Mitchell Johnson (Under Wraps)

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

He bowled well, is pace everything?

It will be on the bouncy tracks in Aussie Land, that will be different than in a one dayer in India - methinks.

[Quagmire]

I don't think that the Australian bowling line up is a worry for the ashes, people are saying that Australia are too old and there bowling line up is a problem. What about Englands bowling line up Flintoff is not 100%, Harmison has been bowling like a man who has never taken a wicket in his life, No Jones, Panesar is an inexperienced offspin bowler as well all know offspinners don't do well in Australian conditions. The bowler who is up to it is Hoggard, Giles has not bowled for a year, Anderson looks ok in the ODI's but similar to Bracken where his main weapon is swing and the red ball does not move like the white ball. Now for Australia McGrath has been ok in the ODI's, Lee has been good, Warne is Warne, there is Watson who I have my doubts about but has been bowling really well in the champions trophy and promising Johnson or experienced bowler Clark and also the forgotten Australain leg spinner MacGill. Which line up is more likely to take 20 wickets?

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Ernest

It will be on the bouncy tracks in Aussie Land, that will be different than in a one dayer in India - methinks.

Well he seemed to get his wickets with bounce and pace the other night, he scared Pietersen into give his wicket up. Watson did the same thing to Flintoff as well

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Panesar is an inexperienced offspin bowler as well all know offspinners don't do well in Australian conditions.

I think you'll find that Panesar gets the ball to spin in the same direction as a certain Mr S. Warne... If anything goes against Panesar it's his inexperience.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

Which line up is more likely to take 20 wickets?

In five days, no question Australia would be able to do it. McGrath doesn't need to bowl overly fast, just straight, he'll get wickets that way; Watson I think could do well if he plays; same for Johnson. In England's case, Harmison might get a few if he can pitch the ball on the cut strip; Hoggard probably won't get as much swing as he did last year; Anderson hasn't played in Tests for a long time and could have a torrid re-introduction looming; and Flintoff will only be effective IMO in short bursts, much like Lee's doing at the moment. I don't think there's any question of which attack is the better on that basis.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

I don't think that the Australian bowling line up is a worry for the ashes, people are saying that Australia are too old and there bowling line up is a problem.

Quagmire,

But if you look who is saying these comments it is ex-Australian players!!

This is what Border said today

To me, we are starting to get to a point where we need to take a bit of a gamble with some young guys. We've got steady performers there, but that's just my thinking to throw someone in there who is a bit different.

Or what about this comment by Thompson

I have said for the last two years that although he's (McGrath) been fantastic, he is not what he used to be,

So it's ok that you keep mentioning the fitness and form of the English guys, but there are real question marks appearing, from Australian quarters, on the age of the Australian batters and bowlers..

[Paoli]

No doubt McGrath's not what he used to be. But he's still a cut above all the England fast men. I hope Johnson is the real deal. He's very, very good, as I've predicted for quite some time, but has come on quicker than I thought to be quite honest.

Should we throw him in the deep end? Not sure. I'd say no at this stage. But if we do, it has the potential to pay massive dividends. Bigger than Ben Hurr I'm talking...

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Paoli

No doubt McGrath's not what he used to be. But he's still a cut above all the England fast men.

of that there is no doubt at all, but the point I am making is that age does catch up with you. Will he be able to give the Aussies contorl with long spells, will he be able to last all 5 days of all 5 Tests. This is what we will have to see.

But as Lillee pointed out the English guys are in their prime, if they can stay fit (which is in doubt) I feel they will have an impact greater tha McGrath's.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Paoli

No doubt McGrath's not what he used to be. But he's still a cut above all the England fast men.

Keep saying that and you might come to believe it, McGrath has BEEN a great, please don't say that he's a cut above Flintoff as a bowler at this stage of his career.

Keep thinking like that and Australia 2006 will be England 2005 revisited.

[Quagmire]

A lot has changed since the Ashes in 2005, every single person on this thread said he was the best quick in the world and because he took time off for his wife and came back and has had figures of 1/30 off 9 overs, 0/25 off 8 overs, 0/6 off 6 overs, 1/42 off 8 over & 2/36 off 9 overs. McGrath has not been taking a lot of wickets in the one dayers but he has been tight and doing a good job. At least his accuracy is still there, people are judging McGrath already where he still is working his way back to rhythm, he took a giant step in his second spell against England getting good pace he looked like he was getting his confidence up. If Warne had of spent last Australian winter not playing county cricket people would be saying the same thing about him.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Keep saying that and you might come to believe it, McGrath has BEEN a great, please don't say that he's a cut above Flintoff as a bowler at this stage of his career [...] Keep thinking like that and Australia 2006 will be England 2005 revisited.

Just remind me.... who was it that bowled that spell-of-the-series to exploit the slope at Lords at the beginning of the 2005 Ashes?