***Official*** New Zealand in Australia 2011

[flibbertyjibber]

Interesting side Australia have picked. Seems strange to drop Copeland and go with 2 new rookies. Looks the weakest attack Aussies have had since I started watching cricket. Obviously time may prove that to be wrong, all have to start somewhere etc....

 

[Furball]

Copeland simply isn't fast enough to overcome the prejudices people have about pace bowling.

 

[Dan]

You shouldn't pick players on the basis of one game, especially when both have done well.

Not just based on that one game, Cowan's scored runs for the past couple of years and has more FC experience. Plus he'd be a better foil to Hughes. Warner is an aggressive batsman, obvs, whereas Cowan can grind and hang in there in the event of a collapse. Personally, I think Cowan would give the side better balance overall.

 

[Crazy Sam]

I wonder if they're worried about Siddle and Copeland in the same team.

 

[Spikey]

I wonder if they're worried about Siddle and Copeland in the same team.

would literally force me to kill someone if true

 

[Scaly piscine]

Ooh I'm loving these new selectors, they seem just as ****e as your last lot.

Cook to score 1000 runs next time he tours.

 

[NUFAN]

Ooh I'm loving these new selectors, they seem just as ****e as your last lot.

Cook to score 1000 runs next time he tours.

And your squad would be??

 

[Flem274*]

Australia desperately trying to fill the comedy void left by English cricket selection since it became sensible.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

And your squad would be??

Similar to the last one injuries permitting. Not as though our team is full of old men. Might be better by then anyway with Finn improving and young guns like Taylor to come in.

 

[Scaly piscine]

And your squad would be??

To leave out Copeland is just hysterically dumb. It was bad enough he didn't play while the Marx Brothers* were playing in South Africa. Then they don't pick him after they play 5 bowlers against New Zealand A and say he hasn't pushed forward his case or whatever PR crap they came out with. It's a cowardly act, they didn't want to pick him so they didn't give him a chance to show what he could do (against NZ A). Haven't they learnt anything from the obsession with 140k+ pie merchants from the past 5-10 years or so? Stuart Clark was also treated horribly.

The only way Australia will actually pick a good bowling attack is if there happen to be 3 good bowlers who fling it down at 140+, because no-one else will get a proper look in. There has to be some sort of obvious fairness to players in your domestic system and the national selections that follow - to encourage people to improve and perform.



* I've decided to replace the term Australian bowling attack with a random comedy group of my choosing, until said bowling attack becomes less comedic in nature.

 

[NUFAN]

Similar to the last one injuries permitting. Not as though our team is full of old men. Might be better by then anyway with Finn improving and young guns like Taylor to come in.

Oh okay cool. England don't have too many problems at all.

I actually meant piscane's though as he was implying that the Australian selectors are so woeful.

I'm always interested in actually seeing the squads that people on here would actually pick as it's all too easy to dismiss something and not give an opinion yourself.

 

[NUFAN]

To leave out Copeland is just hysterically dumb. It was bad enough he didn't play while the Marx Brothers* were playing in South Africa. Then they don't pick him after they play 5 bowlers against New Zealand A and say he hasn't pushed forward his case or whatever PR crap they came out with. It's a cowardly act, they didn't want to pick him so they didn't give him a chance to show what he could do (against NZ A). Haven't they learnt anything from the obsession with 140k+ pie merchants from the past 5-10 years or so? Stuart Clark was also treated horribly.

The only way Australia will actually pick a good bowling attack is if there happen to be 3 good bowlers who fling it down at 140+, because no-one else will get a proper look in. There has to be some sort of obvious fairness to players in your domestic system and the national selections that follow - to encourage people to improve and perform.



* I've decided to replace the term Australian bowling attack with a random comedy group of my choosing, until said bowling attack becomes less comedic in nature.

Okay cool, I'm not disagreeing that Copeland was handled poorly. The one thing I would say is that the new selectors have a less opinion of him compared to the previous ones.

So far you've named one person, who else would you actually pick in your 12 man squad for Australia?

Scaly's squad so far:

• Trent Copeland

 

[grecian]

Boult looks like a lesbian on his cricinfo pic.

that is my meaningful contribution to this thread.

 

[Burgey]

Anyone else think Warner looks like Robbie Slater?

 

[Ruckus]

To leave out Copeland is just hysterically dumb. It was bad enough he didn't play while the Marx Brothers* were playing in South Africa. Then they don't pick him after they play 5 bowlers against New Zealand A and say he hasn't pushed forward his case or whatever PR crap they came out with. It's a cowardly act, they didn't want to pick him so they didn't give him a chance to show what he could do (against NZ A). Haven't they learnt anything from the obsession with 140k+ pie merchants from the past 5-10 years or so? Stuart Clark was also treated horribly.

The only way Australia will actually pick a good bowling attack is if there happen to be 3 good bowlers who fling it down at 140+, because no-one else will get a proper look in. There has to be some sort of obvious fairness to players in your domestic system and the national selections that follow - to encourage people to improve and perform.



* I've decided to replace the term Australian bowling attack with a random comedy group of my choosing, until said bowling attack becomes less comedic in nature.

Yeah so true. So sick of this pace obsession. Who decided that pace should get preference over every other aspect of bowling anyway? Give me line and length and an ability to move the ball any day of the week over pace. If two players are proficient in those skills, then by all means pick the one who can bowl faster, but it should never be the other way around.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Okay cool, I'm not disagreeing that Copeland was handled poorly. The one thing I would say is that the new selectors have a less opinion of him compared to the previous ones.

So far you've named one person, who else would you actually pick in your 12 man squad for Australia?

Scaly's squad so far:

• Trent Copeland

I don't follow Australian domestic cricket, it's more important that they draw a line under guys like Johnson and Siddle (which should have happened a while ago) and leave them to work on their bowling and get back to domestic cricket instead of string them along. You can't keep picking people for the sake of it. Who comes in is less important, because you're dealing with a lot of unknowns whoever you pick - so unless you've a standout like Cummins then it's a bit of punt. With Cummins the gamble is when you pick him - not if.

Ponting I would have given the shove 18 months ago, at least. Katich should still be in the side. Personally I still think Johnson has a future if he was in a decent system and the selectors weren't exacerbating the problem. Siddle just simply isn't good enough. Maybe he will be in 2-3 years, maybe not. The selectors have been undermining the whole domestic to international structure and this is has been hurting the national side for years.

 

[social]

To say that the selectors havent taken form into account is simply not correct

Cutting has an excellent record this year and the Gabba is his home ground

Starc is taking wickets and has an excellent record at the Gabba

Pattinson is doing everything asked of him, has already been a member of 2 test squads and is rated an outstanding prospect

Literally the only thing going against them is their lack of experience

 

[social]

I don't follow Australian domestic cricket, it's more important that they draw a line under guys like Johnson and Siddle (which should have happened a while ago) and leave them to work on their bowling and get back to domestic cricket instead of string them along. You can't keep picking people for the sake of it. Who comes in is less important, because you're dealing with a lot of unknowns whoever you pick - so unless you've a standout like Cummins then it's a bit of punt. With Cummins the gamble is when you pick him - not if.

Ponting I would have given the shove 18 months ago, at least. Katich should still be in the side. Personally I still think Johnson has a future if he was in a decent system and the selectors weren't exacerbating the problem. Siddle just simply isn't good enough. Maybe he will be in 2-3 years, maybe not. The selectors have been undermining the whole domestic to international structure and this is has been hurting the national side for years.

Starc and Pattinson are regarded exactly the same way by virtually everyone in Australian cricket

 

[NUFAN]

I don't follow Australian domestic cricket, it's more important that they draw a line under guys like Johnson and Siddle (which should have happened a while ago) and leave them to work on their bowling and get back to domestic cricket instead of string them along. You can't keep picking people for the sake of it. Who comes in is less important, because you're dealing with a lot of unknowns whoever you pick - so unless you've a standout like Cummins then it's a bit of punt. With Cummins the gamble is when you pick him - not if.

Ponting I would have given the shove 18 months ago, at least. Katich should still be in the side. Personally I still think Johnson has a future if he was in a decent system and the selectors weren't exacerbating the problem. Siddle just simply isn't good enough. Maybe he will be in 2-3 years, maybe not. The selectors have been undermining the whole domestic to international structure and this is has been hurting the national side for years.

I don't mind what your saying now, but I really don't get why you would say that these selectors are just as bad as the previous group!

As far as I can see, you've named two players, Copeland and Katich. The new selectors have decided to retain Ponting and not bring in Katich who has had an ordinary time for NSW this Shield season with the bat. You've also chosen Copeland over Siddle, which is fair enough I guess, but I can't see how Siddle wouldn't be retained given the injuries.

The new selectors have actually rewarded the domestic structure. Cutting has been picked for this reason. Warner and Starc have both done well in recent matches.

Like I said previously, the new selectors obviously feel as though Copeland needs to improve to be considered a Test Cricketer, I don't have a problem with a new selection group picking the squad that they think will be the best for Australian Cricket.

I'm not completely trying to target you, I just don't get why so many people are quick to label selectors as terrible, but don't other too many different alternatives.

Nearly everyone is saying Copeland is a poor choice, but how about the other 11 players named?

 

[Ruckus]

Personally, the side I would have picked would have been:

Warner
Hughes
Khawaja
Ponting (Lucky to hang on, mainly only because of injuries)
Clarke
Hussey
Haddin (In normal circumstances would have preferred Wade, but with so many debutants, would probably be better with Haddin staying on + he did ok in his last innings)
Butterworth (excellent overall record, excellent recent form, adds a lot with the bat and simply deserves a go)
Copeland (simply didn't deserve to not be given another chance, enough has been said about him)
Siddle (like Ponting, lucky to hang on, but mainly only because of injuries)
Lyon

Could argue that having Butterworth and Copeland in the side lacks penetration, but the reality is alternatives like Starc haven't even been 'penetrating' at shield level so far let alone a step up. Plus more importantly, with the supposedly new regime good performance HAS to be rewarded over whims about potential or biases to do with how fast someone bowls.

If the third bowler has to have been chosen from the A game, then I'd go with Pattinson. Just looks a better and more polished bowler than the rest on offer, performed the best in the match and has a pretty good record overall so far. Plus I think he has far more potential to improve and be a long term member of the squad over someone like Cutting.