Is mitchell johnson once in generation fast bowler?

[social]

Wow, an entire year of record breaking performance, and you put it down to dropped catches. Next thing you'll tell us is McGrath's just been lucky all these years in Test cricket.

He's already done that

 

[Richard]

Wow, an entire year of record breaking performance, and you put it down to dropped catches. Next thing you'll tell us is McGrath's just been lucky all these years in Test cricket.

So tell me - how many of those big innings did NOT involve said let-offs?

 

[Richard]

He's already done that

Do you not think that was a tongue-in-cheek comment, knowing full well as everyone does that I've already done that?

 

[tooextracool]

I think a certain amount of pace is helpful. Without either pace or awkward bounce off a length to make strokeplay more difficult, you're not going to be that successful. There's the odd exception, like Pollock and Collymore, but I think it holds true most of the time.

Pollock was most certainly quite hostile when he first came onto the scene and right up until 2001 or so he was still bowling at a bit above 80mph. He was certainly a far cry from the medium pacer he is now.

 

[tooextracool]

Brett Lee pretty conclusively disproves that.

Without a decent accuracy, no bowler is anything.

Brett Lee barely swings the red ball. certainly not conventionally at least.

 

[sideshowtim]

24-25 is not "such a young age".

It is for an Australian cricketer. It is harder for younger blokes to force themselves into state sides and Aussie cricketers always have knack of being later bloomers.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Pollock was most certainly quite hostile when he first came onto the scene and right up until 2001 or so he was still bowling at a bit above 80mph. He was certainly a far cry from the medium pacer he is now.

Yeah, I know that. He is still reasonably effective though, and he doesn't have much pace or the awkward sort of bounce that your McGrath and Ambrose types got. Not a great bowler these days, but still reasonably good.

 

[Richard]

Pollock was most certainly quite hostile when he first came onto the scene and right up until 2001 or so he was still bowling at a bit above 80mph. He was certainly a far cry from the medium pacer he is now.

Pollock was no quicker than Kallis and Klusener when timing was first brought in in 1998 - they were all in the low 80s mostly, late 80s occasionally.

The only time Pollock lost a serious amount of pace was when he injured his ankle in 1996.

Yes, he's been getting very, very gradually slower since 2001 but he's certainly far from a medium-pacer, he's not putting the ball down at 71mph.

 

[Richard]

Brett Lee barely swings the red ball. certainly not conventionally at least.

Possibly because he hasn't bowled with the new red Kookaburra too often, and a Kookaburra doesn't often swing conventionally for much more than 15-20 overs.

Lee has, on occasions, taken the new red ball and sprayed it all over everywhere. And been ineffective even as he swung it.

And he is also occasionally capable of bowling reverse-swing. Still hasn't managed to make that much of a weapon of it, though.

 

[Richard]

It is for an Australian cricketer. It is harder for younger blokes to force themselves into state sides and Aussie cricketers always have knack of being later bloomers.

In which case why do so few Aussies have short careers?

Age is age for any cricketer regardless of nationality.

If you're good enough you're old or young enough, simple as. If you're not, age is of no relevance.

 

[tooextracool]

Pollock was no quicker than Kallis and Klusener when timing was first brought in in 1998 - they were all in the low 80s mostly, late 80s occasionally.

Klusener was extremely hostile when he first burst onto the scene before his ankle injury.Presumably he was bowling at around 90mph consistently and after injury he was reduced to bowling slower off cutters for 3-4 balls every over.

The only time Pollock lost a serious amount of pace was when he injured his ankle in 1996.

Yes, he's been getting very, very gradually slower since 2001 but he's certainly far from a medium-pacer, he's not putting the ball down at 71mph.

Cant see how someone bowling at 77-78 mph regularly isnt a medium pacer to be honest. Occasionally he gets it up to 80, but he used to consistently bowl at 82-83 mph before 2001

 

[vic_orthdox]

Pollock was no quicker than Kallis and Klusener when timing was first brought in in 1998 - they were all in the low 80s mostly, late 80s occasionally.

The only time Pollock lost a serious amount of pace was when he injured his ankle in 1996.

Yes, he's been getting very, very gradually slower since 2001 but he's certainly far from a medium-pacer, he's not putting the ball down at 71mph.

Was it Atherton who said that he found (early) Pollock as fast as Donald?

 

[Richard]

Yeah, in 1995\96, before Pollock got his ankle-injury the following English summer.

Since then, Pollock was always slower than Donald.

 

[tooextracool]

Possibly because he hasn't bowled with the new red Kookaburra too often, and a Kookaburra doesn't often swing conventionally for much more than 15-20 overs.

Lee has, on occasions, taken the new red ball and sprayed it all over everywhere. And been ineffective even as he swung it..

Honestly the only occasion i remember him getting the ball to swing for more than a couple of overs was in Sydney against India in 03/04. By and large otherwise hes rarely ever got the ball to swing with any sort of consistency and certainly nowhere near as much as he has in ODIs where hes actually been a lot more successful

And he is also occasionally capable of bowling reverse-swing. Still hasn't managed to make that much of a weapon of it, though.

He has on a few occasions, most notable at TB in 2005.

 

[Richard]

Klusener was extremely hostile when he first burst onto the scene before his ankle injury.Presumably he was bowling at around 90mph consistently and after injury he was reduced to bowling slower off cutters for 3-4 balls every over.

He wasn't bowling at 90mph in 1998 (the only time he'd have been timed pre-ankle-injury), he was bowling at Pollock pace.

Since his ankle-injury he's, of course, struggled to bowl even in the mid-80s. And, obviously, he developed a 2nd style of bowling, off-cutters with the wicketkeeper up.

Cant see how someone bowling at 77-78 mph regularly isnt a medium pacer to be honest. Occasionally he gets it up to 80, but he used to consistently bowl at 82-83 mph before 2001

77-78 is medium-fast IMO. Only once you go down to the early 70s are you medium - and virtually no-one of that pace is any use in Test cricket. Test-cricket is not a game for medium-pacers, you need to be medium-fast at the very least.

 

[Richard]

Honestly the only occasion i remember him getting the ball to swing for more than a couple of overs was in Sydney against India in 03/04. By and large otherwise hes rarely ever got the ball to swing with any sort of consistency and certainly nowhere near as much as he has in ODIs where hes actually been a lot more successful

He certainly got it to swing for a while against England the previous year at the same ground. The SCG is clearly the most swing-friendly ground in Aus. Even then, of course, he bowled two good-'uns to Vaughan and Butcher (didn't get the decision on the 2nd one) and then sprayed it.

He has on a few occasions, most notable at TB in 2005.

That's why I said "not much" not "none at all". There have, clearly, been one or two occasions where he has. Mostly, though, when he has managed to get it to reverse-swing he's looked clueless as to how to use it.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No.

10 - 15 ks slower and he's Bracken or Bradshaw.

Both good bowlers but without the edge in pace that would see them be consistently successful at test level

Johnson's big attribute is being able to do the things he does AT PACE

Exactly. But with pace alone, he would be a left-handed Tino Best. The fact is that the movement, bounce and accuracy are what will bring him success ADDED to the pace. The pace is not primary.

Besides, Johnson is so much better a bowler than Bradshaw on potential.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Brett Lee pretty conclusively disproves that.

Without a decent accuracy, no bowler is anything.

Dale Steyn proves it. As does Edwards, because he's really only deadly when it's swinging.

 

[shortpitched713]

So tell me - how many of those big innings did NOT involve said let-offs?

Can't exactly remember the exact number off of the top of my head, but the fact that he was dropped several times doesn't mean he didn't get the runs. When he was dropped he made the opposition pay big time, and later on in the year he tended to give less chances. Theres no way you're going to bat chancelessly for an entire year.

 

[tooextracool]

77-78 is medium-fast IMO. Only once you go down to the early 70s are you medium - and virtually no-one of that pace is any use in Test cricket. Test-cricket is not a game for medium-pacers, you need to be medium-fast at the very least.

Honestly i dislike having 10 different categories, medium fast, fast medium, medium and what not. Its ridiculous. By and large the same people that call collingwood medium pace call pollock fast medium despite the fact that collingwood is probably quicker. For mine there are 3 categories, medium, fast and express.its simple to categorize bowlers within those categories IMO.