Mitchell Johnson v Stuart Broad

[ozone]

Now before a load of angry Australians start ranting about how Broad will never be as good a bowler as Johnson is now, this is not a comparison of the two as bowlers. It is also not a comparison of their fielding abilities, temperaments or anything else like that. The only thing that I am comparing the two on, is there batting ability, and how valuable they are as a test match number 7/8/9.

Without taking too much notice of statistics (both have had relatively short test careers to date, therefore averages may just be inflated), which would you prefer to have coming in when the side is in need of runs? And do either of them have a viable chance of becoming a test standard (bowling) all-rounder?

 

[four_or_six]

Think their batting is quite a similar standard. I guess being about 5 years younger, you might think that Broad has more room for improvement.

 

[Perm]

Johnson, easily.

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[Perm]

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.

Haha, no way. He definitely bats like a batsman, he just smashes the ball when he plays an attacking shot.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's interesting. Neither played that much First Class cricket before being picked in their respective Test teams and Johnson in particular batted way down the order for Queensland due to their absurd amount of established allrounders. As such, neither really did much with the bat in First Class cricket and their records at that level don't really do them justice.

I think it's pretty damn close, but I'm going to go with Johnson, just.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Johnson looked that way in his early Test innings because he often came in with Australia chasing quick runs or found himself running out of partners. He's shown since then, though, that he's quite capable of playing a "proper" looking innings when the situation suits - his partnership with North in the Test much currently being played being a prime example. He can launch when he needs to, but that's something that should add to his reputation rather than detract from it given he can play normally with a very good technique as well.

I agree that Broad seems to take it more seriously and looks slightly better technically but Johnson is certainly not just a "give it a whack merchant".

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

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.

Johnson has extremely good technique, not sure what you're watching.

 

[Uppercut]

Johnson's definitely better for me.

 

[Richard]

Haha, no way. He definitely bats like a batsman, he just smashes the ball when he plays an attacking shot.

That's moreoreless the point. When playing attacking strokes, he often just has a big swing rather than playing "proper" shots. Doesn't make him much less effective, but it does

Another point on Broad is that he essentially gave-up batting for a couple of years. He was an opening-batsman until the age of, IIRR, about 16, but after his bowling developed he left it be for a couple of years concentrating on his bowling.

 

[Richard]

Johnson has extremely good technique, not sure what you're watching.

He may not have a poor one, but Broad's is certainly better.

 

[ozone]

He may not have a poor one, but Broad's is certainly better.

I agree, Broad is technically very good whilst Johnson is only OK. Not neccessarily saying that makes Broad better mind, otherwise Ian Bell would be a world beater.

 

[Perm]

That's moreoreless the point. When playing attacking strokes, he often just has a big swing rather than playing "proper" shots. Doesn't make him much less effective, but it does.

No, he doesn't have a big swing. He plays an aggressive shot and belts the leather off the ball. It's still a 'proper' shot, whatever that term means.

 

[Jigga988]

Misread the forum and voted for Mitch, but I would put Broad above him in terms of technical batting ability. The guy technically plays some class shots, and I would say he has a better defence. With Mitch, you're just waiting for him to get out, and credit to him he just doesn't....

Played and missed quite a bit in that innings of 96, early on when trying to defend, and I reckon looks more solid playing aggressive strokes where as Broad looks more solid in defence, though he also plays his strokes.

Broad will be better no doubt, but atm it's quite even and Mitch will probobly be more likely to score more runs right now because of his ability to switch gears...

 

[zaremba]

I really haven't seen much of Johnson batting. Broad is a good player though, has a good batting record in Tests, and looks the part.

 

[Noble One]

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.

 

[Richard]

No, he doesn't have a big swing. He plays an aggressive shot and belts the leather off the ball. It's still a 'proper' shot, whatever that term means.

Generally refers to playing through rather than accross the line of the ball. Also, though, it refers to whether you swing hard with a big backlift or look for maximum timing.

Johnson does both of those far less than Broad. This doesn't neccessarily have much effect on your effectiveness, but it does make you look more manufactured and less natural.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Used to be quite legside biased but we're also seeing a fair few more shots through the offside. Saw some Jayasuriya-esque slashes yesterday.

They're both quite good with the bat. Too close to call, for mine.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Johnson looked that way in his early Test innings because he often came in with Australia chasing quick runs or found himself running out of partners. He's shown since then, though, that he's quite capable of playing a "proper" looking innings when the situation suits - his partnership with North in the Test much currently being played being a prime example. He can launch when he needs to, but that's something that should add to his reputation rather than detract from it given he can play normally with a very good technique as well.

I agree that Broad seems to take it more seriously and looks slightly better technically but Johnson is certainly not just a "give it a whack merchant".

1000xthis.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

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.