-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Johnson vs Broad with the bat
- Thread starter pasag
- Start date
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Burgey absolutely nails it in six words.
Noble One
International Vice-Captain
Very useful to have a bowling all-rounder. One of the toughest roles to fill, to find a cricketer who can hold his own with the ball, and yet punish the opposition bowlers batting at 7 or 8.
I think we have seen what Johnson is capable of. When in form, he is a fantastic striker of the ball. An average of around 25 is reflective of his ability.
Broad is an uncertainty. His improvement is rapid, he does appear to have a really solid technique. But after 55 first class games he has yet to score a century, if we compared him to a young batsman after 55 games who has yet to score a century we would think of that player as below average regardless of any improvements made. Really uncertain as to what Broad may achieve.
Johnson to score more runs in the Ashes. Will play all 5 games. No guarantee Broad will do the same.
I think we have seen what Johnson is capable of. When in form, he is a fantastic striker of the ball. An average of around 25 is reflective of his ability.
Broad is an uncertainty. His improvement is rapid, he does appear to have a really solid technique. But after 55 first class games he has yet to score a century, if we compared him to a young batsman after 55 games who has yet to score a century we would think of that player as below average regardless of any improvements made. Really uncertain as to what Broad may achieve.
Johnson to score more runs in the Ashes. Will play all 5 games. No guarantee Broad will do the same.
cowboy up
Banned
that was great,didnt it come down to the wire
Mitchell Johnson is, at his best, infinitely more damaging than Stuart Broad. However, he is also fairly inconsistent (being a lower-order batsman) and relies on power and hand-eye coordination, rather than a sound technique. He is roughly comparable to Lance Klusener (only Klusener was obviously a much better batsman and a vastly inferior bowler for all but one Test). As his ODI record shows, he's a nervous starter, too.
Broad is more technically adept, more consistent and has more batting potential (if Geoff Boycott is to be believed), but lacks the ability to take the game away from sides in the manner that Johnson can. Despite averaging over 30, he's only scored 3 50's. That's indicative of a player who gets starts, but who cannot go on with them - the exact opposite of Johnson, exactly, who seemingly either scores big or scores relatively little.
Broad is more technically adept, more consistent and has more batting potential (if Geoff Boycott is to be believed), but lacks the ability to take the game away from sides in the manner that Johnson can. Despite averaging over 30, he's only scored 3 50's. That's indicative of a player who gets starts, but who cannot go on with them - the exact opposite of Johnson, exactly, who seemingly either scores big or scores relatively little.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Well not really... Bell is a to-date relative failure; Broad has precious little to-date to judge and we're talking about how good he could be, not how good he is.
Redbacks
International Captain
Oh, and Johnson hits the stumps more often from 25 centimetres away
Jakester1288
International Regular
1. Who is a better Test batsman?
Well, if I was an opposition bowler, I would rather bowl to Broad than Johnson. Also, I would back Johnson to score more runs out of the two, and Johnson to score them quicker, so I would say Johnson.
2. Who will score more runs in the Ashes?
Johnson, on the basis that he is guaranteed to play all 5 games unless injuries intervene.
Well, if I was an opposition bowler, I would rather bowl to Broad than Johnson. Also, I would back Johnson to score more runs out of the two, and Johnson to score them quicker, so I would say Johnson.
2. Who will score more runs in the Ashes?
Johnson, on the basis that he is guaranteed to play all 5 games unless injuries intervene.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Is that three stumps laughing at such a thought?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
That's not neccessarily cogent with who's better though. Most would have preferred to bowl at Larry Gomes than Richie Richardson in circa 1985 too, but it's quite possible that Gomes was the better player.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Never really understood the general logic of that anyway TBH. Maybe it's because I'm an off spinner, but I love bowling to batsmen who attack me - they're more likely to offer a chance. I bowl to get people out.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Yeah, but it's about those who attack recklessly. Some - like Tendulkar for instance - would go after spin and you never felt you had much of a hope of getting him out. Someone like Laxman and Ganguly was to some extent similar. Dravid, meanwhile, was every bit as unlikely to get out but would probably not be so aggressive (and not just positive - outright aggressive, looking to score rather than merely being difficult to contain).
Yet as a spinner you'd always prefer to bowl to a Gilchrist or Langer, who plays shots, but is weak against spin, than a Dravid.
Essentially, it's a case of as a bowler your order of preference is:
Strokeless and hapless (know it's only a matter of time)
Strokeplaying and hapless (know it's probably only a matter of time but also that there's a chance they'll get lucky)
Sedate and assured (know you're not likely to get them out but they probably won't destroy you)
Strokeplaying and assured (feel you can neither contain nor dismiss)
Yet as far as calibre of batsmanship is concerned, strokeplaying and assured is no better than sedate and assured, if the number of runs that results is the same.
Yet as a spinner you'd always prefer to bowl to a Gilchrist or Langer, who plays shots, but is weak against spin, than a Dravid.
Essentially, it's a case of as a bowler your order of preference is:
Strokeless and hapless (know it's only a matter of time)
Strokeplaying and hapless (know it's probably only a matter of time but also that there's a chance they'll get lucky)
Sedate and assured (know you're not likely to get them out but they probably won't destroy you)
Strokeplaying and assured (feel you can neither contain nor dismiss)
Yet as far as calibre of batsmanship is concerned, strokeplaying and assured is no better than sedate and assured, if the number of runs that results is the same.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Think this might end up a style versus substance thang. Broad did only score 19, but looked pretty good doing it. More of a quote-unquote "proper" batsman than Bopara to my eye, for instance, who scored 16 more.
Doubt Mitch will win many style points, but may well outscore him. Monty bowling to him could be amusing, but for my Englishness. Catching practice for the crowd.
Doubt Mitch will win many style points, but may well outscore him. Monty bowling to him could be amusing, but for my Englishness. Catching practice for the crowd.
Australia bowled some real dross to the tail, backed up by some even worse captaincy from ponting, didn't see Broad face a single yorker, surely the best ball to such a tall bloke? Broad has some shots but don't think his technique will stand up to quality bowling. Johnson just has incredible phyiscal power, anything in his zone will disappear, however similarly don't think he'll do too much in adverse conditions.