Completely agree with this. Judge them on how many runs they score, and I'd back Johnson to score more than Broad every single time.Does it really matter how they look? These are identical arguments wheeled out against Hayden once upon a time.
What about temperament? Defense? Scoring zones? Nah, it's how pretty the swinging arcs look when they play strokes.
Daren Ganga and Chanderpaul are the two biggest arguments against aesthetically pretty = good. It should apply even less to tailenders.
Think that's the key tbh, you'd almost always have Broad as a number 7 test batsmen if you had the choice between him and Mitchell Johnson and other successful tail enders like Taylor and Steyn...Johnson's technique is perfectly suited to his skill level and batting position. He keeps things simple, and actually appears to understand his batting game very well. Johnson removes many chances of dismissal by looking to play straight. He invariably aims somewhere between mid-on and mid-off every time he hits long. Played some rather valuable innings for Australia so far in his short career using the same method each time.
Did I not fairly obviously state that how they look won't neccessarily matter? The simple truth is that to date neither have played a huge amount of cricket for which scores are available to the larger public. Thus, we don't have a hell of a lot to assess them on. So looking at their techniques, scoring zones, etc. is about all you can do in trying to guess who's going to be better.Does it really matter how they look? These are identical arguments wheeled out against Hayden once upon a time.
What about temperament? Defense? Scoring zones? Nah, it's how pretty the swinging arcs look when they play strokes.
Daren Ganga and Chanderpaul are the two biggest arguments against aesthetically pretty = good. It should apply even less to tailenders.
You did state that, but left it at that and went back to discussing aesthetics. Seems a bit self-defeating if you're trying to determine who's better.Did I not fairly obviously state that how they look won't neccessarily matter. The simple truth is that to date neither have played a huge amount of cricket for which scores are available to the larger public. Thus, we don't have a hell of a lot to assess them on. So looking at their techniques, scoring zones, etc. is about all you can do in trying to guess who's going to be better.
That was a surprisingly Phlegmatic answer.
No-hot quite.Oh so we're talking about your "manly" parts are we?....
That's one of the deceptive things about his batting though. His head stays almost unnaturally still at the point of delivery, he's got an eye like a dead jewfish and hits it 14,000 kilometres.TBH Broad looks a much more solid batsman, a much better technician and generally possesses a better attitude to batting than Johnson. There's no doubt Johnson can play, but I've always been surprised he's as good as he is because he essentially looks like a "give it a whack" merchant rather than a genuine batsman.
So I'd hope Broad can eventually be the better player, but being what I say above that Broad is won't always translate into such, so we can only wait and see.
I doubt he puts any on...Can't say I've studied Johnson's makeup