Because its not stuffy at all, very progressive, Duncan Fletcher and now Andy Flower and Gilles focus as much on fitness and fielding as they do just batting or bowling. they bring in youngsters and put faith in them like root, plus theres the centralised contracts to keep the team together. In rugby's defence they are generally very good at here system which is to develop a team to peak every 4 years at WC time, worked really well in 2007, in 2011 the system broke down, but Lancaster is building a great team.
The thing thats always put me off English rugby is the same about English football, we are never labelled the skillful or flamboyant side. Whereas cricket I don't hear that label and we tend to win things.
England are a very skilful Rugby team and I hate flamboyant rugby. It just means someone failed to make a good tackle. It's the drive for "flamboyant play" that has ruined scrummaging and mauls. Rugby is about fight and drive and wanting it more.
I'd bow to you're knowledge but perhaps that's why I struggle to watch it, I don't see the enjoyment in watching scrums and kicks, where's the entertainment or magnificence in that? So what if your bigger and stronger?
I understand that one of the big reasons is because we were one of the first Nations to move to central contracts. Established internationals are paid by the ECB, and released to play County Cricket rather than the other way round. That's given the ECB total control of players' training; when they are rested and when they are given a chance to make runs in County Cricket to prepare for tests. Imagine that in football! The FA having the power to tell EPL managers to play Rooney as a main striker because he needs to practise that role...or that English players can only play 45 mins because we have a key friendly coming up(!)
I think that the strength of English cricket probably goes deeper than the national team. In comparison with countries such as India/Bangladesh/Pakistan and the Windies our junior cricket enjoys superior funding (due it has to be said to plenty of cash from the National Lottery and Sky) which means that we are more likely to be able to identify and develop young talent. The Aussies have been in a state of decline for almost a decade losing their long standing top players without having the talent below to come through and carry the torch. The success they had has left a generation of their cricketers (such as Rogers) with practically no international experience. There is also a focus on T20 and one-day cricket which has not helped the technique of a number of their players such as Watson and Warner. Surely a major worry for the Aussies going into the next test is that none of Cook/KP/Trott have made a significant score and that is unlikely to continue. Broad generally has at least one match a series when his bowling is unplayable and Old Trafford is supposed to be a turner this season which will give Swann even more ammo. If it stays dry you can only really see one result regardless of whether or not KP plays.
The Aussies haven't bowled too badly overall. It's their batting that needs serious work. Apart from Clarke and possibly Haddin (although they both haven't batted very well at all so far), there really isn't anyone who comes to the crease for them that makes me think "cor, we're going to to have to bowl really well to get him out". I think that they need to recall Warner - not sure exactly who I would drop though.
JK - Warner spent last week scoring less than 40 runs combined in two innings playing for the development side which does not suggest that he is in prime form. He is also not the answer to a team looking for batters who can apply themsleves for long periods in the middle. I think he is a decent player but I don't think that he has the technique or concentration to keep the England attack out for long. He will be good to watch though. I agree with your assessment of their bowling - in both tests they have had a couple of bowlers perform - Siddle and Harris this time but the third seamer and spin options (with the exception of Smith's cameo) have been very poor and even their better bowlers have given England a lot of freebies. Agar's form with the bat in the first test should not hide the fact that he has not succeeded in his primary role as their no.1 spinner but the selectors will find it hard to drop him for Lyon and their batting is so fragile that there is no way they can drop a batter to find room for a fifth bowler and given the injury record of their seamers they won't risk going into the match with only two. I can see them maybe rotating Starc back in for Pattinson but otherwise leaving as is unless any of their reserves do well against Sussex. It is not only the first XI where there is a gulf between the two teams but in the reserves as well. We have the likes of Finn/Onions/Tremlett/Taylor/Bopara/Compton/Tredwell/Monty to come in if needed. Don't get me wrong, I would see the loss of either Andersen or Swann as a significant blow to the side but I reckon our cover is markedly superior to theirs in all departments.
N'bhoy - I think it'll be interesting to see how the Aussies do in their tour match against Sussex, and who exactly they pick to play. What do you make of the calls for Katich to make a comeback?
I would imagine that the quicks will get a rest as they have bowled a lot. Then they can either give some of the ressies a bat or use the match as more time in the middle/punishment detail for their top six. Katich would (theoretically) give them a bit more stability and experience at the top of the order but they also have the likes of David Hussey playing in county cricket plus the likes of Cam White and Adam Voges. I suppose it depends if they are looking to try to save the series with a quick fix (even though I don't think that this would work) or if they are looking to build a team to be competitive over the winter. If the latter then they will probably keep as is and take the beating they will get and hope to be more competitive at home.
