The End Of Australian Dominance?

[ZoraxDoom]

The Ashes will be great. I think England could just edge it and become the no. 3 side in the world, Aus no. 4. And Sri Lanka is always a threat. Pakistan, NZ and the Windies need to sharpen their act a bit more...but the top 5, that'll be brilliant...

 

[King Pietersen]

Bowlers win Test matches, and Australia don't have a bowling attack good enough to take 20 wickets. If Johnson's the best of the bowling attack then you know you've got problems tbh. He's good, but he's certainly no McGrath or Donald. There are now quite a few far stronger bowling attacks in the world, I'd say the attacks of:

Zaheer Khan
Ishant Sharma
Harbhajan Singh
Amit Mishra

James Anderson
Stuart Broad
Andrew Flintoff
Stephen Harmison
Graeme Swann/Monty Panesar

Dale Steyn
Makhaya Ntini
Morne Morkel
Paul Harris
Jacques Kallis

Chaminda Vaas
Lasith Malinga
Muttiah Muralitharan
Ajantha Mendis

I'd say all of those have stronger attacks than Australia at the minute. Especially South Africa and India. If Australia want to regain their dominance they'll need to develop a quality bowling attack. They lack swing and spin, which are 2 key dynamics to a bowling attack in England. The reason England won the 2005 Ashes was because of the variety of the bowling attack. We had conventional swing from Hoggard, Reverse from Jones and Flintoff and pace and bounce from Harmison. In 2009 we'll have swing from Jimmy, reverse from Fred, pace and bounce from Harmy, pace, accuracy and abit of swing from Broad and decent spin from either Swann, Panesar or Rashid. Australia will need to match that if they're going to stand a chance, we're going to be really up for the series.

 

[aussie_ben91]

There is no way that England have a better bowling lineup then Australia at the moment.

Mitchell Johnson > James Anderson
Peter Siddle > Stuart Broad
Stuart Clark > Andrew Flintoff
Brett Lee > Stephen Harmison
Jason Krezja > Monty Panesar
Nathan Hauritz > Graeme Swann

Mitchell Johnson's better then any England bowler, TBH. Flintoff is the only one that comes close. Don't argue that Broad is better then Siddle because he isn't. Broad is useless and Siddle is a class bowler. Hauritz & Siddle both did better in their tours of Indian then what Panesar & Swann did. Our batting is also better.

Phil Jaques > Alastair Cook
Simon Katich > Andrew Strauss
Ricky Ponting > Owais Shah
Kevin Pietersen > Michael Hussey
Michael Clarke > Ian Bell
Andrew Symonds > Andrew Flintoff
Brad Haddin > Matt Prior

Don't bother argueing that Prior is a better batsman then Haddin because he isn't and just for further reference, Symonds is a better batsman then Flintoff, not a better allrounder. Cook & Strauss have both fallen from grace and Katich & Jaques are far more relieable batsman. Kat & Jaques will also be facing a lesser bowler attack to Cook & Strauss aswell.

 

[King Cricket]

Bowlers win Test matches, and Australia don't have a bowling attack good enough to take 20 wickets. If Johnson's the best of the bowling attack then you know you've got problems tbh. He's good, but he's certainly no McGrath or Donald. There are now quite a few far stronger bowling attacks in the world, I'd say the attacks of:

Zaheer Khan
Ishant Sharma
Harbhajan Singh
Amit Mishra

James Anderson
Stuart Broad
Andrew Flintoff
Stephen Harmison
Graeme Swann/Monty Panesar

Dale Steyn
Makhaya Ntini
Morne Morkel
Paul Harris
Jacques Kallis

Chaminda Vaas
Lasith Malinga
Muttiah Muralitharan
Ajantha Mendis

I'd say all of those have stronger attacks than Australia at the minute. Especially South Africa and India. If Australia want to regain their dominance they'll need to develop a quality bowling attack. They lack swing and spin, which are 2 key dynamics to a bowling attack in England. The reason England won the 2005 Ashes was because of the variety of the bowling attack. We had conventional swing from Hoggard, Reverse from Jones and Flintoff and pace and bounce from Harmison. In 2009 we'll have swing from Jimmy, reverse from Fred, pace and bounce from Harmy, pace, accuracy and abit of swing from Broad and decent spin from either Swann, Panesar or Rashid. Australia will need to match that if they're going to stand a chance, we're going to be really up for the series.

I'll disagree. These attacks are not stronger than the attack of Australia. It is just that Australia's main strike bowler Lee is out of form and they don't have a quality spinner. Everyone knows that in his day Lee can rip apart any batting lineup, no matter how strong it can be. He is out of form.
Haydos is out of form, Roy is not at his best, so it is quite natural that Australia is experiencing such a situation. They have not become a weak team, their main problem is that they have so many out of form superstars that the whole team has become disbalanced.

 

[Themer]

Bar the English attack I think those attacks are stronger than Australia's India have Zaheer Khan who is in my opinion the best seamer in the world and a brilliant exponent of reverse swing along with Harbajan who is one of the best spinners in the world. Not to mention Sharma who has burst on the scene.
Sri Lankas attack boast the best spinner in the world and one of the most exciting young spinners in the world along with the ever reliable Vaas and Mailnga who is an expert reverse swinger.
South Africa's attack is better than the Aussies aswell because they Dale Steyn the best bowler in the world this year and is better than Lee when he is fit and firing. Ntini has been a consistant source of wickets for South Africa for years. Morkel is a bit hit and miss but is as good as Siddle is at the moment and has the potential to become one of the worlds best imo. Finally they have Harris who is nowhere near the best bowler in the world but can hold up an end and has done just aswell as the Aussie Spinners.
Those three attacks are better than Australia's imo.
England's is about on par with the Australians atm.

 

[deerkick]

I think England has a better bowling lineup than India and Australia ATM. They just weren't too efficient in India but I have no doubts that they will reign supreme on English pitches. They just need to not bowl short and wide to Sehwag

 

[stefan]

I reckon Freddie Flintoff is a better bowler than any the aussies have currently. The rest of the attack is about on par but with a fit fred they have the better attack.

 

[venom2011]

C'mon. A fully fit Lee, Johnson, Clarke, Watson and a containing Hauritz is a very good attack. And in my opinion a few notches better than England's current lineup. Add to that a fantastic, although currently underperforming batting lineup, I would back Aus to comeback strongly in a few months.

venom2011 added 5 Minutes and 10 Seconds later...

I reckon Freddie Flintoff is a better bowler than any the aussies have currently. The rest of the attack is about on par but with a fit fred they have the better attack.

I'd pick Lee over Flintoff anyday, both give their captain's a great element of control, but Flintoff has never really dominated teams in terms of wicket hauls. Brett Lee offers a better striking option.

 

[zimrahil]

There is no way that England have a better bowling lineup then Australia at the moment.

Mitchell Johnson > James Anderson
Peter Siddle > Stuart Broad
Stuart Clark > Andrew Flintoff
Brett Lee > Stephen Harmison
Jason Krezja > Monty Panesar
Nathan Hauritz > Graeme Swann

Trying to be objective I think Flintoff is slightly better than any Aussie paceman at the moment. Deadly accurate at 85+ mph

 

[mdoggie]

The problem with the Australian attack is that only Lee has matured, the rest are still young and without a senior bowler to lead them, they will never learn. Johnson is good at home but does not perform as well away, and what he has got is unpredictability which over time become less of a threat as batsman learn how to combat it. Lee has loss a bit speed and has not learned how to perform without it, 1 wicket in the Perth test shows that it's not just this injury. Clarke is dangerous and in my opinion, the one bowler who looks like he could lead the attack but he is not at the level where he could lead a team to the no 1 ranking. The spinning option look dismal, similar to South Africa, both teams seem to think they found the answer but neither bring anyone dangerous to the table.

Also, I keep hearing about all these injuries but how many players (during the Perth test) who have proved themselves Internationally are injured. Other than Clarke, who that would definitely make the side was Injured.

 

[manee]

Mitchell Johnson > James Anderson
Peter Siddle > Stuart Broad
Stuart Clark > Andrew Flintoff
Brett Lee > Stephen Harmison
Jason Krezja > Monty Panesar
Nathan Hauritz > Graeme Swann

My opinion:

Brett Lee < Stephen Harmison
Stuart Clark < Andrew Flintoff
Peter Siddle > Stuart Broad
Jason Krezja < Monty Panesar
Nathan Hauritz = Graeme Swann

 

[King Pietersen]

Ben blanking out any bias again I see.

Harmison > Lee.
Flintoff > Clark
Siddle = Broad
Panesar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krejza
Swann > Hauritz
Johnson > Anderson

The only bowler in that comparison that is better than their England counterpart is Mitchell Johnson, but then Anderson will be far more threatening in the Ashes next year. Johnson doesn't swing the ball, well only very rarely anyway. The Australian's don't tend to play swing too well, if the 2005 Ashes is anything to go by, especially reverse, so if England could get Simon Jones back in place of Broad we'd be all over you. If we had Jones, Harmison, Anderson, Flintoff and Panesar all on form we'd hammer you.

Also, as for Hauritz > Swann. You've obviously not seen Swann bowl. He bowled as well as Harbhajan in India, and that's surely testament to his quality. A first class bowling average of 33 compared with Hauritz 47 goes someway to prove his superiority as well. Hauritz has nothing on Swann atm, Swann gets more turn, more bounce, is more experienced, took wickets in India, and he's a better batsman. Hauritz has looked nothing more than distinctly average from what I've seen of him.

 

[Ollie_H]

There is no way that England have a better bowling lineup then Australia at the moment.

Mitchell Johnson > James Anderson
Peter Siddle > Stuart Broad
Stuart Clark > Andrew Flintoff
Brett Lee > Stephen Harmison
Jason Krezja > Monty Panesar
Nathan Hauritz > Graeme Swann

Mitchell Johnson's better then any England bowler, TBH. Flintoff is the only one that comes close. Don't argue that Broad is better then Siddle because he isn't. Broad is useless and Siddle is a class bowler. Hauritz & Siddle both did better in their tours of Indian then what Panesar & Swann did. Our batting is also better.

Phil Jaques > Alastair Cook
Simon Katich > Andrew Strauss
Ricky Ponting > Owais Shah
Kevin Pietersen > Michael Hussey
Michael Clarke > Ian Bell
Andrew Symonds > Andrew Flintoff
Brad Haddin > Matt Prior

Don't bother argueing that Prior is a better batsman then Haddin because he isn't and just for further reference, Symonds is a better batsman then Flintoff, not a better allrounder. Cook & Strauss have both fallen from grace and Katich & Jaques are far more relieable batsman. Kat & Jaques will also be facing a lesser bowler attack to Cook & Strauss aswell.

HAHAHAH Jesus christ your an arrogant SOB!

 

[Kev]

The thing is, its not about how you rate individual players versus another team. If you were in the South African team at the moment (or any other decent-ish test side) you wouldn't be quaking in your boots at their attack, yes they have decent players but they aren't a patch on previous teams from the recent past. Same with England's attack really.

Australian dominance might have taken a small dip momentarily, but make no mistake it isn't the end for the Aussies, they'll be back and in a few years have that lineup that does make the opposition quake in their boots.

 

[Ollie_H]

Right well here goes my go at this;

Mitchell Johnson < James Anderson. Anderson is the far better bowler, Mitch just runs in and actually hurls the ball without doing anything.
Peter Siddle = Stuart Broad. Both rubbish, Broad with the potentail to be a lot better!
Brett Lee < Andrew Flintoff. Flintoff is the best bowler in the world, Lee has really lost it since he has to spearhead a poor attack.
Stuart Clark > Stephen Harmison. I am actually going to give this to Stuart Clark cos I feel he is an incredibly good bowler and missed sorely by the aussies.
Jason Krezja < Monty Panesar. Kreza was abosultely terrible! Panesar may be in rubbish form but he certainly is a class act with a lot more to come.
Nathan Hauritz < Graeme Swann. Swann is a much better bowler, having watched the aussies face the saffas I don't think Krejza or Hauritz caused a whole lot of trouble. Best plan is to follow the Saffas and play 4 seamers and use clarke more.


As for batsmen let me pick mine aswell but let me quote yours as I would like to say thank you for creating a new batting line up for us

Phil Jaques > Alastair Cook
Simon Katich > Andrew Strauss
Ricky Ponting > Owais Shah
Kevin Pietersen > Michael Hussey
Michael Clarke > Ian Bell
Andrew Symonds > Andrew Flintoff
Brad Haddin > Matt Prior

Phil Jaques < Alastair Cook. Cook is a much more solid batsmen!
Simon Katich = Andrew Strauss. Strauss is just a good as Katich and I like both as characters.
Ricky Ponting > Ian Bell. Ponting is a class batsmen and easily better than bell.
Michael Hussey < Kevin Pietersen. Easy as you like no explanation needed.
Michael Clarke = Paul Collingwood. Different types of batsmen, pretty vs ugly.
Andrew Symonds = Andrew Flintoff. Both claiming to be batting all rounders. Freddie coming back to his best on his day probably better than symo but symo is a good player aswel.
Brad Haddin > Matt Prior. Haddin is probably better but its close.


England; 6
Aussies; 3
Draws; 4