Mitchell Johnson v Stuart Broad

[pasag]

Johnson's the best batsman in the world, so...

 

[four_or_six]

In terms of temperament, I do really like the look of Broad. He goes about things very well for a 22-year-old. Which is presumably why he's on the management group, or whatever it is they call it.

 

[Uppercut]

Does it really matter how they look? These are identical arguments wheeled out against Hayden once upon a time.

What about temperament? Defense? Scoring zones? Nah, it's how pretty the swinging arcs look when they play strokes.

Daren Ganga and Chanderpaul are the two biggest arguments against aesthetically pretty = good. It should apply even less to tailenders.

Completely agree with this. Judge them on how many runs they score, and I'd back Johnson to score more than Broad every single time.

 

[Jigga988]

Johnson's technique is perfectly suited to his skill level and batting position. He keeps things simple, and actually appears to understand his batting game very well. Johnson removes many chances of dismissal by looking to play straight. He invariably aims somewhere between mid-on and mid-off every time he hits long. Played some rather valuable innings for Australia so far in his short career using the same method each time.

Think that's the key tbh, you'd almost always have Broad as a number 7 test batsmen if you had the choice between him and Mitchell Johnson and other successful tail enders like Taylor and Steyn...

 

[Richard]

Does it really matter how they look? These are identical arguments wheeled out against Hayden once upon a time.

What about temperament? Defense? Scoring zones? Nah, it's how pretty the swinging arcs look when they play strokes.

Daren Ganga and Chanderpaul are the two biggest arguments against aesthetically pretty = good. It should apply even less to tailenders.

Did I not fairly obviously state that how they look won't neccessarily matter? The simple truth is that to date neither have played a huge amount of cricket for which scores are available to the larger public. Thus, we don't have a hell of a lot to assess them on. So looking at their techniques, scoring zones, etc. is about all you can do in trying to guess who's going to be better.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Did I not fairly obviously state that how they look won't neccessarily matter. The simple truth is that to date neither have played a huge amount of cricket for which scores are available to the larger public. Thus, we don't have a hell of a lot to assess them on. So looking at their techniques, scoring zones, etc. is about all you can do in trying to guess who's going to be better.

You did state that, but left it at that and went back to discussing aesthetics. Seems a bit self-defeating if you're trying to determine who's better.

 

[Richard]

Not really, I didn't. People took me up on what you refer to as the "aesthetics" (I meant more "basics") so I discussed it further.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Perry Groves tbh. Broad & Johnson both tragically lacking the haircuts that resemble ginger pube stubble they'd need to rival the great man.

 

[Flem274*]

James Franklin or Jerome Taylor....

I'll go for Stuart Broad.

 

[Richard]

That was a surprisingly Phlegmatic answer.

 

[Flem274*]

That was a surprisingly Phlegmatic answer.

 

[Richard]

 

[Flem274*]

Whooooooooooooooooossssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh over my head.

 

[Richard]

Don't worry, it was a very small package that went flying.

 

[Flem274*]

Oh so we're talking about your "manly" parts are we?....

 

[NZ4life!]

I think that Broads got more talent, a better technique, and being younger and all im backing him to become the better batsman. the batting statistics are very similar and although Johnsons got a higher average, he's had more not out's. not taking anything away from johnson; anyone who gets 96 not out against south africa's doing something right...

 

[Richard]

Oh so we're talking about your "manly" parts are we?....

No-hot quite.

 

[Burgey]

TBH Broad looks a much more solid batsman, a much better technician and generally possesses a better attitude to batting than Johnson. There's no doubt Johnson can play, but I've always been surprised he's as good as he is because he essentially looks like a "give it a whack" merchant rather than a genuine batsman.

So I'd hope Broad can eventually be the better player, but being what I say above that Broad is won't always translate into such, so we can only wait and see.

That's one of the deceptive things about his batting though. His head stays almost unnaturally still at the point of delivery, he's got an eye like a dead jewfish and hits it 14,000 kilometres.

Haven't seen much of Broad batting tbh, so I can't say that one is definitively better than t'other. Though if it's a choice between an Ian Bell-style of "I look good technically but score **** all" or a Matthew Hayden-ish less stylish clubber of the ball who averages 50, well, it's not choice at all really.

 

[Richard]

Ah well, Bell and Hayden are both fairweather bullies.

Mind, I'd have a routinely unconvincing type who nonetheless scores in spades like Michael Slater over a seemingly-flawless-but-always-finding-a-way-to-get-out type like Greg Blewett.

Can't say I've studied Johnson's makeup in intimate detail TBH, just the basic outlines. And on simple basics, he certainly looks less convincing, to date, than Broad does. As I've been at pains to point-out throughout though, that doesn't neccessarily translate to better. We wait to see.

 

[Jamee999]

Can't say I've studied Johnson's makeup

I doubt he puts any on...