Johnson vs broad

[marc71178]

In 2010, An year when many considered Broad an improved bowler, he has taken 26 wickets in 10 matches @ 37.7 with no 5-fers,

I've said it before and I'll say it again - try watching the game rather than just looking at stats.

[GIMH]

Broad has bowled excellently in partnership with Anderson throughout 2010. It's not a simple case of who has the better average, although Broad should maybe have cashed in a bit more in the English summer.

I couldn't care less what the numbers say, Johnson is a complete liability for at least half the games he plays. Broad's role in the team isn't to be the strike bowler, it's to keep control and I think he does it fairly well.

[Teja.]

DWTA that Hilfenhaus bowled "the same unpenetrative accurate drivel" in the Ashes. Hilfenhaus constantly at least beat or found the edge in India, which he rarely ever did in the Ashes. He wasn't very accurate either, constantly straying onto the pads of the LHs.

For the first 2-3 tests atleast, I found his bowling extremely similar to how he bowled in India. Sure, He bowled slightly more bad balls, but he wasn't really taking wickets despite lingering quite a few times between off and slightly outside off. My point is you have to be more pro-active as a bowler to take wickets.Something which Johnson does and it shouldn't matter whether one bloke looks like he's trying to get wickets while another bloke just looks like he's bowling badly intentionally when they both get the same reward.

[Spark]

I mean it is extremely impressive that Broad bowled on the two flattest decks only and yet no one was able to better his ER.

Yes, he bowled too short to take a bagful of wickets but as I said he dovetails very nicely with an England attack that isn't exactly short on wicket-takers. Their entire philosophy nowadays is pressure bowling, and tight, probing bowling is exactly the way to go about that. Broad's arguably their best bowler at doing so.

[Spark]

For the first 2-3 tests atleast, I found his bowling extremely similar to how he bowled in India. Sure, He bowled slightly more bad balls, but he wasn't really taking wickets despite lingering quite a few times between off and slightly outside off. My point is you have to be more pro-active as a bowler to take wickets.Something which Johnson does and it shouldn't matter whether one bloke looks like he's trying to get wickets while another bloke just looks like he's bowling badly intentionally when they both get the same reward.

In India he did actually look like taking wickets though. You generally do if you consistently beat the bat and find the edge.

Plus that he did actually take a few wickets.

[Teja.]

Broad has bowled excellently in partnership with Anderson throughout 2010. It's not a simple case of who has the better average, although Broad should maybe have cashed in a bit more in the English summer.

I couldn't care less what the numbers say, Johnson is a complete liability for at least half the games he plays. Broad's role in the team isn't to be the strike bowler, it's to keep control and I think he does it fairly well.

IMHO, he certainly has had a bad year. I disagree, fair enough.

[Teja.]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - try watching the game rather than just looking at stats.

I do watch the game, Thank you very much. I just have a completely different idea of what being a good bowler is all about.

[GIMH]

I mean it is extremely impressive that Broad bowled on the two flattest decks only and yet no one was able to better his ER.

Yes, he bowled too short to take a bagful of wickets but as I said he dovetails very nicely with an England attack that isn't exactly short on wicket-takers. Their entire philosophy nowadays is pressure bowling, and tight, probing bowling is exactly the way to go about that. Broad's arguably their best bowler at doing so.

Makes my point so much better than I did.

TBF to Johnson (not something you hear me saying a lot) it's not his fault he doesn't have an Anderson or a Swann, although I suppose he's meant to be Australia's Anderson. Johnson and Broad have different roles as bowlers so it's not an easy comparison.

[Spark]

At the end of the day who would you prefer, the dream-spell-every-5-matches that you get from Johnson and utter filth in between where he'll take a few wickets but leak so many runs that it makes the entire attack less effective, or the dream-spell-every-10-matches but bowls tight, probing bowling that makes the entire attack more penetrative that you get from Broad?

I'll pick the latter. Pressure bowling is a severely underrated tactic nowadays. Too many bowlers trying to be bloody heroes than to just bowl in a partnership for 10 overs for 20 runs.

[G.I.Joe]

I prefer Johnson's broad.

[G.I.Joe]

I prefer Johnson's broad.

I mean, its a no-brainer when the competition is Broad's johnson.

[morgieb]

Broad's more consistent, Johnson's more lethal at his best. Depends on the side.

[G.I.Joe]

I mean, its a no-brainer when the competition is Broad's johnson.

*alleged

[Spark]

Broad's more consistent, Johnson's more lethal at his best. Depends on the side.

In either side I would pick Broad. Johnson just leaks far too many runs when he's off-colour and is off-colour far too often for mine.

[G.I.Joe]

In either side I would pick Broad. Johnson just leaks far too many runs when he's off-colour and is off-colour far too often for mine.

Probably a UTI.