Is Mitchell Johnson a better bat than Michael Bevan was

[CrazyQ]

It's in the Lounge Q

Yeah, atleast TOD kept my thread alive

 

[YOTC]

Uh no. Johnson was king. He got the ball moving around, took the very important early wickets, and he broke Smiths hand keeping him out of the series. That was huge for Australia.

Siddle was good, however he doesn't have all the killer balls that Johnson has.

 

[Cousin Jed]

Brett Lee post. Mention wickets and strike rate and ignore average. Because the average is the one stat that does not support the argument.

Yeah because when you compare 25.04 v 25.45 you can clearly see how much better Siddle was.

 

[skipjack]

Bump

 

[Upgrayedd]

He's pretty F**king handy

He just has that knack of when to play and to leave, He judges the ball as good as any batsmen ever has in cricket. In another life he could of made one hell of a batsman.

 

[Danger in Texas]

Wouldn't say the long answer is as simple now. He's handy, but not really in Bevan's league.

 

[iluvparis]

Siddle averaged 25.04 during his six tests V RSA. He picked up 25 wickets.

Johnson averaged 25.45 and picked up 33 wickets. He also bowled 30 more overs.

Remember Siddle just turned 24 and Johnson is nearing 28. I predict Siddle will be a better bowler, and possibly the worlds best fast bowler by years end. Bowling wise, Johnson is overrated, people act like he's the next Wasim Akram.

Solid post here

 

[CrazyQ]

Johnson is still overrated.

Siddle is average, I put my hand up for that.

None close to Steyn, still.

 

[dumb]

better than our last good #8, reiffel. warne spent some time at 8 but was a wasted talent, lee was decent too but his defence wasn't all that convincing. reiffel ~27 with both bat and ball, but not nearly as devastating with either as mitchell though, and his bowling average looks better because of his economy rather than the amount of wickets he took. would be perfect to bat at #3 if he was around today...

i still watch this one time from time.