Some points of comparison, both played Pakistain in England, Broad averages 23 and IIRC Johnson averaged 436.43. Then, the only Ashes Test they both played in, Broad took 1-90 compared to 0-170 from Johnson. Broad's economy was about half Johnson's, and anyone with eyes will tell you who looked the better bowler on that deck, and both had to deal with big partnerships at the end of the day.
Of course this sort of analysis is very unfair and means nothing, but then so do overall year averages that ignore heaps of other factors.
Broad has bowled better than Johnson for the last 18 months, I'd say.
I don't understand why people now think Broad is an 'unlucky bowler' like Hilfenhaus, who appears consistent but is not penetrative, simply because he was in the two tests he played. In his first couple of years in tests it was always talked up how he has 'a knack of taking wickets' (another awful phrase) despite not looking particularly good, somewhat like Johnson. Now he has developed he has become the sort of bowler we want Finn to become, i.e: Gets steepling bounce on a bouncy tracks, where he tends to do pretty well; pitches it up a bit on seaming wickets, like he did well in the summer; bowls consistent line and length otherwise, with some variation.
If he can continue to do this, his record will improve, I'm sure of it. His stats so far, I don't think, represent how much he has improved since the first part of the 2009 Ashes. He's the perfect foil for Jimmy, and should come straight back into the Test team when fit. As for their batting, its pretty similar really - both are quite inconsistent but have the ability to go big.
What I'm saying is Johnson, while certainly not a world-beating bowler is still a pretty decent one and takes wickets alot unlike the 7 rpo, godawful bowler he is often made to be. I reckon Broad bowled better in 2009 than in 2010, in which he did not really bowl that well IMHO, but most don't seem to agree.
Anyway Broad is one of the very very few English bowlers(two, in fact) I actually like and I reckon he has the potential to be a much better bowler than Johners ever was or will be. I'll however disagree that he did a perfect job in the 2 games he played in the Ashes, particularly when the 2 guys who came in later took bagfuls.
I'm horribly guilty of overrating players that were part of winning teams a lot of the time, and I think that's kinda what's going on here.
I remember I, amongst a ton of other people, used to make the same arguments in defence of Brett Lee. "Sure, he doesn't turn out the figures, but he's fast and dangerous and has a fear factor that the rest of the attack benefits from, and he's a real strike bowler- he can get you a wicket at any time, and his attitude rubs off on the rest of the team, and..."
It's odd how the complete opposite type of non-wicket-taking bowler becomes the one you want in your side as soon as the bowlers around him start getting the job done.
I agree that he bowled a bit too short to take many wickets, but he'll bowl worse and take plenty on another day. I mean you have to admit that this really wasn't his tour - not only did he not take the deserved rewards for his bowling, but faced one infamous ball, and picked up a fairly crippling injury in the process.
And he was on the wrong end of a Boycs rant. I mean, nothing went right for him this tour.
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
get ready for a broken ****in' arm
My personal opinion regarding Broad is that he was picked too early for test cricket when he was picked and this perhaps hindered his development as a bowler because hes still learning how to take wickets particularly in England. I think hes an average bowler at the moment, and he probably should be the 3rd seamer rather than the 2nd, but hes got plenty of potential and in time he'll develop into a world class bowler.
Regarding Johnson, it continues to amaze me that people are still backing him. We have a thread out that talks about whether Flintoff was a hindrance to the England side and that is applicable to Johnson with Australia as well. Johnson bowling 1 good spell a year and being unable to sustain any sort of pressure at the other end has hurt Australian cricket no end. Firstly, not one bowler can sustain any sort of pressure at the other end as long as Johnson is bowling and this situation has been exacerbated by some of the spin bowlers that have been picked lately. Secondly, if Johnson was actually taking wickets consistently (which he hasn't been now that batsmen have FINALLY gotten smart enough to realize that they dont need to edge his wide deliveries outside off stump) Australia could afford the luxury of playing some more defensive bowlers but unfortunately now they need bowlers to be able to do both. As I've said before, Johnson is on his way to being the worst bowler ever to take 200 wickets. Is he better than Broad? Hell no. Does he have the potential to be better than he is now? Hell no, not with that bowling action. Should he be in the side? Absolutely not.
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
Australia's worst bowling performance in the Ashes came in the Test that Johnson missed.
Second innings at Brisbane was their worst IMO
Johnson by a country mile and half. Better batsman, much better bowler too. Broad is an overrated hack, who despite playing in favorable conditions cannot is averaging like Ishant Sharma.
I look forward to 4 years' time when we can all laugh about the fact that we were even having this discussion. The future is Broad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)