Siddle will make the difference.So basically we're batting against Australia's Test attack already.
It's a fair question and I tend to be on-side with it more often than not but, well, Copeland hasn't had an opportunity to prove it either way yet.Yup, count him in.
Slightly less than half a chance, 60/40 in favor of Aust for mine. Home conditions, faster bowlers blah etcSurely the Kiwis are half a chance to take the 1st Test.Nothing to be worried about at all with that bowling attack I would have thought and if we can bat first and score big, hopefully Vettori can bowl us to a famous victory! I'm certainly hoping for that !
Holiday period. Need to book them well in advance if you want it cheap.What is with domestic flights within Australia! Looked at prices to get down to the Hobart Test and AU$600-$750 for a return flight with Qantas or Jetstar!
Yeah, that went badly.Can't believe Starc got a go, though. Don't forget, this insane push to get a leftie into the team by any means resulted in Bracken. 'Nuff said.
Probably. Sore heel doesn't sound that bad.^ Is he likely to be fit for the 2nd Test?
Edit: Cummins that is
I'm talking about Tests.Holiday period. Need to book them well in advance if you want it cheap.
Yeah, that went badly.
Didn't really get a fair chance IIRCI'm talking about Tests.
Yeah I tend to agree. I think it pretty much goes without saying that Copeland did benefit from those pitches more than the average bowler in the Shield and that he wasn't really a 17-average (or whatever absurd average he actually had after that first season) bowler. That said, even if you take that into account he still had a stellar record and was outperforming pretty much everyone at the time - plus he adds real balance to the attack in a good contrast to the other bowlers the selectors like to pick. I honestly didn't have that much of a problem with him being left out for Siddle (other than the pitch we decided to do it on, fmd that was dumb) but when he gets left out for Starc, Pattinson and Cutting then well it's a bit much to take. It's especially bad when he was actually ahead of them all a Test ago and he's only bowled 10 overs or so since then.It's a fair question and I tend to be on-side with it more often than not but, well, Copeland hasn't had an opportunity to prove it either way yet.
Losing to us doesn't worry you? Blimey, Australian standards really have fallen.Probably. Sore heel doesn't sound that bad.
I really don't care how we go in the 1st Test. 3 debutants is too much of a change. Hopefulyl we'll be alright when India comes.
Its been suggested to me (not by any reliable source, mind) that this 'sore heel' is actually a back injury. Hopefully not the case.Probably. Sore heel doesn't sound that bad.
I really don't care how we go in the 1st Test. 3 debutants is too much of a change. Hopefulyl we'll be alright when India comes.
Agree with all that.Yeah I tend to agree. I think it pretty much goes without saying that Copeland did benefit from those pitches more than the average bowler in the Shield and that he wasn't really a 17-average (or whatever absurd average he actually had after that first season) bowler. That said, even if you take that into account he still had a stellar record and was outperforming pretty much everyone at the time - plus he adds real balance to the attack in a good contrast to the other bowlers the selectors like to pick. I honestly didn't have that much of a problem with him being left out for Siddle (other than the pitch we decided to do it on, fmd that was dumb) but when he gets left out for Starc, Pattinson and Cutting then well it's a bit much to take. It's especially bad when he was actually ahead of them all a Test ago and he's only bowled 10 overs or so since then.