• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Mitchell Johnson vs Allan Davidson

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
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

U19 Debutant
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

U19 12th Man
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".
 

Trumpers_Ghost

U19 Cricketer
Davidson was also a great fielder, and played for longer than 5 mins:ph34r:
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.
 

archie mac

International Coach
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?:unsure:
 

Trumpers_Ghost

U19 Cricketer
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?:unsure:
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

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

archie mac

International Coach
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

U19 Cricketer
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

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

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
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.
That and the fact that it had to be clearing the grandstand to go over his head I'd say.
 

DaRick

State Vice-Captain
Johnson is garbage, these same members wanted him off the team one year ago when he was playing in the west indies.
Johnson is garbage? WTF? :huh:

As for the original question, I don't think Johnson is nearly as good as Davidson as a bowler - not yet, anyway. Although Davidson may or may not have played in an era of uncovered pitches, he still outdoes Wasim statistically (given that Wasim played in a different era, that may not mean all that much), while Johnson is merely a sub-Akram right now (despite his generally excellent performances of late).

Johnson may be a better batsman, though. I haven't seen a lower-order century that brutal.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Johnson is garbage? WTF? :huh:
Don't worry about that. Check a look at some of sammy2's posts, if you're not familiar with.

Anyway, this is clearly hugely premature. Johnson has been an oustanding Test bowler and more-than-useful lower-order batsman... for the last 8 Tests. Whether aussie's white, or blue, or red, grandad thinks he's got the talent to match Davidson is really neither here nor there, as all sorts of people think all sorts of players have the talent to match other players.

Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But until he's actually covered a fair amount of the airmiles of his Test career, there's really not much point talking as if he had. He's barely off the runway. "Can Mitchell Johnson be as good as Alan Davidson?" would've been a far, far better thread title.

One thing to note that they both have in common is a relatively advanced age. Johnson was 27 before he became Test-class; Davidson was 29. Davidson also played on for just 4 years after that, retiring at 33 (that wasn't unusual for Australian players in his day). That's the reason he's never considered up with the very, very best of the seam-bowlers.
 

sammy2

Banned
Johnson is garbage? WTF? :huh:

As for the original question, I don't think Johnson is nearly as good as Davidson as a bowler - not yet, anyway. Although Davidson may or may not have played in an era of uncovered pitches, he still outdoes Wasim statistically (given that Wasim played in a different era, that may not mean all that much), while Johnson is merely a sub-Akram right now (despite his generally excellent performances of late).

Johnson may be a better batsman, though. I haven't seen a lower-order century that brutal.
I'm going to dig up the AUS in WI series.
 

DaRick

State Vice-Captain
I'm going to dig up the AUS in WI series.
You do realise that was nearly a year ago, don't you?

Besides, while he was generally sub-par, he did turn in one or two useful performances, even in that (i.e - Bridgetown first innings, when Australia had a low score to defend).

That was definitely his nadir and he's improved markedly since then, making that seem like more of a throwback to a time when he was still trying to find himself, than something we should take notice of right now, after three excellent series, two against what was the best Test team in the world for about two months.
 

Top