Mitchell Johnson vs Allan Davidson

[aussie]

I showed my white gramps who had the great privilege of seeing Allan Davidson bowl & bat in 1963 here in England. We where just watching back Johnosn spell in the 2nd test & his batting in the 3rd test.

And boyyyy old guy was going off & was adamant that Johnson has better attributes than Davo based on what he has seen without a doubt.

I personally would say i'd wait until the Ashes this summer is over to start making comparison with Johnson to Davo, but i always put eye-witness over stats & i rate my gramps views on cricket very highly even though he is 77. The way he was going off prompted me to bring up this thread this early.

So post away killas...

[gwo]

You said it yourself.

Impressed with his performances to date (which is why I'm raving about him).

But to seriously compare him to past greats like DAVO is madness spawned from sparta.

Give him a few months yet.

[oldmancraigy]

Originally Posted by aussie

I showed my white gramps who had the great privilege of seeing Allan Davidson bowl & bat in 1963 here in England. We where just watching back Johnosn spell in the 2nd test & his batting in the 3rd test.

And boyyyy old guy was going off & was adamant that Johnson has better attributes than Davo based on what he has seen without a doubt.

I personally would say i'd wait until the Ashes this summer is over to start making comparison with Johnson to Davo, but i always put eye-witness over stats & i rate my gramps views on cricket very highly even though he is 77. The way he was going off prompted me to bring up this thread this early.

So post away killas...

Even if you look at the stats, there's something to be made of the comparison...

Davidson averaged 25 with the bat - including 5 fifties. And 20 with the ball, including 14 five wicket hauls and 6 other four wicket hauls.

Johnson has just shy of half as many tests - but averages 35 with the bat (3 fiftes and a century) and 28 with the ball (2 five wicket hauls and 8 other four wicket hauls).

On paper it looks like Davidson was streets ahead as a bowler - yet Johnson has a better strike rate (56-62) - so in terms of getting a wicket, your gramps might be on to something there. But Davidson reigned supreme on economy - only 1.97 runs per over.

It looks like Johnson is ahead of Davidson in terms of runs scored and number of wickets taken - but Davidsons ability to tie up an end makes him one of the greats as a left arm quick.

I never saw Davidson play live - only highlights, and he's a superb cricketer. At this stage it looks like Mitchell Johnson is "of the same ilk" in terms of ability to score runs and take wickets as a left hand fast man.

Dennis Lillee's got to be happy that he tagged Mitchell as a "once in a generation cricketer".

[archie mac]

Davidson was also a great fielder, and played for longer than 5 mins

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Originally Posted by archie mac

Davidson was also a great fielder, and played for longer than 5 mins

Nothing wrong with Mitch's fielding. One of the best I've ever seen for a fast bowler (obviosly never saw Davidson but presume that at best he was as good as Johnson)

Agree totally that this debate is very premature. Davidson played for Australia for ten or so years. Johnson has only 2 years. This debate is atleast 5 years off.

[Craig]

Johnson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wasim Akram



























(Yes that was in jest)

[chaminda_00]

Both have nothing on Vaas.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Trumpers_Ghost

Nothing wrong with Mitch's fielding. One of the best I've ever seen for a fast bowler (obviosly never saw Davidson but presume that at best he was as good as Johnson)

Agree totally that this debate is very premature. Davidson played for Australia for ten or so years. Johnson has only 2 years. This debate is atleast 5 years off.

Not in the class of Davidson who is considered one of the best catches, but yes nothing wrong with MJs fielding, although I don't recall saying there was?

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Originally Posted by archie mac

Not in the class of Davidson who is considered one of the best catches, but yes nothing wrong with MJs fielding, although I don't recall saying there was?

Didn't mean to imply that you were. Just the language I used I guess :"nothing wrong with" rather than "he's pretty good too". You know that kind of relaxed, understated expression. This comparison is difficult as bowlers don't tend to spend much time in gully these days, but I just have a suspicion (based on nothing more than what I've seen of his general fielding), that Mitch would be very effective there also.

I certainly wouldn't say not in the same class as I would need a first hand (or even second hand) account of watching both of them move, catch and throw. [calling Richie Benaud!]

Probable that both are atleast in the same ballpark.

[chaminda_00]

Davidson a class above, one of top gully fielders of all time for Australia. He is in the Benaud, Steve Waugh, Hayden class.

[Xuhaib]

Originally Posted by Craig

Johnson >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wasim Akram

ind33d.

[archie mac]

Originally Posted by Trumpers_Ghost

Didn't mean to imply that you were. Just the language I used I guess :"nothing wrong with" rather than "he's pretty good too". You know that kind of relaxed, understated expression. This comparison is difficult as bowlers don't tend to spend much time in gully these days, but I just have a suspicion (based on nothing more than what I've seen of his general fielding), that Mitch would be very effective there also.

I certainly wouldn't say not in the same class as I would need a first hand (or even second hand) account of watching both of them move, catch and throw. [calling Richie Benaud!]

Probable that both are atleast in the same ballpark.

Yes it is surprising they no longer field there, Joel Garner was the best I ever saw in the position

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Originally Posted by archie mac

Yes it is surprising they no longer field there, Joel Garner was the best I ever saw in the position

was the best fast bowler I saw in the position too, although his teamate Harper (when called into the team as a specialist fielder) usually fielded there and he was even better.

Mind you, I can't think of anyone else that was/is considerably better than Garner.

The main reason I guess for them to field Garner at Gully was the 5 slips, 2 gullies kinda mentallity they had at the time required fast bowlers to field in catching positions, and those giant hands never let anything through.

[sammy2]

Johnson is garbage, these same members wanted him off the team one year ago when he was playing in the west indies.

[Hoggy31]

What did your purple gramps have to say?