The thing is, Johnson is a very unique bowler that many batsman aren't used to facing as he creates uncertainty with his angle and extreme pace - This is what gets him wickets.
Apart from Kevin Pietersen, the English batting is incredibly weak and I think that every English right-hander will struggle to deal with Johnson. Especially in England where Johnson might get the ball to move back in and he'll be near unplayable. I think the main key will be if Alastair Cook & Andrew Strauss can get runs at the top of the order and that will determine whether or not England will be competitive or if they'll get blown out of the water.
I'm predicting a very successful tour for MJ.
I love how people like this guy try accuse me of providing biased stats. Everyone does it but yet I'm the one that gets accused of it and whenever I provide the statistics that you, King Pietersen, manee or sohum use for a different arguement then they get discarded. Typical.
Their dominance may be wavering but one thing is for sure, we aren't going to be winning the Ashes as easily as people think this summer. It's harsh but we are essentially a team full of bottlers and it'd gonna be another tough series against the Aussies in 2009.
A lot of England fans seem to be forgetting that we aren't exactly all that great these days either. India and South Africa beat us as well.
India and South Africa beat Australia aswell. And England performed better against India than Australia.
South Africa dominated England in England whilst Australia dominated South Africa in both Tests until some Smith, Steyn & Duminy brilliance.England probably played better than Australia did/are against South Africa and they beat S.A 4-0 in the ODIs
We haven't played the ODIs yet.England probably played better than Australia did/are against South Africa and they beat S.A 4-0 in the ODIs
South Africa dominated England in England whilst Australia dominated South Africa in both Tests until some Smith, Steyn & Duminy brilliance.
What about when you a have the opposition trailing by over 200 runs on first innings and they only have 3 wickets left in hand? Is this not a dominant position?You can hardly say that Australia dominate South Africa when they were down for 5 without 200 on the board. Any team that needs to get most of their runs with the tail order is not dominating.
What about when you a have the opposition trailing by over 200 runs on first innings and they only have 3 wickets left in hand? Is this not a dominant position?
That's not the point, the point is we had dominant/winning positions in both tests but failed to convert them.
Through those players that performed, we can build a team that is good enough to get back to the top.
But so did South Africa, they get down to the tail cheaply and them when they are in command, they let the tail prosper and get Australia's total from terrible to good. Imagine is South Africa took the wickets of the tail which are generally easier for 50 runs, Australia would have struggled to get 300 runs.That's not the point, the point is we had dominant/winning positions in both tests but failed to convert them. Through those players that performed, we can build a team that is good enough to get back to the top.