Mitchell Johnson

[Gunnar Longshanks]

No complaints about Johnson's efforts in India so far.

He's been outstanding.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Bump

 

[OzBomber]

Bump

4 minute bump eh? That's something you don't see often.

 

[Bombers_Forever]

Johnson yet again proving a lot of his critics wrong

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Johnson yet again proving a lot of his critics wrong

In what sense?

If the critics were merely pointing out that Johnson struggled prior to this series, they were absolutely right and still are.

 

[Dez!]

In what sense?

If the critics were merely pointing out that Johnson struggled prior to this series, they were absolutely right and still are.

In the sense that he has what it takes to succeed in the Test arena, which right now he is proving that he belongs.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

In the sense that he has what it takes to succeed in the Test arena, which right now he is proving that he belongs.

I don't think many people questioned Johnson's potential.

It was just his lack of consistency that was frustrating.

Hopefully this series in India marks his emergence as a Test-class bowler.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

I don't think many people questioned Johnson's potential.

It was just his lack of consistency that was frustrating.

Hopefully this series in India marks his emergence as a Test-class bowler.

Come off it, most of this board were basically saying that he couldn't bowl. Some said it directly, while others, such as yourself, alluded to it but didnt say it as such.

"Lack of Consistency"? How can you say that after 9 test matchs. You could call someone like Steve Harmison inconsistent as his been in the game for the best part of 7 years.

But a 9 test rookie? Come off it.


His taken 8 off the wickets to fall so far out of 20 Indian wickets. His been our fastest bowler but realy i never doubted him, his a proud Queenslander so it was only a matter of time.

Starting a thread like "Will the selectors FAITH in Johnson be repaid" basically alludes to the fact that a certain poster thinks that a certain bowler doesnt deserve to be in the team.

THis thread has proven what a poor judge of cricket you are.

You have pwned yourself.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

I reckon Johnson could go either way.

He could develop into a world-class quick, but I just wonder how long he has to deliver.

He'll turn 27 in November. Still young enough, but he's not a kid. By now, he should be able to bowl line and length and put the ball in the right areas.

I hear all the arguments for his retention. He's a talent. He adds variety. We have to persist with younger cricketers. He's only played a handful of Tests. That's all well and good, but surely those considerations shouldn't keep him in the side indefinitely. At some point he actually has to justify his selection with performances.

I'm not a Johnson-hater. It might all click for him once he's played 15-odd Tests. I think he's shown a bit, but it's been patchy, and a lot of his Test wickets have been cheap ones or tailenders.

And it's not as though the fast bowling cupboard is bare. There are quite a few guys behind Johnson who seem pretty capable, many of whom have superior FC records:


If Johnson continues to blow hot and cold, nursing an average in the low 30s, surely one of these other guys deserves a crack at some stage.

Johnson may yet come good - I'm not drawing a line through him. But these other guys might well offer more. We can't continue to pick Johnson based on what he might do forever.

It will be interesting to see if Johnson's curve heads upwards over the next 12 months. Is he likely to be part of our best attack come the Ashes in 2009?

If I had to make a prediction, I would probably lean towards Johnson continuing to frustrate. That said, I am prepared for him to embarrass me.

A typical Longshanks post full of here and there statements. The bold statements indicate his fence sitting nature.

The last one is my favourite.

PWNED.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Come off it, most of this board were basically saying that he couldn't bowl. Some said it directly, while others, such as yourself, alluded to it but didnt say it as such.

Oh, we're dealing in allusions now, are we?

"Lack of Consistency"? How can you say that after 9 test matchs. You could call someone like Steve Harmison inconsistent as his been in the game for the best part of 7 years.

His bowling at Test level was hit-and-miss. He struggled to find a good rhythm and bowled too many bad balls. That's what I mean by "inconsistent".

Starting a thread like "Will the selectors FAITH in Johnson be repaid" basically alludes to the fact that a certain poster thinks that a certain bowler doesnt deserve to be in the team.

Is that right?

Is this going to be your new modus operandi?

Responding not to what people actually post, but to some subtext that only you can discern?

That will make for some interesting, fact-filled discussions. Sounds like your bullshit-dependence issues just got ratcheted up a couple of notches.

The question posed in this thread was fair, neutral and legitimate.

THis thread has proven what a poor judge of cricket you are.

You have pwned yourself.

Pretty flimsy "proof".

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

A typical Longshanks post full of here and there statements. The bold statements indicate his fence sitting nature.

What you call "fence-sitting", I call a balanced, thoughtful opinion that takes account of several different factors.

I didn't have a black-and-white view on Johnson. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Opinions don't have to be divided into "he's shit" versus "he's awesome".

If you want fence-sitting, maybe we should relive your little flip-flop on Cameron White.

Most people criticise me for being too opinionated, so I can't take this charge of "not having enough of an opinion" very seriously.

The last one is my favourite.

PWNED.

Gee, the benchmark for pwnage is pretty low these days.

I didn't call for Johnson to be dropped. I didn't say "he's a dud". Quite the opposite - I acknowledged his talent throughout.

But apparently I got pwned because he's taken some wickets in India?

Get real.

You try too hard, champ.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

I dont have to try hard at all, CHAMP. You do it for me.

The question posed originally is basically a call for Johnson to get dropped. FFS, you even listed off several bowlers who had better FC records then Johnson.

"A balanced thoughtful" opinion, what a ****ing classic. This balanced thoughtful opinion is full of statements that really say nothing.

Take this masterpiece.

I'm not a Johnson-hater. It might all click for him once he's played 15-odd Tests. I think he's shown a bit, but it's been patchy, and a lot of his Test wickets have been cheap ones or tailenders.

Im not a Johnson-hater.. but a lot of his test wixkets have been cheap ones or tailenders.

What the **** do you expect from a bowler who at the time had played a handful of tests. Did you expect him to come in and start tearing teams apart.

His bowling at Test level was hit-and-miss. He struggled to find a good rhythm and bowled too many bad balls. That's what I mean by "inconsistent".

You could apply that to many first up players at test level. Brett Lee was like that for years before coming good about 2 years ago. Jason Gillespie was also very wayward at first. Simon Jones sprayed them everywhere at first.

You calling a 9 test player inconsistent doesnt mean much. It is expected that raw bowlers will be inconsistent and will spray them at first. The OP is not a balanced opinion at all, it's all but saying Johnson should be replaced. Many including me said that he would be a key in India and he has been so far and will continue to be.

Your here and there posts are hilarious reading. You hardly ever give a concrete view or a prediction using your cricket knowledge. You cite a shitlaod of stats but they mean next to **** all in cricket especially when you include young players.

Admit it, you thought Johnson would be a hack and a liability on this tour. He has kept us in the game so far.

In future try and put forward an opinion without having a bit each way.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

HAHA

Gunnar voted "No" in the original poll.

Well, well well.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I dont have to try hard at all, CHAMP. You do it for me.

The question posed originally is basically a call for Johnson to get dropped.

Sure, if you ignore the parts where I say "I don't think he should be dropped".

"Im not a Johnson-hater.. but a lot of his test wixkets have been cheap ones or tailenders."

What the **** do you expect from a bowler who at the time had played a handful of tests. Did you expect him to come in and start tearing teams apart.

Merely pointing out that his performances hadn't been up to scratch and that he would need to improve in order to cement his spot.

I don't see the problem with that sentiment.

You could apply that to many first up players at test level. Brett Lee was like that for years before coming good about 2 years ago. Jason Gillespie was also very wayward at first. Simon Jones sprayed them everywhere at first.

Fair enough - but that doesn't make my comment untrue or incorrect.

It is expected that raw bowlers will be inconsistent and will spray them at first. The OP is not a balanced opinion at all, it's all but saying Johnson should be replaced.

Er, no - it isn't.

You're just ignoring the parts of my posts that don't suit your argument.

Standard.

You hardly ever give a concrete view or a prediction using your cricket knowledge.

Funny stuff.

Tell that to the mods who threaten to ban me for being too opinionated.

Admit it, you thought Johnson would be a hack and a liability on this tour.

You're already reduced to this? Telling me what I thought?

I never thought Johnson was a hack. I acknowledged his talent throughout. I did, however, think that his performances had been pretty ragged, particularly against the Windies, who are crap.

India was always going to be a pivotal tour for him, but I wouldn't say I expected him to be a liability. If anything, I thought it might suit him. But he needed to deliver - that was always going to be the bottom line. So far this series, he's done that, even though it's still early days.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

HAHA

Gunnar voted "No" in the original poll.

Well, well well.

Yeah - what's your point?

Is that a secret?

Great detective work from you there, Mr CSI.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

My point is that your original post seemed to be a not to subtle hint that you wouldnt mind looking at other bowlers other then Johnson.

I point that you fence sit is the fact that you put little get out clauses into your posts that go against the main grain of the post so you can quote them later on.

Your first post in this thread is littered with them. The fact you voted No in the poll showed that your judgement was that he wouldnt cut the mustard.

It is totally stupid and beyond logical thought for people to make final judgements on players after several games. These critics are just n00bs. People like Dennis Lillee have been pushing his case for years, he obviously sees something there.

Just because he didnt get a 10fer in his first game doesnt mean he cant bowl.

For what its worth, i dont even think his first handful of test matchs were that bad. He got some wickets and he should have got a few more if not for dropped catchs and a few no balls.

Nice to see Longshanks get PWNED, even better that he PWNED himself.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

My point is that your original post seemed to be a not to subtle hint that you wouldnt mind looking at other bowlers other then Johnson.

Absolutely. That's not the same as saying "Johnson should be dropped immediately".

If Johnson had continued to be hit-and-miss, it would be crazy of us not to have a look at the other options before the Ashes.

I don't think that's a controversial suggestion.

I point that you fence sit is the fact that you put little get out clauses into your posts that go against the main grain of the post so you can quote them later on.

Well, that was my opinion at the time. Why would I make it more simplistic than it needed to be? Why would I airbrush out the conflicting factors?

I had a view on Johnson's performances, but was also aware of his potential.

What kind of black-and-white conclusion should I have drawn?

As you say, he hadn't played enough Tests to make a concrete assessment, but nor had his performances been up to scratch.

Your first post in this thread is littered with them. The fact you voted No in the poll showed that your judgement was that he wouldnt cut the mustard.

My judgement was that Johnson was more likely to frustrate than to develop into a world-class quick.

I know you're desperate to claim vindication as early as you can, but I don't think that question has yet been comprehensively answered. Johnson looks to have turned a corner in India, but it's going to take more than one good series for him to shut the gate completely.

It is totally stupid and beyond logical thought for people to make final judgements on players after several games.

I agree completely.

That's why I didn't offer a black-and-white assessment on Johnson. I didn't offer a final judgement.

You've bagged me for refusing to offer that final judgement, for "fence-sitting", but here you concede that that more cautious assessment was the only sensible perspective I could have offered.

Thank you for endorsing my position.

Just because he didnt get a 10fer in his first game doesnt mean he cant bowl.

I didn't say that he couldn't bowl.

I acknowledged his talent throughout.

For what its worth, i dont even think his first handful of test matchs were that bad. He got some wickets and he should have got a few more if not for dropped catchs and a few no balls.

He was pretty poor in the West Indies.

Nice to see Longshanks get PWNED, even better that he PWNED himself.

You are a desperate man, clinging to imaginary victories.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Champ, Johnson has kept us in this series so far.

Your thread OP has been blown apart.

Nuff said.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Champ, Johnson has kept us in this series so far.

He's been our best-performed bowler.

I wouldn't say he's "kept us in the series".

Your thread OP has been blown apart.

Hardly.

If I had said, "Johnson is shit - drop him", you could say it was blown apart.

But that wasn't what I said.

I don't think I can actually find anything in that OP that is demonstrably wrong. You certainly haven't been able to point to anything.

Your main charge is that I sat on the fence, but you then insist that final judgements can't be made on emerging players. So how can you criticise me for not offering a black-and-white assessment?

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Let me break it down.

YOUR OP to me, and no doubt many others, seemed to suggest that Johnson didnt have what it takes and that at 27 he wasnt a spring chicken and that we should look at other options with a view to the 2009 Ashes.

Your this main topic was pushed heavily in the OP post, however several little countercurrent lines were posted. Such as the line where you say your not a Johnson hater but that his wickets had been tailenders and what not. There is no doubt your OP was based on the fact that he hadnt performed to what you thought was required and as such you were basically saying that you wanted him out and you wanted another bowler from your selection in.

Obviously, this assertion after 9 games is totally stupid. Of course thats why you didnt name the thread something like "Give Johnson the heave ho" which was the favourite cricket BF way of naming a thread to get rid of a player.

My main point is all of your posts are like this. They have some here and some there. Basically whatever happens you can defend yourself and say "oh i didnt say that", exactly as you are doing know.

There is no doubt your OP was calling for Johnsone to be replaced. No doubt at all. You can posture all you want. It's like a person missing out on a job and getting told that "you'll be first in line next time". Or a person missing out on a team and getting told that "you did all the right things but we decided this was the way to go".

Basically its a way of telling someone that they didnt succeed without being to blunt.

Thats originally what your post reminded me of with lines like "Im not a Johnson hater and "His a talent"

Lets not beat around the bush, you were calling for his head. No doubt at all.

So far he has got 8 wickets, sure 2 of them were a bit lucky, but his bounce got those wickets and his pace has been very consistent and his got some fine top order players out.

His improved greatly since his debut.

His going to be a good bowler for us, no doubt in my mind, he'll play 60 odd tests and take 200 odd wickets.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Surely you can admit that your first post and your vote in the poll signifies that you didnt THINK he had what was required.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

A typical Longshanks post full of here and there statements. The bold statements indicate his fence sitting nature.

The last one is my favourite.

PWNED.

No-one's writing him off. But it's entirely legitimate to ask whether he is our best option as the third quick. Something's wrong if that question doesn't get asked.

You say his performances were respectable. I'd say they were patchy:

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerProgressBowl.asp?PlayerID=3334

Flattered by knocking over quite a few tailenders.

After several tests?

Really Gunnar.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

I read the match thread after I posted in here

I really don't care Gunnar, I just found it interesting that every morning I get to work and I check here, and what do you know you've bumped all 8 Johnson threads on here with "he's bowled rubbish" "he's taken 6 wickets at 38 in this series needs to do more" "Surely Noffke or Bollinger can do this" "He's making Clark and Lee do everything" and then he gets 4/40 and nothing.

Gunnar is on a crusade.

Its not different to Gavaskar whinging about every decision that goes against India but shutting up when they go against the Aussies.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

GUNNAR HAS BEEN PWNED.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

YOUR OP to me, and no doubt many others, seemed to suggest that Johnson didnt have what it takes and that at 27 he wasnt a spring chicken and that we should look at other options with a view to the 2009 Ashes.

What I actually said was that his performances hadn't been up to the mark, and if he continued at that level, we'd have to look at other players before the 2009 Ashes.

Perfectly legitimate.

Your this main topic was pushed heavily in the OP post, however several little countercurrent lines were posted. Such as the line where you say your not a Johnson hater but that his wickets had been tailenders and what not.

Merely reinforcing that his performances hadn't been good enough to cement a spot.

Again, perfectly legitimate.

There is no doubt your OP was based on the fact that he hadnt performed to what you thought was required and as such you were basically saying that you wanted him out and you wanted another bowler from your selection in.

You're paraphrasing here, right?

Because I didn't actually say "Johnson should be dropped".

Before you start throwing around sweeping terms like "there is no doubt that...", and "you were basically saying...", you should at least be upfront about what I actually said or didn't say.

You're paraphrasing. It's lazy and doshonest.

How about you respond to stuff I actually said?

Obviously, this assertion after 9 games is totally stupid.

What assertion?

Your whole criticism in recent posts was that I wasn't prepared to make any assertions.

Your whole criticism was that I wasn't prepared to make a black-and-white assessment.

But now you talk about "this assertion" as though I've been drawing strident conclusions.

Can't have it both ways.

My main point is all of your posts are like this.

Well, that is simply incorrect.

They have some here and some there. Basically whatever happens you can defend yourself and say "oh i didnt say that", exactly as you are doing know.

I expect people to respond to stuff I actually said.

Why shouldn't I?

If you're not sharp enough to pin me down in an argument, that's your problem.

There is no doubt your OP was calling for Johnsone to be replaced. No doubt at all.

Except I never said that.

How can there be "no doubt", when you're just paraphrasing?

Lets not beat around the bush, you were calling for his head. No doubt at all.

How many times do you want to repeat the same vapid, baseless argument?

I actually said the opposite of this.

I said, "I don't think Johnson should be dropped."

For you to keep ignoring this is inadequate.

Do you really think you can make an effective argument that relies on you telling me what I was thinking? Seriously?