Posted by Largely because they’re a bit toss. 425 ain’t good enough and England haven’t knackered out Australia’s four bowlers as much as they should have done.
Mitchell Johnson
Mitchell Johnson or James Anderson? Easy.
Johnson has promised a lot, but unless you love non-bouncing wides, he hasn’t really delivered. We love non-bouncing wides from ‘once in a generation’ Australian opening bowlers, so we’re suddenly a massive Mitchell Johnson fan.
Ben Hilfenhaus
When the ball swings, Ben Hilfenhaus looks a handy bowler, otherwise he’s a bit innocuous. This makes him an Australian James Anderson, only without the inswinger or the reverse outswinger, or the reverse inswinger.
He’s basically a quarter as good as Jimmy.
Peter Siddle
Peter Siddle‘s the opposite of Mitchell Johnson. Where Johnson seems to get wickets while bowling dross, Siddle bowls well and gets nowt for it. He generally acts like a dick, which is what you want from Australian cricketers, so paradoxically, we find ourself liking him.
Nathan Hauritz
When you’re describing an Australian spinner as ‘worthy’, you know you want pitches that offer a bit of turn.
We’ve gone easy on Mitchell Johnson in this post. We didn’t over at The Wisden Cricketer.
It’s a little early in the series for hubris, KC.
These innocuous chaps might look a little less innocuous at Edgy and Heady – especially if a couple of them get to bowl with Lee and Clark in the pack.
Any opinion on Andrew MacDonald’s bowling to be had? Just asking!
‘425 ain’t good enough’
sounds like something that woman from Sturdy Wings might say. Don’t bs us KC.
It’s all true, I have never seen Jimmy A bowl a single bad ball in my life.
Well maybe on occasion. Like when he isn’t in England.
And when the ball isn’t swinging when he is in England..