough often enough.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
I don't check out the rankings religiously but they are always fun to scan through every now and then. A couple of things, Steyn is at his highest ranking ever of over 900! Watson moves into the top 10 bowlers and Hussey is ranked the 100th best bowler!
I would question that you haven't seen or read enough about Ferguson either. Ferguson screams soft, we don't need another batsman with his attributes in the Test lineup.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not a bad shout, actually.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah that's a pretty good comparison. I think Ferguson's a lot better at one day cricket than Solanki was for most of his career though.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Per cricinfo, Australia have been bowled out for double figures three times in their past 12 Tests. In Twenty five years before that, 277 Test matches, they were bowled out for double figures only once. That's an insane statistic - they absolutely have to change their batting lineup.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This
Australia won in SA last time around with a medium pacer that gave us some much needed control and Copeland wouldve done the same in conditions that suit him down to the ground
Unfortunately, the geniuses who select the team decided to go with 2 tried and tested failures plus a spinner for whom the jury is still out and is not suited to the conditions or opponents in any event
Anyway, the harsh truth is that Australia fielded a team where only a few deserved to be in the team.
Hughes, Haddin, Johnson, Siddle and Lyon should not be anywhere near the team and it looks like Ponting is done
Having said that, they still managed to put themselves in an "unbeatable" position
so no doubt the selectors will focus upon that rather than the fact that it was one of the worst capitulations in history
So it has come to this
The signs were obvious to those who wanted to see them as the Ashes series unfolded.
An undisciplined bowling attack, lack of a decent spinner, BUT mainly a fragile and seriously out of form middle order.
Going into the Ashes we had been losing tests due to the lack of runs from the middle order, even Hussey's place should have been under question, fortunately for him, and us, he came good in the first 3 tests, but evens so he made buggerall in the last couple.
So one change was made when North was dropped. Remember that Hughes only came in when Katich was injured .
The Sri Lanka series was used to introduce a change to the bowling attack but was only used as a chance for the batsmen to bat themselves into form for the SA tour against one of the poorest bowling attacks in the world ( Av 45 since Murali retired)
This then gave the selectors the opportunity to gloss over the "abberation" of the Ashes series.
So they have sacked the coach and the administrators and "rejuvenated" the team.
The team picked for this test was the same as the one that played in the Ashes with the exception of Marsh, the new blood, in the team and Lyon, the latest in the long line of speculative spin options.
So was the result any different to the last series against strong opposition ?
Were the problems any different ?
Hughes is a walking wicket, everyone knows how to get him out, the team is batting a man short to start with.
Dropping Ponting down the order ? To bat at 4 !!!!, It should be at 6, and then they send him in AT 3 in the second dig !!! If it is thought necessary to drop him down the order WHY oh why would you send him when the score is one for none ??? He IS not making any runs, on form he shouldn't be in the team in at all ??, If he is at least give him a chance by batting him at 6
Hussey and Haddin - attack is always the preferred option but the FIRST BALL you face ??? , or THIRD ball ? , not even giving yourself a chance to see what the bowlers are doing !
As it is well known to everyone except those who sit around the selection table, you simply cannot afford to have Siddle and Johnson in the same side.
Johnson is a loose cannon bowler so you need the other bowlers to be building pressure so the batsmen have a go at him. But, like Ponting and Haddin, his form has been poor for a long time now.
So they found Copeland was the exact bowler they needed in Sri Lanka, he could bowl 40 overs an innings for not much runs and the rest of the bowlers can attack from the other end. He doesn't really need to take wickets, that's what the others are there for, he is there to build pressure.
So instead of trying him out against a strong team they decide to go with what has failed before.
The series against New Zealand :
Will it be used to blood new players to rebuild the team ?
OR
Will it be used to allow the current players to extend their careers and "kick the can down the road" for the team to be beaten again by the next strong team they come up against.
The signs were obvious to those who wanted to see them as the Ashes series unfolded.
An undisciplined bowling attack, lack of a decent spinner, BUT mainly a fragile and seriously out of form middle order.
Going into the Ashes we had been losing tests due to the lack of runs from the middle order, even Hussey's place should have been under question, fortunately for him, and us, he came good in the first 3 tests, but evens so he made buggerall in the last couple.
So one change was made when North was dropped. Remember that Hughes only came in when Katich was injured .
The Sri Lanka series was used to introduce a change to the bowling attack but was only used as a chance for the batsmen to bat themselves into form for the SA tour against one of the poorest bowling attacks in the world ( Av 45 since Murali retired)
This then gave the selectors the opportunity to gloss over the "abberation" of the Ashes series.
So they have sacked the coach and the administrators and "rejuvenated" the team.
The team picked for this test was the same as the one that played in the Ashes with the exception of Marsh, the new blood, in the team and Lyon, the latest in the long line of speculative spin options.
So was the result any different to the last series against strong opposition ?
Were the problems any different ?
Hughes is a walking wicket, everyone knows how to get him out, the team is batting a man short to start with.
Dropping Ponting down the order ? To bat at 4 !!!!, It should be at 6, and then they send him in AT 3 in the second dig !!! If it is thought necessary to drop him down the order WHY oh why would you send him when the score is one for none ??? He IS not making any runs, on form he shouldn't be in the team in at all ??, If he is at least give him a chance by batting him at 6
Hussey and Haddin - attack is always the preferred option but the FIRST BALL you face ??? , or THIRD ball ? , not even giving yourself a chance to see what the bowlers are doing !
As it is well known to everyone except those who sit around the selection table, you simply cannot afford to have Siddle and Johnson in the same side.
Johnson is a loose cannon bowler so you need the other bowlers to be building pressure so the batsmen have a go at him. But, like Ponting and Haddin, his form has been poor for a long time now.
So they found Copeland was the exact bowler they needed in Sri Lanka, he could bowl 40 overs an innings for not much runs and the rest of the bowlers can attack from the other end. He doesn't really need to take wickets, that's what the others are there for, he is there to build pressure.
So instead of trying him out against a strong team they decide to go with what has failed before.
The series against New Zealand :
Will it be used to blood new players to rebuild the team ?
OR
Will it be used to allow the current players to extend their careers and "kick the can down the road" for the team to be beaten again by the next strong team they come up against.
Last edited:
