Whatever happened to Copeland?

[Ruckus]

yeah exactly.

I dunno if I agree with you there BoyBrumby. Copeland was basically just very much in the spotlight at the right time (was cleaning up in domestic cricket, wasn't much other competition, won the Bradman young cricketer award etc.)

 

[BoyBrumby]

Might just be a fluke, I suppose. Correlation doesn't mean causation, etc.

We hadn't any front line seam-up bowlers who bowled around 75mph as an MO for donkey's years tho (Bicknell the last, maybe? & he was hardly a regular) and suddenly we had two debuting in a matter of months.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Andrew McDonald was picked as a number 8 for a few Tests.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Andrew McDonald was picked as a number 8 for a few Tests.

Bats rather higher for Victoria tho, I imagine...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, but he was pretty much picked as one of the four bowlers vs South Africa.

 

[Ruckus]

Might just be a fluke, I suppose. Correlation doesn't mean causation, etc.

We hadn't any front line seam-up bowlers who bowled around 75mph as an MO for donkey's years tho (Bicknell the last, maybe? & he was hardly a regular) and suddenly we had two debuting in a matter of months.

Yeah I think it was probably largely coincidence. I'm trying to think of the context when Copeland was selected...It was the SL series obviously, and that was the first one after the disastrous Ashes, so a few of the main spots in the team were already on shaky ground. And I don't think other young uncapped players like Pattinson or Cummins were really in contention at that stage either. Can't think of any real competition Copeland would have had at the time actually? Not 100% sure, but I think Hilfenhaus was dropped (or perhaps had fitness issues) and Siddle was in direct competition with Copeland in the tour match for a place. I remember Copeland got a 5-for in that (and Siddle pretty much nothing), so it was a probably pretty easy, and obvious, decision for them in the end.

 

[Spikey]

there was an aus a tour before the sl tour that copeland, siddle and hilf were all on. hilf was terrible, siddle pretty much only got tailenders out so copeland didn't have to do much to outshine those two on that. that got him a spot on the tour (bollinger was also over-looked because they told him he had to get fitter, while still picking him for limited overs teams during the nsw pre-season...)

 

[Top_Cat]

Lol. May have to steal that.

Wouldn't have picked you as one for period humour.

Cricinfo has him rather optimistically down as "fast-medium" tho. Was there a spot of "Praveen envy" about his call up? On the face of it Copeland's essentially an elongated version: no pace, hoops in round corners, bowls all day...

Praveen debuted in WI, didn't he? Even more of a graveyard for seam-up bowlers of late.

I meant more from Kumar slightly lifting the scales of prejudice from selectors' eyes about bowlers who lack pace being a serious proposition at test level. We've had a prime example over here in Mark Davies; great FC record, lethal when the conditions are conducive but always been thought of as too slow for tests. I reckon that if Kumar hadn't made a dcent fist of it the Aussie panal would've probably never given Copeland a go at all.

Agree with Jack Copeland doesn't move the ball heaps but I dunno, I do wonder whether Praveen showing up the techniques of blokes like Cook had a hand in his selection.

 

[Ruckus]

Was a little surprised I guess when Copeland struggled to get any seam movement for large periods in the tests. Cause I've seen him get quite pronounced movement in shield cricket, albeit on very different surfaces to SL. He showed glimpses of it as well on occasions (e.g. AUS vs SL 2nd Test Day-1 HIGHLIGHT Pallekelle 2011 - YouTube) but on the whole just couldn't do it consistently enough.