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

[NUFAN]

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.

Fair enough. I'm not sure how you rate the current selectors, but you've named 9 out of 11, or really 10 from 12 as you hinted at Pattinson being selected.

Personally I think the choice of both Butterworth and Copeland is a very poor one. LB in particular considering he missed the last match due to injury!

 

[Scaly piscine]

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?

You don't need to get the entire XI wrong for it to be an awful selection.

Copeland is not merely a poor choice, as I've said already. It's an absolutely ridiculous omission. You can't screw people over like that and create a successful side given Australia's current state. Copeland's selection is even more atrocious considering Australia will be short on overs with a 4 man attack. Instead the selectors go with rookies and a proven sub-standard bowler (Siddle).

The guy has done nothing wrong and he's gone from being picked, to behind proven ****house bowlers, to behind proven ****house bowlers AND complete rookies. It undermines the whole set-up. You may as well tell every guy bowling 120-130 in Australia that your chance of making the Test side is the square root of sweet FA, get the PA at every ground to announce it every two hours. The new selectors may not like the inherited pecking order, but you don't just wipe it out completely. Copeland earned a run in the side, whether you like him or not.

 

[Ruckus]

Fair enough. I'm not sure how you rate the current selectors, but you've named 9 out of 11, or really 10 from 12 as you hinted at Pattinson being selected.

Personally I think the choice of both Butterworth and Copeland is a very poor one. LB in particular considering he missed the last match due to injury!

Oh didn't realise Butterworth was injured. Would probably go with Pattinson as second choice then.

In terms of the batsmen selected, I have no real problems with how the selectors have gone about it. There was hardly any other realistic options given the injuries, and Warner has been ticking all of the boxes of late.

In terms of bowling though, I have a few real gripes with the decisions they have made, mainly centred on the inclusion of Starc and exclusion of Copeland, but other people have pretty much covered them anyway.

 

[NUFAN]

You don't need to get the entire XI wrong for it to be an awful selection.

That's fair enough, but why did you say this then?

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

You definitely have to disagree with a few changes or else it's easy to suggest that your just as **** as the last selectors too.

I do feel sorry for Copeland in some ways, but there are plenty of Cricketers who have good Shield records who weren't considered viable Test options.

.I've said this before, but look at someone like Adam Dale's First Class record..

 

[Athlai]

That's fair enough, but why did you say this then?



You definitely have to disagree with a few changes or else it's easy to suggest that your just as **** as the last selectors too.

I do feel sorry for Copeland in some ways, but there are plenty of Cricketers who have good Shield records who weren't considered viable Test options.

.I've said this before, but look at someone like Adam Dale's First Class record..

The Copeland decision is horrendously bad though. Considering all the injuries to Australian bowlers it places Copeland laughably low down the bowling stocks for Australia and just boggles the mind.

 

[Spikey]

Experts divided over Warner's Test credentials

Ian Healy,

(just threw it in here)

 

[Cabinet96]

You poor Aussies. What a shocking attack.

 

[Spikey]

the worst thing about the attack is all summer now we're gonna have to put up with so many dickheads telling us to play mitch marsh or tom cooper or some young kid who has a good match, and when we tell them they're a stupid dickhead they'll just point out the team for this match. ffs.

 

[Cabinet96]

Starc wouldn't even make NSW's strongest lineup. And I thought Hilf was gone for good.

 

[Ruckus]

I do feel sorry for Copeland in some ways, but there are plenty of Cricketers who have good Shield records who weren't considered viable Test options.

.I've said this before, but look at someone like Adam Dale's First Class record..

You have to question why they weren't considered viable test options though. Dale is similar to Copeland in that he was subject to being underated because of his lack of pace. How do you bloody know if they are viable or not though if you don't give them a fair shot! He was given two tests, what a joke...and unfortunately Copeland could be heading down the same path.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

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.

AWTA.

The daft thing is if one country could be expected to pick a bowler who wasn't quick it would be Australia, not as though Mr McGrath was express pace and he didn't do a bad job over the years did he. Not saying Copeland is anywhere near McGrath's ability but he is surely better than all the rest of the pacemen in the current squad and can be relied upon to keep the runrate down if nothing else. Least it would help build pressure for the young quicks at the other end to exploit.

 

[NUFAN]

The Copeland decision is horrendously bad though. Considering all the injuries to Australian bowlers it places Copeland laughably low down the bowling stocks for Australia and just boggles the mind.

Yeah but one decision doesn't make the new selectors ****ing hopeless.

Since taking 2/96 in his last Test match, he's taken 1/234.

It's not Copeland's fault, but I struggle to name a solid bowling quartet (from the available players) with his name in it. I just find it difficult to see us taking 20 wickets as basically I don't rate Copeland's ability to take many Test wickets. I look at him as a very tight bowler, a very good catcher and a handy lower order batsman, but not a Test wicket taker.

IF Watson were fit, I would include Copeland.

 

[Ruckus]

McGrath was probably just damn lucky that when he started off he bowled quick enough, and by the time he slowed it down he was already well established.

 

[Cabinet96]

Where's Andrew HIldritch when you need him.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah but one decision doesn't make the new selectors ****ing hopeless.

Since taking 2/96 in his last Test match, he's taken 1/234.

It's not Copeland's fault, but I struggle to name a solid bowling quartet (from the available players) with his name in it. I just find it difficult to see us taking 20 wickets as basically I don't rate Copeland's ability to take many Test wickets. I look at him as a very tight bowler, a very good catcher and a handy lower order batsman, but not a Test wicket taker.

IF Watson were fit, I would include Copeland.

What makes you think other bowlers who can't even take as many wickets as Copeland in Shield cricket, will be able to in test cricket?

 

[Spikey]

Yeah but one decision doesn't make the new selectors ****ing hopeless.

tbf naming the aus a team on a day two shield games were finishing and where one good performance could get you in the team (oh hai cooper) was a bit silly. and then it turns out we were planning to pick the team the first day of the aus a game. not off to the best start

 

[Athlai]

You're playing against New Zealand, most of our team tend to get out by playing poor shots. Copeland would have been absolutely ideal.

 

[Debris]

Starc wouldn't even make NSW's strongest lineup. And I thought Hilf was gone for good.

The fast bowling stocks in NSW are freakishly deep at the moment but Starc would make the NSW side no matter who else was available. Only Cummins would definitely be picked ahead of him and even that is only true because of the last test match.

 

[Cabinet96]

The fast bowling stocks in NSW are freakishly deep at the moment but Starc would make the NSW side no matter who else was available. Only Cummins would definitely be picked ahead of him and even that is only true because of the last test match.

Bolinger? Copeland?

 

[Spikey]

no we'd pick Bollinger ahead of him. and then I - and probably every other NSW fan - would go 1. Copeland 2. Haze 3. Starc