Johnson vs Broad with the bat

[pasag]

1. Who is a better Test batsman?
2. Who will score more runs in the Ashes?

Don't care about their bowling.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Recent history would suggest Johnson, however Broad does seem capable of perhaps achieving similar results.

Low order batting may prove crucial to the outcome of this series, as it arguably did in '05.

The level of support might prove to be decisive in which of these two shines.

cheers

 

[pasag]

Recent history would suggest Johnson, however Broad does seem capable of perhaps achieving similar results.

Low order batting may prove crucial to the outcome of this series, as it arguably did in '05.

The level of support might prove to be decisive in which of these two shines.

cheers

Give us a prediction, no fence sitting

 

[Naumaan]

Johnson

 

[Athlai]

Broad is the more complete batsman for me, but Johnson has far more confidence in his abilities. Strikes the ball very well.

Really don't know who to say, Broad in the future? Johnson now?

Johnson it is.

 

[cowboy up]

johnson,but the only question is will he adapt to the batting conditions?i think he will get a 50 or two

 

[rivera213]

Johnson atm.

Though long-term I hope Broad develops into a number 6 to replace Freddie.

He needs to add a few more shots to his armoury and be confident he can do the biz at test level against good attacks.

In this series, I think Johnson will score the most runs.

 

[Richard]

Reckon Johnson is a fairly safe bet to score more runs in said Ashes, purely because I can't see it being very likely that he won't play all five Tests; Broad I think it's quite possible he'll have to go at some point, as his bowling I still don't feel is good enough to keep him in the side against really good batting like Australia's.

Broad I think is a potentially better batsman (better technique and more convincing strokeplay) as I said in the previous thread asking this same question, but of late Johnson has outdone him, considerably. Broad, of course, used to be a specialist bat, and it seems something of a shame that he spent 3-4 years neglecting this completely having found he could also bowl.

 

[Smith]

I think Broad is the more technically oriented batsman among the two.

 

[oitoitoi]

Well both are quite well suited to their teams' needs, broad more technically correct, though he looks a bit vulnerable against spin, looks like he could dig England out of a hole or two. Johnson on the other hand is all about physical strength and power (similar to his bowling), fantastic striker of the ball and a good guy to have to put the boot in when you're 400 for 6.

I'm a big believer in both technique and physicality, but I'd take Johnson's raw power over Broad's technique (which is only really okish, he's always going to find it tough with his height to be a technically sound player).

 

[Furball]

Recent history would suggest Johnson, however Broad does seem capable of perhaps achieving similar results.

Low order batting may prove crucial to the outcome of this series, as it arguably did in '05.

The level of support might prove to be decisive in which of these two shines.

cheers

The only way lower order batting was crucial to the outcome of the 05 series was in making the Oval Test meaningful.

 

[Smith]

The only way lower order batting was crucial to the outcome of the 05 series was in making the Oval Test meaningful.

Edgbaston?

 

[Richard]

The only way lower order batting was crucial to the outcome of the 05 series was in making the Oval Test meaningful.

D'you mean Trent Bridge? Or even Old Trafford?

In which without Australia's lower-order runs England would have cakewalked both games.

At The Oval both tails were knocked-over easily in the first-innings and though Giles' knock was possibly the difference between draw and defeat for England the game had become meaningful long before that. Less making it meaningful as deciding the outcome.

 

[Uppercut]

Johnson for me. I reckon he's just as technically correct as Broad when he wants to be but also capable of having a slog if that's what's required. And batting at 8, is very often is.

 

[Uppercut]

D'you mean Trent Bridge? Or even Old Trafford?

In which without Australia's lower-order runs England would have cakewalked both games.

At The Oval both tails were knocked-over easily in the first-innings and though Giles' knock was possibly the difference between draw and defeat for England the game had become meaningful long before that. Less making it meaningful as deciding the outcome.

Think that's what he means- if it weren't for lower-order batting, OT would have been an England win and the Oval game would have been a dead rubber.

 

[Richard]

Ho ho, I get that now. Verrrrrrry clever.

 

[superkingdave]

To take a simplistic view, If the innings ended when the 6th wicket fell, it would have been 2-2 going in to the Oval

 

[GIMH]

Think Broad will score more runs

 

[Furball]

D'you mean Trent Bridge? Or even Old Trafford?

In which without Australia's lower-order runs England would have cakewalked both games

Exactly.

 

[Burgey]

Reckon Johnson is a fairly safe bet to score more runs in said Ashes, purely because I can't see it being very likely that he won't play all five Tests; Broad I think it's quite possible he'll have to go at some point, as his bowling I still don't feel is good enough to keep him in the side against really good batting like Australia's.

Broad I think is a potentially better batsman (better technique and more convincing strokeplay) as I said in the previous thread asking this same question, but of late Johnson has outdone him, considerably. Broad, of course, used to be a specialist bat, and it seems something of a shame that he spent 3-4 years neglecting this completely having found he could also bowl.

I think Broad is the more technically oriented batsman among the two.

The Ian Bell Syndrome strikes again.....