Mitchell Johnson v Stuart Broad

[Richard]

I doubt he even buys any... thus meaning there is no makeup that is his...

 

[Burgey]

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.

This.

On topic, they both obviously have the ability to score valuable runs. What might stop them both doing so regularly is if they get pushed into batting positions beyond their abilities. I mean, I've heard it said that Johnson is a number 7 at test level - personally I think he's short of that standard ATM, especially when you look at some of the incumbent number 7s around in world cricket atm. He might get there, but no way yet.

Of course, what's really pleasing me about Johnson atm is the fact he's starting to swing the ball back in a bit - not heaps, but enough to cause dramas.

There can be no doubt that since he took that idiotic piercing out of his chin, he's become a better cricketer.

 

[roseboy64]

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

Oh brilliantly driven through the covers there. Absolutely marvelous stroke.

 

[roseboy64]

Broad I'd have to say. Would back myself to out Johnson over him.

 

[Zinzan]

Johnson's Batting >> Broad's

Johnson's Bowling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Broad's

Johnson's Fielding >>>>>>> Broad's

IMHO

 

[Athlai]

Broad is slightly the better batsman, and will certainly finish his career as a much better batsman. Too bad about the bowling.

 

[Zinzan]

Broad is slightly the better batsman, and will certainly finish his career as a much better batsman. Too bad about the bowling.

In your opinion that is. I'm totally convinced Johnson's good enough to be a genuine all-rounder, whereas unfortunately I get the feeling that Broad isn't a good enough bowler to hold his spot for long meaning he may not get too many more innings of batting at test level.

I still reckon Johnson's marginally better than Broad with the bat

 

[NZ4life!]

In your opinion that is. I'm totally convinced Johnson's good enough to be a genuine all-rounder, whereas unfortunately I get the feeling that Broad isn't a good enough bowler to hold his spot for long meaning he may not get too many more innings of batting at test level.

You reckon? Im kinda of the opinion that if broad comes off, like southee, he's really dangerous. seem to recall him destroying the RSA in a odi in england mid last year.

 

[kingdamo]

Mitchell Johnson by a monkey tail.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Broad impresses with the broad bat, while Johnson weilds the long blade imo

 

[Richard]

You reckon? Im kinda of the opinion that if broad comes off, like southee, he's really dangerous. seem to recall him destroying the RSA in a odi in england mid last year.

ODIs and Tests aren't the same thing - in ODIs, the batting of neither is likely to be too important. Only precious rarely does a number-eight batsman play a significant part in a ODI.

Also, on CW, it's an unwritten rule of "Tests unless stated otherwise", hence this comparison refers to Tests even if ODI #8 batting was important.

 

[Prince EWS]

ODIs and Tests aren't the same thing - in ODIs, the batting of neither is likely to be too important. Only precious rarely does a number-eight batsman play a significant part in a ODI.

Also, on CW, it's an unwritten rule of "Tests unless stated otherwise", hence this comparison refers to Tests even if ODI #8 batting was important.

Given the post he quoted, I dare say he was talking about bowling. Your points still apply though, really.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, but he was responding to whether bowling (which will always remain the principle reason for their selection) was going to keep the bowler in the side. Broad's ODI bowling won't keep him in the Test side... not forever, anyway.

 

[GIMH]

Broad has shown earlier in this series that he has the makings of a good Test bowler. Sure, I'd pick Johnson now, he's about 6 years older though IIRC so there is every chance Broad will end up the better bowler IMO and tbh I find it ridiculous the way some round here wrote Broad off as a Test bowler after the South Africa series last summer. Yes, i agree he shouldn't have been playing Test cricket but it's a bit silly to assume he will never be any good.

That being said, seem to recall Mitchell Johnson's place in the Aussie side being questioned on here quite recently, so I guess people have done a quick about-turn there as well?

 

[Richard]

Yeah, 25 wickets in 3 matches tends to do that.

 

[GIMH]

Oh for sure, I'm aware that he is deservedly highly-rated. I was more attempting to point out the danger of making quick assumptions as to a player's quality.

 

[Richard]

The sensible view about Johnson throughout his first 13 Tests was that he had some promise but lacked a fair bit.

Pretty much the same as Broad really. Only Johnson had a few more wickets gifted him than Broad has done.

In fact Johnson still has some gifted to him by batsmen driving balls you'd expect them to leave. It's his classic sucker-punch, although interestingly this ongoing Test I've seen him several times get the ball to swing into the right-hander, rather than his stock-ball which is to make it cut away.

Broad generally has been played pretty well, hence his average was fairly close to being a fair reflection in his first 10 Tests, though it was 50 and would've been 60 but for a couple of occasions he got the chance to bowl at the tail after being his usual ineffective self against the top-order.

 

[GIMH]

I think those times he was used to clean up the tail were invaluable and helped him to keep some confidence. I know some people felt that the other bowlers who had bowled well throughout (Anderson and Sidebottom?) should have been given the chance to get a fifer, but I personally felt it was shrewd captaincy to allow Broad to try (successfully) and take those wickets. He's certainly coming on, and obviously confidence will help that no end.

 

[Richard]

I'm never, ever in favour of ANYTHING that is attempted to make a bowler who's bowled poorly look like he's bowled OK. There were 3 separate Tests where this has happened BTW - Third Test in New Zealand, Fourth Test at home to SA and 1 other which I can't remember OTTOMH.

It's very dangerous to try to manufacture good figures for a bowler by allowing them to bowl at the tail to try to find an excuse to keep them in the team, rather than allowing the game (or, at least, the opposition batsmen) to make its own judgement and then picking the team thereafter.

 

[grant28]

As a batsmen? Broad all the way!