• 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*** New Zealand in Australia 2011

Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
Only like 30 overs have been bowled today though so it isn't THAT out of the ordinary particularly with all the spin.
 
Jarquis

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
NUFAN said:
Yes. Better strike rate. Copeland takes more wickets per match because he bowls more overs per match.

I do understand your point completely, which is why I would have picked Copeland in a 5 man attack if Watson was fit.

In a 4 man attack that features Nathan Lyon, I think the selectors want 3 wicket takers, regardless if they go for a couple extra runs per wicket (which they might not even do).

I'm going in circles here. Copeland is solid but I don't think his non-selection is as big a travesty as others think - Of course he was handled poorly, but that's due to different selectors having different opinions.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make sense to me at all. Copeland's ability to bowl more overs per match than the other bowlers is a much more valuable asset in a 4man attack than a 5man attack.
If you're worried that your spinner might not be capable of tying down an end then why not pick a seamer who seems to be almost especially made for that purpose?
I don't really see why the selectors would go for bowlers "regardless of if they got for a couple of extra runs per wicket" the way to win Tests is quite obviously score more than your opposition ergo you want to bowl them out for as few as possible.
Baffling.
 
Zinzan

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Taylor should've retired at lunch once he got his hundred so Brownlie & Young can get a bat
 
NUFAN

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Marcuss said:
Doesn't make sense to me at all. Copeland's ability to bowl more overs per match than the other bowlers is a much more valuable asset in a 4man attack than a 5man attack.
If you're worried that your spinner might not be capable of tying down an end then why not pick a seamer who seems to be almost especially made for that purpose?
I don't really see why the selectors would go for bowlers "regardless of if they got for a couple of extra runs per wicket" the way to win Tests is quite obviously score more than your opposition ergo you want to bowl them out for as few as possible.
Baffling.
Click to expand...
Bowling a stack of overs isn't that awesome a quality to have. Taking 20 wickets is.

In a 5 man attack you can have Copeland keeping it tight while the other bowlers take the wickets to actually win the match. In a 4 man attack there possibly isn't enough resources to take 20 wickets in a match on a consistent basis.

When it comes down to it, the selectors obviously think Copeland is less likely to take wickets as often as the bowlers selected. I can see completely where they are coming from.

Hopefully for Copeland's sake he actually starts taking some wickets in the second dig vs. WA.
 
Spikey

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sylvester said:
Let's just say the Gabba better have some life in it else our bowling attack ain't going to take 20 wickets.
Click to expand...
the old attack hasn't been taking 20 wickets so it's a bit hopeful to say the new one will, life in the pitch and all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top