Mitchell Johnson v Stuart Broad

[Uppercut]

The sensible view about Johnson throughout his first 13 Tests was that he had some promise but lacked a fair bit.

Pretty much the same as Broad really. Only Johnson had a few more wickets gifted him than Broad has done.

Johnson was always going to have more major errors committed against his bowling than Broad because he bowled about 10mph faster. Broad's promising- no doubt about it- but you'd be absolutely delighted if he turned out better than Johnson. Johnson's looking like the complete left-handed quick in this match- fast, accurate, threatening, moves the ball both ways. I don't honestly think there was ever a comparison to be made in that department.

 

[Richard]

Johnson in many of his first 13 Tests (not all, but many) bowled as unthreateningly as Broad did in all of his first 10.

I don't believe pace neccessarily means you get more mistakes made against you - a nothing wide delivery is a nothing wide delivery at 93mph or 81mph - but there's no doubt Johnson did.

And also there were a few games here and there where he bowled OK-ish-ly.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm never, ever in favour of ANYTHING that is attempted to make a bowler who's bowled poorly look like he's bowled OK. There were 3 separate Tests where this has happened BTW - Third Test in New Zealand, Fourth Test at home to SA and 1 other which I can't remember OTTOMH.

It's very dangerous to try to manufacture good figures for a bowler by allowing them to bowl at the tail to try to find an excuse to keep them in the team, rather than allowing the game (or, at least, the opposition batsmen) to make its own judgement and then picking the team thereafter.

A wicket or two, even if tail-enders, can lift a bowler's confidence enough for him to start taking top-order poles soon after. That's why captains do it, not just to make his figures look good so they can keep him in the team. They all count cricket's a team game (all personality foibles and moods to go with it), not just a business case for the selectors.

 

[Top_Cat]

Johnson in many of his first 13 Tests (not all, but many) bowled as unthreateningly as Broad did in all of his first 10.

I don't believe pace neccessarily means you get more mistakes made against you - a nothing wide delivery is a nothing wide delivery at 93mph or 81mph - but there's no doubt Johnson did.

And also there were a few games here and there where he bowled OK-ish-ly.

Ah God, not this again. Does any Aussie bowler ever earn a wicket according to you?

A wider delivery in isolation looks like a poor ball but in the context of tight bowling, often it's deliberate to induce the stroke. And you're wrong about nothing deliveries at different speeds too, anyone who's faced bowling at good pace will tell you that. A wide delivery at pace often does induce the false shot simply because the batsmen don't have enough time to come to the realisation it's a 'nothing wide delivery' they don't have to play at until too late. It's why the classic tactic of throwing the wide one works so often and why the bowler will often bend his back a bit more to do it.

 

[Richard]

Ah God, not this again. Does any Aussie bowler ever earn a wicket according to you?

Yesssssssss, hundreds of them. Why on Earth would the Aussieness of someone affect whether they've earnt a wicket in my mind?

A wider delivery in isolation looks like a poor ball but in the context of tight bowling, often it's deliberate to induce the stroke. And you're wrong about nothing deliveries at different speeds too, anyone who's faced bowling at good pace will tell you that. A wide delivery at pace often does induce the false shot simply because the batsmen don't have enough time to come to the realisation it's a 'nothing wide delivery' they don't have to play at until too late. It's why the classic tactic of throwing the wide one works so often and why the bowler will often bend his back a bit more to do it.

I've heard all this before, and just about everything I've ever seen suggests there's a grain of truth at best in it.

 

[Richard]

A wicket or two, even if tail-enders, can lift a bowler's confidence enough for him to start taking top-order poles soon after. That's why captains do it, not just to make his figures look good so they can keep him in the team. They all count cricket's a team game (all personality foibles and moods to go with it), not just a business case for the selectors.

That's all well and good if all the bowler is lacking is confidence. However, mostly they're not, they're lacking something that's much less easy to acquire - skill. In this eventuality, being gifted a tailender or two won't help in the slightest, it'll just blur the picture and cause a bowler to continue to be selected and thus continue to damage the team's real prospects at the times that matter.

Captains should always, to my mind, do their utmost to allow the tail to be gifted to those who've earnt it, not those who have not. For any number of reasons.

 

[Top_Cat]

I've heard all this before, and just about everything I've ever seen suggests there's a grain of truth at best in it.

Have you ever tried it?

 

[Richard]

What, bowling at 60mph outside off then bowling at 70mph outside off? No, can't say I have. I struggle to change up and down my pace at the best of times.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's all well and good if all the bowler is lacking is confidence. However, mostly they're not, they're lacking something that's much less easy to acquire - skill. In this eventuality, being gifted a tailender or two won't help in the slightest, it'll just blur the picture and cause a bowler to continue to be selected and thus continue to damage the team's real prospects at the times that matter.

Nah. If a bowler picks up a few easy wickets but everyone knows he's not travelling well, he'll still get dropped. Goes the other way too; if a bowler isn't taking wickets but everyone reckon's he's sending down good stuff, he'll keep getting picked. The whole process, like anything, can be prone to mistakes/errors of judgement because it's not as easy as 'Bowler x took 2 wickets, therefore retain. Bowler y took 0, therefore reject'. I reckon Broad is the beneficiary of 'looking' good. He resembles McGrath so people probably take it easier on him (aside from the whole 'being better looking gets you rated more highly' psychology). It's a curse, though; when he doesn't perform like McGrath, it seems like more of a let-down.

It's the way a team works. Pretenders don't last unless there's no-one else pushing for selection.

 

[Top_Cat]

What, bowling at 60mph outside off then bowling at 70mph outside off? No, can't say I have. I struggle to change up and down my pace at the best of times.

Seriously, even at that pace, give it a try. And by giving it a try, actually practice at at training too. You'll see it's probably more of a mental block than a physical one. It's shocking how often it works. Same with the old 'two balls going one way then one going the other'. Amazing how often it gets a wicket or at least makes a batsmen look uncomfortable. Either way, even in a rudimentary form, you always have a plan of some sort. The absence of a plan results in more bad bowling than a simple/obvious one.

 

[Burgey]

Johnson in many of his first 13 Tests (not all, but many) bowled as unthreateningly as Broad did in all of his first 10.

I don't believe pace neccessarily means you get more mistakes made against you - a nothing wide delivery is a nothing wide delivery at 93mph or 81mph - but there's no doubt Johnson did.

And also there were a few games here and there where he bowled OK-ish-ly.

Don't worry mate, he's starting to swing it back in now. I'm quite sure, barring injury, you'll be sick of the sight of him come September .

 

[Richard]

Nah. If a bowler picks up a few easy wickets but everyone knows he's not travelling well, he'll still get dropped. Goes the other way too; if a bowler isn't taking wickets but everyone reckon's he's sending down good stuff, he'll keep getting picked. The whole process, like anything, can be prone to mistakes/errors of judgement because it's not as easy as 'Bowler x took 2 wickets, therefore retain. Bowler y took 0, therefore reject'. I reckon Broad is the beneficiary of 'looking' good. He resembles McGrath so people probably take it easier on him (aside from the whole 'being better looking gets you rated more highly' psychology). It's a curse, though; when he doesn't perform like McGrath, it seems like more of a let-down.

It's the way a team works. Pretenders don't last unless there's no-one else pushing for selection.

Figures which accurately tell the story do tend to help a hell of a lot. If a bowler is getting 1-80 repeatedly bowling nonsense, he's a hell of a lot more likely to get left-out than if he's getting 2-50. I'm not saying you'll never see someone who's being flattered by their figures get dropped, but in my experience it's fairly rare. Selectors are an error-prone bunch, and not just if they're from Pakistan.

 

[Richard]

Don't worry mate, he's starting to swing it back in now.

I know - I mentioned as such just a little while earlier this thread.

I'm quite sure, barring injury, you'll be sick of the sight of him come September .

I rarely get sick of the sight of quality seam-bowling TBH. What I rapidly tire of is crap bowling that doesn't get punished as it should.

 

[Top_Cat]

I know - I mentioned as such just a little while earlier this thread.

I rarely get sick of the sight of quality seam-bowling TBH. What I rapidly tire of is crap bowling that doesn't get punished as it should.

Haha, I'm just imagining the sheer horror had this forum been around in the 80's when Botham was playing.

 

[GIMH]

I'm never, ever in favour of ANYTHING that is attempted to make a bowler who's bowled poorly look like he's bowled OK. There were 3 separate Tests where this has happened BTW - Third Test in New Zealand, Fourth Test at home to SA and 1 other which I can't remember OTTOMH.

It's very dangerous to try to manufacture good figures for a bowler by allowing them to bowl at the tail to try to find an excuse to keep them in the team, rather than allowing the game (or, at least, the opposition batsmen) to make its own judgement and then picking the team thereafter.

See I look at averages as much as the next guy. I often post pointless notes, like 'if Strauss scores 7 more here he'll average 300 on Thursdays in the Carribean' but, all things considered my priority is the team and I couldn't really care less about the figures in a broader sense. The captain gifted Broad some wickets, it kept his head up. They obviously picked SB as a long-term strategy and wanted him in the team, but I don't for a minute think that tailend wickets retained him. i think they kept his confidence up, and he is becoming a better bowler series by series. Had Vaughan not allowed him to take those wickets then his head may have dropped, and with it he might have disappeared from Test cricket for a few years.

The wickets were going to be taken anyway - I think boosting Broad's confidence was more important than dropping Sidebottom's average below 25 or whatever, and I'm sure the likes of Sidebottom and Anderson can deal with that

 

[Uppercut]

Johnson in many of his first 13 Tests (not all, but many) bowled as unthreateningly as Broad did in all of his first 10.

I don't believe pace neccessarily means you get more mistakes made against you - a nothing wide delivery is a nothing wide delivery at 93mph or 81mph - but there's no doubt Johnson did.

And also there were a few games here and there where he bowled OK-ish-ly.

Surely you don't think that's true? You're definitely more likely to make the wrong decision with 0.4 seconds to make it than you are with 0.6. Full balls outside off are often mistake for half-volleys when delivered by Johnson at pace, as I'm sure you've noticed. It's not quite a "nothing delivery" unless you're bowling to the ultra-defensive or someone exceptionally good at driving outside off stump.

Occasionally pace is strangely underrated by people watching cricket because the difference between an 80mph delivery and a 90mph is not immediately obvious when watching on TV. It's bloody obvious when you're facing it, though.

 

[Richard]

Haha, I'm just imagining the sheer horror had this forum been around in the 80's when Botham was playing.

You don't need to worry. I get the edited highlights which show only the countless wickets he got from those beautiful outswingers he used to bowl so often.

 

[Richard]

See I look at averages as much as the next guy. I often post pointless notes, like 'if Strauss scores 7 more here he'll average 300 on Thursdays in the Carribean' but, all things considered my priority is the team and I couldn't really care less about the figures in a broader sense. The captain gifted Broad some wickets, it kept his head up. They obviously picked SB as a long-term strategy and wanted him in the team, but I don't for a minute think that tailend wickets retained him. i think they kept his confidence up, and he is becoming a better bowler series by series. Had Vaughan not allowed him to take those wickets then his head may have dropped, and with it he might have disappeared from Test cricket for a few years.

The wickets were going to be taken anyway - I think boosting Broad's confidence was more important than dropping Sidebottom's average below 25 or whatever, and I'm sure the likes of Sidebottom and Anderson can deal with that

See, I disagree. I think there's a certain element there of trying to justify your own mistaken beliefs about Broad's ability - ability now - by trying to manufacture his figures from diabolical to merely very very poor indeed. You can justify your errant selections better if he's averaging 45 than if he's averaging 70. I've said it before - there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for picking someone now because you believe he'll be good enough in 9 months' time. You wait until such a time happens, then pick a player - trying to pre-empt it is fraught with all sorts of dangers.

Of course, there's also the fact that Broad of times hadn't bowled for ages when the tail were in and you bowl your bowlers in spells to avoid knackering them.

And I do care about figures in a broader sense BTW. If the team was all that mattered in cricket I'd probably not watch it. The thing that's so interesting about cricket is that it's a game about both individual and team, and where individual feats cumulate to make team ones. It's why I dislike Twenty20 - the individual aspect of it is significantly marginalised.

Nor do I think Broad gained any real confidence which helped him by dismissing those few tailenders - he kept bowling the same way and it was only after a long break in games, the last in which he'd been ineffective as usual, that things changed.

 

[Richard]

Surely you don't think that's true? You're definitely more likely to make the wrong decision with 0.4 seconds to make it than you are with 0.6. Full balls outside off are often mistake for half-volleys when delivered by Johnson at pace, as I'm sure you've noticed. It's not quite a "nothing delivery" unless you're bowling to the ultra-defensive or someone exceptionally good at driving outside off stump.

Occasionally pace is strangely underrated by people watching cricket because the difference between an 80mph delivery and a 90mph is not immediately obvious when watching on TV. It's bloody obvious when you're facing it, though.

Pretty much any batsman would prefer to leave the ball than play a defensive stroke (there are a few exceptions as some like to feel bat on ball). If the ball is a straight one, clearly extra pace and reduced reaction-time will increase substantially your chances of a wicket.

If anything, the quicker a ball, the easier it should be to leave, as you don't have the time to be drawn into an errant defensive shot.

I also can't say I've ever seen good-length balls be mistaken for Half-Volleys off Johnson's bowling TBH. That generally requires loop and dip, which it's rather tricky to achieve at 90mph. Johnson deserves full credit, as I've said before, for getting the ball to move accross the right-hander but you'd hope that RHB can recognise this and realise the off-side drive is a dangerous prospect against him - more dangerous than against most left-arm over seamers.

 

[GIMH]

See, I disagree. I think there's a certain element there of trying to justify your own mistaken beliefs about Broad's ability - ability now - by trying to manufacture his figures from diabolical to merely very very poor indeed. You can justify your errant selections better if he's averaging 45 than if he's averaging 70. I've said it before - there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for picking someone now because you believe he'll be good enough in 9 months' time. You wait until such a time happens, then pick a player - trying to pre-empt it is fraught with all sorts of dangers.

No, not at all. I actually said earlier in the thread that I didn't think Broad should have been playing last summer, and I agree that the long-term should be a secondary consideration in Test cricket, because each Test match is just that and the best XI should be selected. I am not trying to manufacture anything - he averages what he averages (couldn't tell you what it is tbh) this has nothing to do with anything. If Broad was still bowling constantly poorly (has had an up and down series IMO) then it wouldn't change my belief that Vaughan did the right thing.

And I do care about figures in a broader sense BTW. If the team was all that mattered in cricket I'd probably not watch it. The thing that's so interesting about cricket is that it's a game about both individual and team, and where individual feats cumulate to make team ones. It's why I dislike Twenty20 - the individual aspect of it is significantly marginalised.

I care about individual feats, course I do, everyone who has read my posts in CC over the last three years knows I worship Freddie & KP. But my primary concern will always be England winning, as such if a game is pretty much wrapped up, then letting a bowler whose head has dropped take a couple of easy poles strikes me as intelligent man-management of that guy, and you'd imagine the other bowlers should be team players enough to deal with it.

See I might not think he should have been in the team, but he was and clearly was going to be. So there is no point debating the merits of the strategy, fact is they stuck broad in thinking he would develop, so you have to therefore, as a captain, do what is necessary to achieve this.

Disagree about T20 as well - a century or what not will have a greater impact in T20 than an ODI a lot of the time.

Nor do I think Broad gained any real confidence which helped him by dismissing those few tailenders - he kept bowling the same way and it was only after a long break in games, the last in which he'd been ineffective as usual, that things changed.

Well only he could tell us for sure, but gaining confidence obviously doesn't equate to an instant improvement. Losing confidence would have a more quickly visible detrimental effect IMO, but you could see during the ODI series against South Africa that Broad hadn't let his head drop in spite of a highly disappointing summer in Tests for him. If he had been badly managed then he would surely have been at a low ebb at this point. Instead he has reinvigorated himself and showed some real promise at points this winter.