McGrath IS a robot

For a long time people have been describing McGrath's bowling as metronomic, robotic even. How does he manage to land the ball on that same spot ball after ball after ball? Almost inhuman, isn't it? As are his powers of recovery, it seems. Apparently he had a grade 2 tear of the ligaments in one of his ankles. I don't know what "grade 2" means, but I'm assuming there's a least a grade 3, which would suggest that the injury wasn't trivial. I though it was doubtful whether he would take any further part in the series. But I log on this evening and what do I find: McGrath has been bowling off a full run. Shit. I can only conclude that McGrath is indeed a robot. Rather than waiting for the ligaments to "heal", the physio (who lists amongst his hobbies "animatronix") just whipped out the old, synthetic set and fitted a new pair. He can't really play tomorrow, can he? I doubt it, but still, he's scary.
So what about England? Well, despite all the calls for changes after Lord's, I thought the selectors should stick with the same team, and they did, thankfully, but the time to change a team is when it's winning, and there appear to be mutterings that the selectors may actually replace Hoggard with Tremlett. What England really need is a stock bowler, a reliable seamer who can bowl 20 overs a day for 60 runs (if such economy is still possible) and maybe chip in with the odd wicket or two (actually, I wouldn't mind a devastating pace bowler who can bowl 15 overs and take 7 for 2, but still...). This was supposed to be Hoggard's role in the team, when the ball isn't swinging. When it is, Hoggard can be very dangerous, as he proved in SA during the winter. When it isn't though, he doesn't seem able to contain. Vaughan was hiding him at Old Trafford. Still, I've just checked out Tremlett's first class stats it doesn't look like he's a particularly economical bowler anyway. Plus there is a chance that Hoggard will swing a couple back in to the left handers (remember how he bowled Hayden in the first innings at Lords). So perhaps the selectors should keep faith with Hoggard after all, as they did with the King of Spain, with spectacular results (5 big wickets, or 4 big wickets plus Warne). If the King of Spain had been hit out of the attack, then the pressure to replace Hoggard (and his majesty) would have been greater.
Talking of greatness, Ian Chappell seems to think that this Australian team is just a good one, with two great bowlers (can't find the link now). Gee, you lose one test, by just two runs, and the critics turn on you. Now I reckon Pakistan in the late 80's and early 90's were a good side with two great bowlers (Imran and Wasim, followed by Waqar and Wasim), as were South Africa in the mid-90's (Donald and Pollock), but this Australian team probably have the best top 7 ever. If you added up their averages, I wouldn't be surprised if they exceeded those of the top 7 of the Invincibles, even with Bradman's 99.4. Some of them are just out of form at the moment. What's more worrying for the Australians is that they're all starting to get on a bit, at least in cricketing terms, meaning that this might actually be the Australians best chance of winning the Ashes for the next however many years. They don't appear to have any special young bowlers coming through. Nearly all their batsmen, and all those who they might call upon (Hodge, Hussey, etc) are over 30. Are Australians going to find out what it's like to be repeatedly hammered during the next 18 years? Will we be drawing parallels with the relative fortunes of the Conservative and Labour parties in British politics? Am I getting way ahead of myself? Errr... yes.
Win the toss Vaughnie. Bat. Make a ton. Calm Bell down as he approaches his. Then, on Friday afternoon, unleash Flinters and Harmison. Those Australians, they don't like it up 'em.