Mitchell Johnson

[Underdog]

Kallis doesn't bowl enough.

I'll add Flintoff to the list above.

Surprised the commentators were off with leaving out Flintoff and mistakingly adding Hadlee

 

[The_Reaper]

Are we not comparing the accomplishemnt to Dev and Botham?

this is more to the point that the increased number of tests in a year makes this achievement possible.

Guys like Miller and Davidson would never have had the opportunity to complete this double

 

[Underdog]

this is more to the point that the increased number of tests in a year makes this achievement possible.

Guys like Miller and Davidson would never have had the opportunity to complete this double

Looking at the stats of Miller and Davidson, I think they would have made it comfortably given they had the same amount of cricket under their belts.

 

[DIG]

Avoiding injury has helped, when most of our bowlers have been struck down at some point.

It's a credit to him, and this durability will probly help him win the AB medal too.

 

[Tambaran]

Where is he at?

As a bowler, he is as inconsistent as they come. Yes, he takes wickets regularly. But how often is he a game-changer? Since South Africa, not that often it would seem. He almost has the feel of a downhill skier. He bowls more rubbish than any bowler in our team, and even the commentators have noted they've never seen a bowler who gets more wickets off rubbish balls.

It's all well and good to defend Johnson by saying "he gets wickets", but when and how he gets wickets are just as important. And to me, he hasn't been a threat often enough. Nor has he really dominated a session - especially not often enough for the senior bowler in the team.

Can we really afford a spearhead as inconsistent as Johnson going forward? You never know from one spell to the next, or even one over to the next, which Johnson is going to turn up.

Johnson is No 2 in the ICC bowling rankings. Steyn is No 1. Watch Steyn in the recent England series and ask yourself how much yawning gulf there is between No 1 and No 2.

As for his batting...his inconsistency plagues him there too. Since South Africa he seems to have made no effort to further improve his batting and has in fact gone backwards, with some absolutely awful dismissals.

Is Johnson just lazy? Disinterested in improving himself?

 

[Sylvia Saint]

But how often is he a game-changer?

MCG and SCG 4th innings of the Pakistan series for starters...

 

[Sealz]

Its a bit hard to knock Johnson... The facts are

1) he does get wickets..

2) was ICC player of the year

However, I do agree with you on some points. My main issue with Johnson is the seam position of the ball when he releases it... he just cant get it upright... not only does this ruin any chance of him getting swing in the air... it also wrecks the ball for the blokes that can (Hilfenhause, Bollinger) this was a major issue in England... where Mitchell was terrible...
He is our leading wicket taker and strike bowler... surely he should be opening the innings??? but the fact is the new ball is wasted in his hands...
In South Africa he was able to get the seam right and bowl some sensational spells... but since then it just hasn't been working...

I just feel like at the moment he is a good bowler... with the potential to be great...

 

[The 747]

He is going just fine actually. He does take wickets with rubbish deliveries but the point is that he takes wickets even when bowling badly.

Would much rather have a bowler who takes wickets and looks rubbish than a guy who looks a million dollars but gets not many out (hi Flintoff).

 

[Belnakor]

because of the angle he bowls at, alot of his wickets come from people playing shots on deliveries they should have left. Thats just the way it goes. They might be "bad" deliveries, but Mitch does deliberately bowl them out there too.

 

[Tambaran]

But look at say, Melbourne, where he was actually on target for a lot of the match, and he was much more devastating.

He has made no effort to improve and a lot of his balls are simply rubbish balls - and I doubt that's intentional.

Someone I see has already said "he gets wickets." Great, but that's the equivalent of saying because Michael Hussey was averaging 70 for ages he was better than Tendulkar. Raw stats hide realities - and those are that, more often than not, Johnson leaks runs that give the opposition confidence. He may get wickets intermittently, but rarely does he break open a game these days.

 

[saj_21]

But look at say, Melbourne, where he was actually on target for a lot of the match, and he was much more devastating.

He has made no effort to improve and a lot of his balls are simply rubbish balls - and I doubt that's intentional.

Someone I see has already said "he gets wickets." Great, but that's the equivalent of saying because Michael Hussey was averaging 70 for ages he was better than Tendulkar. Raw stats hide realities - and those are that, more often than not, Johnson leaks runs that give the opposition confidence. He may get wickets intermittently, but rarely does he break open a game these days.

Your can't compare getting wickets with a batsmens avg there is a difference. The fact is that Mitchell Johnson does "get wickets" not necessarily all the time through brillant bowling but the fact is he does get wickets and at avg 28 is not to bad.

If batsmen are stupid enough to keep nicking his wide balls to the slip cordon then why not keep bowling there! At the end of the day it doesn't matter how you get wickets as long as you get them (and they don't cost the team 50 runs a wicket a la Krezja style).

He had a disappoing Ashes and will look to redeem himself somewhat next summer when England return. He was cricketer of the year just gone. We can expect our current team to be explosive matchwinners so consistently like we did when Warne, McGrath, Gilly and Haydos were around.

And besides he will do a better job than anyone else that would come into the side. Frustrating as Johnson is he still doing a pretty good job.

 

[Cousin Jed]

He has made no effort to improve

And you know this how?

If you were following this summer you would know that 1 change the commentators highlighted was how he mad moved in alot closer to the stumps when bowling.

 

[aussie1st]

I've come to live with his lucky/rubbish wickets. The key is the other bowlers keeping it tight, as during the Ashes we had both Siddle and Johnson going at 4 an over and a few times this summer we also had that problem. That is where we start running into problems.

I agree he hasn't look like matching his spell in SA and his performance in Perth. I hope they weren't his peak as Johnson has the pace to do more damage.

Even though he had a crap Ashes his stats read 20 wickets at 32 and I believe he was equal leading wicket taker. Makes you go WTF when you see how he bowled but thats Johnson for you.

 

[Tambaran]

But that's the point I'm making - widely and generally it is acknowledged his performances in the Ashes went a long way to us losing the series.

The fact that he took 20 wickets is therefore a perfect example of Johnson's "he gets wickets" fallacy - he may take a decent amount of wickets, but he is just as likely to give the game away before he gets them with an awful spell which lets the opposition get on top and build confidence.

Hypothetical: Let's say a team is cruising at 3/330. Johnson is a large part of that, struggling with 0/56 off 10. Johnson suddenly takes the fourth and fifth wicket, and finishes up with 3/89. Unfortunately, the opposition is all out for 491 and Johnson helped them along that way with an awful opening spell, despite his latter figures looking semi-decent. Did he bowl well to get 3/89 off 20, or was he a key factor in the opposition dominating? I'd say the later, all too often with Johnson.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What has emerged over the last 12 months is that Mitchell Johnson is a very good test match bowler and worthy of his spot in the XI, but cannot be the one who leads the attack.

You can't set your watch by Johnson's performances as you could by Glenn McGrath's. You don't quite know what he is going to dish up. He could be a real handful and take a bag of wickets, he could go wicketless and for 5 runs an over, or anywhere in between.

McGrath could carry an attack and the others could bowl around him. The other bowlers' performances could ebb and flow... McGrath was the constant that held things together.

The new Australian XI is still searching for its leader. Bollinger, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Johnson... all very good bowlers but none of them genuine leaders or strike bowlers. They are all Gillespies. We are still looking for our McGrath.

 

[The_Reaper]

What has emerged over the last 12 months is that Mitchell Johnson is a very good test match bowler and worthy of his spot in the XI, but cannot be the one who leads the attack.

You can't set your watch by Johnson's performances as you could by Glenn McGrath's. You don't quite know what he is going to dish up. He could be a real handful and take a bag of wickets, he could go wicketless and for 5 runs an over, or anywhere in between.

McGrath could carry an attack and the others could bowl around him. The other bowlers' performances could ebb and flow... McGrath was the constant that held things together.

The new Australian XI is still searching for its leader. Bollinger, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Johnson... all very good bowlers but none of them genuine leaders or strike bowlers. They are all Gillespies. We are still looking for our McGrath.

I agree with this except I would consider Gillespie to be a better bowler than all of them

 

[Thommo 42]

The problem with Johnson is what he did in South Africa. We've all now seen what he is capable of and expect it all the time, and that level consistently is a big ask.

He clearly has technical issues, and when it gets in his head that he needs to swing it back into right handers and starts focusing on his action and wrist in the middle of a spell, his head goes mental and its all over.

At the end of the day, most bowlers at that pace bowl a few bad balls here and there. He might take a few wickets with bad ones, but he also takes plenty with some absolute rip snorters as well.

If we expect his level to remain at what he produced in SA, then we will be dissappointed regularly, if we can be content with him taking heaps of wickets at 27 and bowling the odd rubbish spell, we will be far easier to please.

PS: Carl Spackler, you are being very hard on Gillespie, he was a gun in his own right.

 

[Thommo 42]

Hypothetical: Let's say a team is cruising at 3/330. Johnson is a large part of that, struggling with 0/56 off 10. Johnson suddenly takes the fourth and fifth wicket, and finishes up with 3/89. Unfortunately, the opposition is all out for 491 and Johnson helped them along that way with an awful opening spell, despite his latter figures looking semi-decent. Did he bowl well to get 3/89 off 20, or was he a key factor in the opposition dominating? I'd say the later, all too often with Johnson.

He alsmot single handedly handed them the test at Lords, despite removing Cook with a ripper when they were 0-200. But the problem with this was not just him. Usually when someone bowls like that you just get them off, but Punter persisted with him. He then turned to Siddle who also bowled the worst spell of what was then a short test career. Our problem was Johnson was failing badly for the first time in a long time, and our other 2 quicks were like deer in headlights because both had never played any test cricket without Johnson, and essentially Hilfy and Siddle had played most of their cricket when Johnson was in devastating form. Suddenly they had to stand up, and they couldn't quite do it, it wasn't ideal to have 3 quicks who had 30 test between them.

Now we have Watson who adds balance, we have far more confidence in Hauritz and all of the quicks have more experience and are more likely not to freeze. Takes the pressure off Johnson a bit and also gives the backups a bit more confidence in shouldering the load when he misfires.

 

[Sylvia Saint]

He alsmot single handedly handed them the test at Lords, despite removing Cook with a ripper when they were 0-200.

I don't think that's fair. No doubting his bowling on Day 1 was some of the biggest crap you will ever see, but we actually fought back well and got them out for around 400ish.

In my opinion, our woeful batting in the first innings (all out 215 after being 8/150 odd from memory) lost us the match at Lords.

Anyway, kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand but I do think its a common misconception that Mitch Johnson was to blame for us losing the Lords test/Ashes. He was poor in spells, but our batting was what cost us.

 

[Caesar]

Didn't the C9 commentary team bring up the wicket rankings for 2009 a couple of Tests ago, and Johnson had the most wickets at the lowest average of anyone in the top 10?

I hate how he bowls, but currently the results are pretty undeniable. At the moment we have quite a few bowlers that can be relied on to keep it tight, but who aren't always surefire to take a lot of wickets. Johnson compliments them relatively well, even if he isn't particularly pretty or reliable in the way he goes about it.

At the moment, against a good batting side we really need to have Johnson if we're going to be confident of taking 20 wickets in the match.

 

[Thommo 42]

Him being expensive is actually a myth, have a look at his economy rate. Stacks up nicely against all the rother top quicks in the world.

His problem is he goes for 4 or dot ball, not many singles nudged off him!

Sylvia,

He didn't cost us the Ashes, the batsmen clearly did that. But as our spearhead he was hopeless on Day 5 in Cardiff, and then gave up any momentum we had from that game in the opening session at Lords. He is most certainly not to blame for our woeful batting in the key moments of the series.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I agree with this except I would consider Gillespie to be a better bowler than all of them

Well, over the course of his career of course he is. But for some perspective consider them at the same stage. All the others are all less than halfway through their careers and are on target to have very good records.

PS: Carl Spackler, you are being very hard on Gillespie, he was a gun in his own right.

Wasn't meant to be a criticism of Gillespie at all. He wasn't a Glenn McGrath and neither are the other four quicks we've got now... but who is? McGrath is close to the best quick in history. Falling short of him is not a failure by any means and I didn't mean to suggest so. Was merely making an observation that Gillespie was a great support act and the perfect foil for McGrath rather than our No. 1 strike bowler in his own right.

 

[Tambaran]

None of this though really argues against my suggestion that Johnson's figures hide the fact that he is regularly responsible for giving up momentum.

The 0-200 is a good example - even though we recovered to get them for 400, 400 is a big first innings score and without Johnson's profligacy they wouldn't have got there.

 

[saj_21]

In my opinion, our woeful batting in the first innings (all out 215 after being 8/150 odd from memory) lost us the match at Lords.

Anyway, kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand but I do think its a common misconception that Mitch Johnson was to blame for us losing the Lords test/Ashes. He was poor in spells, but our batting was what cost us.

Exactly right the batsmen in the 2nd and 5th test (1st innings cost us the Ashes). Our bowlers were terrific in SA, indifferent in England and with 5 wins and 1 draw from 6 tests this summer were also were good again.

None of this though really argues against my suggestion that Johnson's figures hide the fact that he is regularly responsible for giving up momentum.

The 0-200 is a good example - even though we recovered to get them for 400, 400 is a big first innings score and without Johnson's profligacy they wouldn't have got there.

That is one game only, he wasn't the only guy bowling that day that allowed england to get to 200. I agree Johnson's inconsistency is frustrating he does not have the continual line and length as McGrath but he was a freak.

You bag Johnson alot, do you think he should be dropped? Who would do a better job at taking wickets than him?

Or would you prefer a luckless but "more well bowled" Siddle over a lucky but leaky Johnson?

 

[aussie1st]

I agree Johnson can get us into a mess but would his replacement have done any better. Take that 0/200 match, they might have got their 10-20 overs later but would we have then been able to bowl them out for 400?