CDee wrote:
X-rated Bob wrote:
The quick bowling is pretty good - but injury prone. A good job they have depth in that department because somebody's bound to break down before the last match in the series.
England look better, and have a better recent record. They're more settled. Swann seems to have gone off the boil a bit (now I've said that he'll get a five-fer just to prove me wrong), but when he's firing on all cylinders he's one of the best spinners in the game. England also have a pretty handy pace attack. I think the difference between the two teams is going to be the batting.
I agree with Bob here about the bowling, England have the edge. I think Anderson will be the difference between the sides though. When he starts to swing it he becomes very difficult to face.
The Australians have pace but none are true swing bowlers like Anderson.
Part of that is the ball and the conditions. In England they use the Dukes ball, in Australia the Kookaburra. The Dukes have a slightly higher seam and swing more in any conditions. England are also thought to have some special ball-shining mojo. Chris Rogers has played a lot of county cricket and is now charged with being Australia's chief ball shiner having, it is thought, gotten to know all the dark English secrets.
Not to take anything away from Anderson who is a very good bowler. I do though think that Australia's bowling is undervalued - possibly even by Australia.
Agar is averaging 33.something in FC cricket. Not the worst number 11 ever.
