Should Mitchell Johnson bat at seven?

[CatManDo]

As long as Johnson is still developing his bowling, and I think he has alot of improvement left in him, then it would be a dumb move to push him up the order and place extra expectation on his shoulders. He has scored some great runs for us at 8, so leave him be. It's not the first time a bowler has looked the goods with the bat and it won't be the last.

What happens if Haddin's purple patch suddenly ends? We would suddenly be light on in the middle order and calls for an 'all rounder' would start all over again.

The balance in this current side is just about right. The poster above listed a very good side.

Siddle is a direct in/out with Lee - if and when Lee returns fully fit.

MacDonald and Hilfenhouse are the other two bowling spots that are uncertain - Clarke would take one when he returns from injury... and in the event that a specialist spinner is required, then McGain could take the other one.

But more than happy for Hilfenhouse to be given an extended run with an eye to playing in England.

 

[BigCat2]

Leave Mitch at 8. He's a useful lower order hitter like Warney a decade ago, but you shouldn't be depending on him to score runs.

Too much batting responsibility on him and he could turn into an Irfan Pathan, just starting to look the goods as a bowler then falls away.

Even Daniel Vettori, who has averaged 37.5 in his last 41 matches, bats at 8 for NZ.

 

[oc37]

Nope.

He can bat at 8 and i'm happy. He's NOT an allrounder, he's handy with the bat though.

He has earnt the number 8 spot ahead of lee now though.

I agree 8, and Lee is a moot point, i'd never play him again. These three have looked good, and i would take Stuart Clark first anyway, but even then i'd be tempted to stay with status qou. Lee hasnt palyed well for two- three series, even before the injury.

 

[Zarrix]

Keep him at 8, we have Haddin who is more than capable at no.7, and we shouldn't be dropping a genuine batsman at this stage anyway. I got two names for you guys, Andrew Flintoff and Irfan Pathan. If we expect Johnson to be like the former, he will most likely turn out to be the latter.

For those who don't know, Irfan Pathan is an Indian fast bowler. He had a bit of batting potential, so the coaching stafff forced him to focus on it. Irfan was also an audacious swinger of the ball, and took a hattrick against Pakistan in 2006. Once he focused on batting as well, his batting average went up substantially, but his bowling, his main asset, went to the dogs. I don't want mark II.

 

[DaRick]

No, #8 (at most) or #9 is perfectly appropriate, although the tail does become a little long if we play him at #8. Given the inconsistent performances by our top order, that is something that worries me a touch. The lower order played a large part in our victory here (and indeed, our victory in Sydney, too).

On the other hand, McDonald, while being a little unlucky (receiving a peach in the first innings), looks out of his depth.

 

[Zarrix]

Mcdonald's bowling looks decent enough, but he isn't test level without some decent batting, which doesn't look too flash tbh. Johnson moves up to 8, another specialist bowler in the team, its all good.

 

[Spudregus_87]

Short answer: No.

Johnson should stay at his customary #8 spot, because at this stage of his career, he's a frontline bowler with a handy batting technique, capable of scoring big 50+. As one poster stated, if Johnson bats at 8, any runs he makes are a bonus, but if he were to bat any higher, there would be an expectation put upon him to score runs.

I read a few days ago the HS compared MJ's stats to that of Flintoff. If the media don't make a big deal of his all-rounder potential (ie. stop comparing him to one of the best 2-3 modern all-rounders), he will continue to score 'handy' runs, and maybe even 5-6 centuries over the course of his career, batting at #8. One only needs to look at the stress and injuries that have plagued Flintoff's career to realise that the less pressure put on MJ the better.

 

[DIG]

Off topic slightly but had Johnson made the extra 4 runs to get a century, plus taken 2 more wickets in the test he would've been only the 3rd player ever to make a century and take 10 wickets in a test.

Botham and Imran Khan the first two.

He's certainly stepped up for us superbly this summer, still been inconsistent at times with his bowling but has smoothed that out considerably compared to a year ago.

 

[Rooface]

Being the allrounder that he is, yes.
Or if he stays at 8, score's quickly before running out of partners. Its all good with him in the team. McDonald's doin ok today so a ton is within reach for Johnson. Maybe both.

 

[Rooface]

A Century for Mitchell Johnson against quality opposition. The All Rounder

 

[Bartram_Class]

Needs to be batting higher.

He's been left stranded twice this series, what more proof is needed? Bat him at 7, and have the bowling all-rounder (eg. McDonald) at 8.

 

[red+black]

Needs to be batting higher.

He's been left stranded twice this series, what more proof is needed? Bat him at 7, and have the bowling all-rounder (eg. McDonald) at 8.

You assume that our team must have a bowling all-rounder. If North And Clark come back for the two Mc's, then I reckon a case could be made for MJ at 7 and Haddin at 8.

 

[jko'neal]

It will be piss funny if Johnson plays test cricket on the small grounds in New Zealand. The lost ball rule may come into affect

 

[kane249]

What an innings by the proud West Australian

 

[coke_zero]

that was a fair effort. but why was hilfenhaus going to smash it why wouldn't you block out the day.[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Heisenberg_]

that was a fair effort. but why was hilfenhaus going to smash it why wouldn't you block out the day.

Whats the point, Hilfenhaus is a horrible bat and they were not going to get close to a win let alone a draw with 1 wicket in hand and still behind South Africas 1 innings

 

[fraser25]

Yes, we've been looking so long for our Flintoff and have finally found him, time to actually use him as one. However, it depends on who follows in the tail

If its

8. Lee
9. Hauritz (40 in his last innings)
10. Siddle
11. Clark

then yes no problems

But if it's

8. Siddle
9. McGain
10. Hilfenhaus
11. Clark

then no thanks.

FWIW I would have the first lineup before the second on their bowling abilities anyway.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

you really dont know anything about cricket. Johnson is handy, nothing more nothing less. He is australias version of nicky boje, even then boje has international tons to his name and he only ever got to bat at 9. You do this and your batting suffers a shitload.

I think you should stop "thinking".

Bump!

 

[aussie1st]

Haddin at 6 doesn't give me much confidence, if it was Gilly then no problems but Haddin concentration means he will struggle to make the 100s we need from the number 6.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Haddin at 6 doesn't give me much confidence, if it was Gilly then no problems but Haddin concentration means he will struggle to make the 100s we need from the number 6.

He has to get runs to keep his spot in the side as his wicketkeeping is not up to scratch. If he can't hold down six, then he gets the flick.

 

[courtjester]

Yes, we've been looking so long for our Flintoff and have finally found him, time to actually use him as one. However, it depends on who follows in the tail

If its

8. Lee
9. Hauritz (40 in his last innings)
10. Siddle
11. Clark

then yes no problems

But if it's

8. Siddle
9. McGain
10. Hilfenhaus
11. Clark

then no thanks.

FWIW I would have the first lineup before the second on their bowling abilities anyway.

That's all well and good but it leaves us a bit light on for batting in the top of the order, which must comprise:

Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
North
Haddin

We lost this test because we failed to make runs.

 

[Funkalicous]

Keep him at 8. Personally I believe Shane Watson is in our best 11 and is the allrounder we need. Mitch is just a bonus. Throw in Hauritz who I rate as a batsmen and a tidy bowler, and that's becoming one deep batting side.

Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Watson
Haddin
Johnson
Hauritz
Lee/Siddle/Clark/Hilfenhaus
Lee/Siddle/Clark/Hilfenhaus

 

[fraser25]

That's all well and good but it leaves us a bit light on for batting in the top of the order, which must comprise:

Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
North
Haddin

We lost this test because we failed to make runs.

So what, we won the previous three because we made plenty of runs. You win some you lose some. TBH I think the selectors will go your way, they just don't have the balls to pull such a thing in an important series like the Ashes.

Though I would settle for the six batsman thing but not three quicks and an all-rounder. Johnson batting at nine is ludicrous, where is the law that says we can't play four quicks if they're our four best frontline bowlers, I dont understand it. I also think Katich is a two wicket-per game spinner and it's frustrating to no end to see him being continously underbowled.

 

[fraser25]

Keep him at 8. Personally I believe Shane Watson is in our best 11 and is the allrounder we need. Mitch is just a bonus. Throw in Hauritz who I rate as a batsmen and a tidy bowler, and that's becoming one deep batting side.

Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Watson
Haddin
Johnson
Hauritz
Lee/Siddle/Clark/Hilfenhaus
Lee/Siddle/Clark/Hilfenhaus

Forgot about Watson, yeah he's not any worse than North as a batsman even if he's unfit to bowl.

 

[saj_21]

He has to be classed as an all rounder now, unlucky not get two tons this series, agv's 35 with the bat 28 with the ball.

The problem with Johnson at 7 is it means haddin is at 6.