Johnson V Flintoff

[Burgey]

In the test series also the ball seamed{Movement of the pitch} in as the ball comes out
of johnson hand with scrambled seam he gets very little swing in the air and reverse swing
so he depends on the pitch for movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9hcZWVb7PI

Tell that to Amla (@ 1.38) and Boucher (9.20ish and the slow mo at 10.20).

Also note the comments at 3.16 about "swinging it in".

Honestly, Johnson doesn't get his seam position right all the time, but he does so more than he used to, and increasingly often. The spell featured in that video is about as good as you could see.

12 months ago I'd have agreed with you about his not swinging the ball in. In fact, I'd have agreed 3 months ago. But he's developing it, and he's bowling it well.

 

[DaRick]

They were not booming inswingers ,Wait till you see him in australia you will know the difference mate.

Of course we will; the ball tends not to swing that much in Australia these days. At any rate, he doesn't always need prodigious swing or a juicy wicket to get poles (look at his 8/61 in Perth or even his Adelaide record). The thing about Johnson is that he is reasonably adaptive, insofar as a flattish pitch does not affect him all that much.

It is true that his seam position is still not perfect, but it's not as dire as it once was. It may also be worth noting that seam and swing are two different things. Just ask Glenn McGrath.

...and yes, the balls to nail Amla and Boucher swung in appreciably.

 

[Cricket_God]

Of course we will; the ball tends not to swing that much in Australia these days. At any rate, he doesn't always need prodigious swing or a juicy wicket to get poles (look at his 8/61 in Perth or even his Adelaide record). The thing about Johnson is that he is reasonably adaptive, insofar as a flattish pitch does not affect him all that much.

It is true that his seam position is still not perfect, but it's not as dire as it once was. It may also be worth noting that seam and swing are two different things. Just ask Glenn McGrath.

...and yes, the balls to nail Amla and Boucher swung in appreciably.

The ball swung a little and seamed off the pitch,i will change my avatar to johnson
if he is able to get 3 lbw s in ashes

 

[Richard]

So you didn't notice the fact he was swinging the ball into the right-handers in South Africa? Poor seam position, indeed. For South Africa, that is.

Here's a tip for every man who tries to understand what's in his hand: this "Cricket_God" figure has been insisting that Johnson doesn't swing the ball for a long, long while now. Don't waste your time.

 

[DaRick]

Here's a tip for every man who tries to understand what's in his hand: this "Cricket_God" figure has been insisting that Johnson doesn't swing the ball for a long, long while now. Don't waste your time.

Well, there was a time when he spoke the truth.

Of course, I do find it to take someone who believed that RP Singh>Johnson & Clark (back in 2008) all that seriously.

 

[oitoitoi]

Stats never tell you the whole picture mate,steyn has taken more 5 wickets in a match
but he is southafrica opening bowler even if he gets hammered at the top he will take the tailenders wicket and his figures will look good same with many bowlers,If you ask any batsman which bowler currently they will not like to face in the world most will tell flintoff
because on docile of pitches he can test the best batsman,In terms of bowling talent johnson lags behind ,His seam position is teh worst in the world or close to it,Right now
he is getting wickets as his pace is up and he consistently bowls at 140-150 km/ph
but even a slight decrease in speed will lead to a significant drop in performance specially
on flat tracks where the balls will not seam in{All left armers have been able to seam the ball in souithafrica}.Batting there is no comparison with flintoff as of now.

Mate I'm sorry but if you really think Flintoff is a better bowler than Dale Steyn then I just can't take your opinions seriously.

Flintoff may well test batsmen but Batsmen consistently pass. Much of the aura around Flintoff's bowling is to do with his action and physical presence, his back of a length stuff looks fantastic, but in reality is only really good for choking runs. Flintoff's batting is a joke, he was worked out 3 years ago (at least) and hasn't changed his game at all (because he's not the brightest), that's why he can't buy a run in international cricket and hasn't for a long long time. Whatever you think about Johnson's lack of technique the fact is he's producing results. I'm not saying Johnson's a great bowler by any means, but he's producing results and taking wickets in a way that Flintoff has never matched during his career. I agree that he probably won't swing it everywhere but he's got other weapons and his legcutter is seriously underrated, his stamina is also exceptional, almost like Ntini in his prime. He's also quicker than Flintoff ever was and while not amazing on flat surfaces he isn't bad as he's testing the batsmen out with pace. Looking at his physique I can't see his pace dropping too much any time soon. Your argument is in principle the same as saying Mark Ramprakash is a better batsmen than Shivnarine Chanderpaul because he looks better.

Also why can't Flintoff take tailender wickets, it's not like the other bowlers are ripping through them! He can look as nasty and aggressive as he wants, but until he produces the goods it's basically all bluster and the best batsmen will know it.

 

[Richard]

Flintoff's batting is a joke, he was worked out 3 years ago (at least) and hasn't changed his game at all (because he's not the brightest), that's why he can't buy a run in international cricket and hasn't for a long long time.

I don't actually think Flintoff - the batsman - is or ever has been worked-out. He's just mostly struggled against decent-to-good Test attacks, because such attacks will inevitably have the better of a batsman who plays as he does. There have been three glorious exceptions: South Africa 2003, Australia 2005 and India 2005/06. There may yet be another one or two in the remainder of his career. Mostly, however, he is always going to struggle against good attacks.

Also, his batting isn't "a joke". It's not especially outstanding, no - decent number-seven, excellent number-eight. Number-six, though, emphatically not, never has been and it weakens the side considerably to have him bat there.

 

[oitoitoi]

I don't actually think Flintoff - the batsman - is or ever has been worked-out. He's just mostly struggled against decent-to-good Test attacks, because such attacks will inevitably have the better of a batsman who plays as he does.

Back of a length on off or at the body with the quicks, air it up with the spinners and wait for the hoick to deep midwicket.

 

[Richard]

The methods you name are essentially the best way to bowl at almost any batsman. I hardly think you can say someone's been worked-out because the best way to bowl at them is top-of-off-stump.

Flintoff copes with standard bowling methods of attack less well than good batsmen do but there's no one dismissal that's been repeated and repeated and repeated all career.

 

[oitoitoi]

The methods you name are essentially the best way to bowl at almost any batsman. I hardly think you can say someone's been worked-out because the best way to bowl at them is top-of-off-stump.

Flintoff copes with standard bowling methods of attack less well than good batsmen do but there's no one dismissal that's been repeated and repeated and repeated all career.

No I mean he doesn't handle the short ball well, especially when directed at the body, cramp him for room then give him a driveable ball, he'll nick one pretty quickly. Flintoff relies on being able to free his arms, he can't play the little tucks and flicks that allow steady accumalation.

I wouldn't say that's the tactic many spinners would use to a decent batsmen. I've seen Flintoff go for the slog over midwicket and hole out countless times against the spinners, it's pretty well known that it's a big problem for him, he can't control himself and goes for the big shot.

 

[aussie]

No I mean he doesn't handle the short ball well, especially when directed at the body, cramp him for room then give him a driveable ball, he'll nick one pretty quickly. Flintoff relies on being able to free his arms, he can't play the little tucks and flicks that allow steady accumalation.

I wouldn't say that's the tactic many spinners would use to a decent batsmen. I've seen Flintoff go for the slog over midwicket and hole out countless times against the spinners, it's pretty well known that it's a big problem for him, he can't control himself and goes for the big shot.

You need to look @ India 2006 again. Flintoff definately can play spin competently when he gets into his batting grove.

 

[Top_Cat]

No I mean he doesn't handle the short ball well, especially when directed at the body, cramp him for room then give him a driveable ball, he'll nick one pretty quickly. Flintoff relies on being able to free his arms, he can't play the little tucks and flicks that allow steady accumalation.

I wouldn't say that's the tactic many spinners would use to a decent batsmen. I've seen Flintoff go for the slog over midwicket and hole out countless times against the spinners, it's pretty well known that it's a big problem for him, he can't control himself and goes for the big shot.

Depends on his form, though. Distinctly remember seeing plenty of short balls from not-very-slow bowlers like Lee and Tait go the journey in '05. And he looked fairly untroubled doing it too.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't say it depends on his form, as that'd hint he'd been out-of-form for most of his Test career and in it occasionally. But he is certainly not completely incapable of either tucking the spinners around on the leg-side nor hitting the short delivery from the seamers cleanly, as he did the former in India in 2005/06 (as pointed-out by aussie) and the latter against Australia in 2005 (as pointed-out by Corey). And he actually also did the latter plenty against South Africa in 2003, as I've just pointed-out here.

Flintoff's problem is that he just isn't all that good. He is capable of batting very, very well - he just doesn't do it very often. His failings are not to do with any one hole in his game technically, simply the fact that he cannot produce the goods as regularly as top batsmen can.

 

[Burgey]

Depends on his form, though. Distinctly remember seeing plenty of short balls from not-very-slow bowlers like Lee and Tait go the journey in '05. And he looked fairly untroubled doing it too.

Meh. They play on postage stamps.

How many top edges in that series landed over a fielder's head? Came out here a year plater, played the same shot and was caught 12 metres inside the rope.

Get some real grounds FFS.

 

[Top_Cat]

I wouldn't say it depends on his form, as that'd hint he'd been out-of-form for most of his Test career and in it occasionally.

Not at all. It hints that he was in awesome form in 2004 and 2005 and the rest is more a reflection of his play against short balls.

But he is certainly not completely incapable of either tucking the spinners around on the leg-side nor hitting the short delivery from the seamers cleanly, as he did the former in India in 2005/06 (as pointed-out by aussie) and the latter against Australia in 2005 (as pointed-out by Corey). And he actually also did the latter plenty against South Africa in 2003, as I've just pointed-out here.

Flintoff's problem is that he just isn't all that good. He is capable of batting very, very well - he just doesn't do it very often. His failings are not to do with any one hole in his game technically, simply the fact that he cannot produce the goods as regularly as top batsmen can.

Yeah, pretty much. Playing him at 6, although he batted well-ish for a while, was a mistake I reckon.

 

[sudhindra9]

Johnson is improving well

His batting has improved exceedingly well

He will becom a great allrounder

 

[oitoitoi]

Johnson is improving well

His batting has improved exceedingly well

He will becom a great allrounder

No he'll become a good allrounder, he's too old for greatness now with that record.

 

[Richard]

Not at all. It hints that he was in awesome form in 2004 and 2005 and the rest is more a reflection of his play against short balls.

I don't think he was particularly in awesome form in 2004 TBH. He batted wholly moderately in Sri Lanka (admittedly that was late-2003, but still, 2003/04) and West Indies, and very poorly indeed in South Africa in 2004/05. He scored heaps against New Zealand and West Indies at home in summer 2004 but seriously, you had to be there to appreciate how bad the bowling mostly was. It was Boycott's-Grandma stuff. Scoring runs in those couple of series' proves precious little other than that someone can bash barely-county-standard attacks. Pretty well no England batsman failed that summer, and even some tailenders scored a decent few runs.

Yeah, pretty much. Playing him at 6, although he batted well-ish for a while, was a mistake I reckon.

It was a huge error. I said as much at the time back in 2003 (not on CW of course because I wasn't posting here yet) and finally it seems that realisation has come home to roost.

Flintoff at seven isn't even totally satisfactory. Craig White batted more than happily at eight and so, IMO, should Flintoff.

 

[stephen]

No he'll become a good allrounder, he's too old for greatness now with that record.

Wow, too old at 27!

He still has at least 6 years in him, pending a lack of injury.

Hayden only broke into the Australian team in 2001, and is considered by most to be a Great. Why can't a guy who could potentially play for the better part of a decade become a great allrounder?

He could easily end up with a record better than the likes of Kapil Dev, who is certainly an all time great allrounder.

 

[oitoitoi]

Wow, too old at 27!

He still has at least 6 years in him, pending a lack of injury.

Hayden only broke into the Australian team in 2001, and is considered by most to be a Great. Why can't a guy who could potentially play for the better part of a decade become a great allrounder?

He could easily end up with a record better than the likes of Kapil Dev, who is certainly an all time great allrounder.

As a bowler who relies mostly on pace you'd expect him to tail off at some point and be injury prone, so right now he's probably bowling at his best. I think if he can keep this up for another 3 years he'll be a very good allrounder, but not a great one.

Basically I think the odds are stacked against him, especially with his action. Also to be quite frank I just don't think he's that good.

Also I don't think Kapil Dev's record is really comparable as he bowled mostly in India.