You need 20 wickets to win a Test match, so I thought it will be interesting to see how Austrlia and England compare in that respect. This analysis is purely mathematical, but it does make interesting reading.
I have taken the Wickets per test as a basis for this analysis and looked at the records of the last 25 Test for the English bolwers and last 50 for the Aussies to reflect their domination periods. Also, since Lee and Kasprowicz have not played in all tests (and rarely together), I have combined their records (25 each).
Ignoring Giles for a moment, if we compare the Stats for Australia and England, we see an interesting scenario:
Austrlia (Wickets per Test)
McGrath-4.62, Warne-5.38, Gillespie-3.52, Lee+Kasprowicz-3.42 (3.56 and 3.28 respectively)
England (wickets per Test)
Harmison-4.32,Hoggard-3.92, Flintoff-3.76, Jones-3.18 (over 17 Tests)
This give the Aussies a 'potential' to take 16.94 or 17 wickets per Test whereas England have a 'potential' to take 15.18 or 15 wickers per Test.
Now add Giles (2.92 wickets per test), to the equation and England have a 'potential' to take 18.1 wickets per Test, thus giving them the edge over the Aussies. Add to the fact that Gillespie is not delivering and Clarke will not be able to bowl anytime soon, its clear that the Aussies have their job cut out to get England out twice. Depending on Warne & McGrath to run through the English batting line-up everytime is going to be a bit ask.
In my opinion, they need a genuine all-rounder to replace Katich and a replacement for Gillespie (only one wont do it). I think Symonds and Kaspa might be an option.
But what do the Aussies do about Hayden who, in Damien Fleming's words yerterday was made to look like a 'monkey' by Flintoff. But that's a different topic of discussion...