He's rubbish. If Watson is fit to bowl he becomes totally redundant - on merit as a strike bowler by comparison to the others available no better than a guy to hold an end up whilst the mainline seamers take a breather. Australia have Hussey and Clarke who can do that whilst being probably more likely to take a wicket even if Watson cannot bowl. And if Watson is fit to bowl I can't see 'em ever needing to toss the ball to Copeland, who hardly moves the ball and never looks like taking a wicket.
Which explains why he had lots at an average under 20 at one stage.
You've basically said he looks crap, therefore he is, and ignored any evidence to the contrary. Dire argument.
I don't think he's the greatest thing ever, or even necessarily test standard. I can only go by what I've read on here since I've never had the opportunity to watch him, but to write someone off because they don't look much is terrible logic.
Arguably the greatest seamer of all time, Glenn McGrath, was far from the prettiest in the traditional sense.
And ftr from what I've read and heard he does move the ball and bowls with superb accuracy. The only trait that is questioned is his pace. The Watson comparison sucks as well, because when bowled in the right manner the guy is a weapon. Conventional and reverse swing, depending on the overhead conditions and the age of the ball. He can ramp up the pace when he wants as well, though ironically when he did that regularly he would have been labelled the most innocuous bowler to ever crack 140kph if Sami didn't already have a life membership for that.
I've never seen Copeland so I don't really know if he had the assets to crack the top level, but he had an excellent record in one of the best FC competitions in the world and once you pick someone, you don't just drop them for the hell of it. His dumping was ridiculous.
