It does not say that. Read it again. It says that Australia would win on the OT and Oval wickets of 2014. Though I do not see why.
Firstly: I wonder if Boykz wrote that at all - it seems ghosted to me. Boykz knows that there is no such thing as a "swinging pitch" - it's a non sequitur. And look at that picture. No grass there at all to help seam movement. Aussies do better than England on bouncy wickets, not "seaming, swinging" ones because their modern batters struggle with lateral movement while modern England batters struggle with bounce.
Secondly: it's just flat-out false that "England" (whatever that means) rig the wickets. When David Lloyd was England coach he asked for some slow seamers. What was the response from the Counties? In his words: "Zip. Nothing. Nada."
What you must understand is that "England" (by which I assume you mean the ECB instead of the team) do not own the test grounds, the Counties do, apart from Lord's which is owned by the MCC - and the ECB have no influence on the groundsmen, who are employed by the Counties (or MCC at Lord's) not the ECB.
Now the BCCI..... they are the pitch-rigging experts, and fair enough. In 1981/2 the first test was a bunsen and England lost, then the next four matches were on roads with India bowling ten overs per hour with the spinners on to shut England out. That's the way to do it, as long as you are happy to win and not provide entertainment.
Look, pitches in England have radically changed in the last three years. For a start the climate is changing. The seasons are longer - there is not much spring or autumn and the soil responds to that. The wickets have new drainage systems to render them dry and slow. In Kapil Dev's day he might see a green seamer with variable bounce at Headingley, a turner at OT, a bouncy track at the Oval. Now they are all (in Convict's words) variations on the theme of slow and dead.
runs partnership.
Either it's wicket fall or century. Wicket fall of England or Australia, doesn't matter for me. I am fan of quality 
