Johnson vs Broad with the bat

[Uppercut]

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.

I think Broad vs. Swann is a more apt comparison. Swann is arguably better IMO, but Broad looks better somehow, even while scoring half as many runs.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

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.

Reckon Midge is awesome to watch. Very straight bat, hits the ball cleanly and hard.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Reckon Midge is awesome to watch. Very straight bat, hits the ball cleanly and hard.

Yeah, is entertaining, don't get me wrong. Just unlikely to get the Nicholases & Gowers of the world frothing at the gash with the textbook creaminess of his cover drive.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Hmm, think he has decent enough technique bar his footwork. If he moved his feet I reckon he'd be considered a superb technician (for a lower order player, anyway).

Would probably diminish his game though.

 

[JonnyB]

Johnson just...................... but i do think that Broad might sneak it in the Ashes

 

[Hoggy31]

lol Johnson by so far, add the fact that he'll still be playing Test cricket in 12 months.

 

[Jakester1288]

Ashes run tally

After first test
Broad - 33 runs - 2 innings
Johnson - 0 runs - 0 innings

Broad may score more runs due to the fact that England will bat more than Australia.

That is looking pretty good now. However, Broad looks pretty likely to be dropped, but personally, I'd rather he remains in the team. But I'm only interested in what is in the best interests of Australia. For England, IMO they should replace Broad with Harmison and Panesar with Onions for Lords.

 

[Jakester1288]

First innings for both at Lords.

Broad 16
Johnson 4

Broad should be batting this innings, Johnson probably will bat next innings. Whether Broad is in the side for the third Test is questionable, and whilst Johnson should be selected for the third Test, and the rest of the series as well if he performs poorly for the remainder of this match, in the tour match and the third Test, he may not gain selection for Tests 4 and 5, but it's doubtful that the selectors will drop him.

 

[James90]

I don't rate that comparison.

Johnson didn't have the luxury of facing Johnson.

 

[GIMH]

I don't think Broad will bat in this innings tbh

 

[Richard]

I don't rate that comparison.

Johnson didn't have the luxury of facing Johnson.

But he did have the luxury of facing Broad, and couldn't even avoid getting out to him.

 

[Richard]

Isn't quite Broad vs Swann with the bat but it's as good as anywhere...

Pure semantics, someone isn't more of an all-rounder than someone else just because they are worse at both disciplined

An all-rounder in my book is someone roughly equal in batting and bowling. Because Broad is a worse batsman than Swann and a worse bowler, ergo he's more of an all-rounder, and a massively lesser player.

And saying that broad can't bowl or bat is bollocks anyway, there was a post from Burgey in the Lord's thread that was on the money for that sort of comment

Broad is not a very good bowler, and not a very good batsman. Very different to "can't bowl, can't bat".

 

[GIMH]

Isn't quite Broad vs Swann with the bat but it's as good as anywhere...
An all-rounder in my book is someone roughly equal in batting and bowling. Because Broad is a worse batsman than Swann and a worse bowler, ergo he's more of an all-rounder, and a massively lesser player.

Broad is not a very good bowler, and not a very good batsman. Very different to "can't bowl, can't bat".

I can't get my head round this at all.

Let's say Bradman had taken 200 Test wickets at 25. Would he have been an all-rounder?

Swann is a better bowler and probably a better batsman than Broad. Therefore to classify Broad as an all-rounder and not Swann is a bit silly, nothing else.

And as for Broad not being a very good bowler or batsman. As I said in the match thread, Burgey made a great post on this matter in the Lord's thread. You might believe he shouldn't be playing international cricket, fair, a lot of people don't. But to say he's not a very good cricketer (which is essentially what you're saying) is ludicrous.

 

[Richard]

I can't get my head round this at all.

Let's say Bradman had taken 200 Test wickets at 25. Would he have been an all-rounder?

Swann is a better bowler and probably a better batsman than Broad. Therefore to classify Broad as an all-rounder and not Swann is a bit silly, nothing else.

My definition of an all-rounder is someone roughly equal in batting and bowling ability. To be a bowler of the stature of Bradman's batting you'd need to be taking 400 wickets at 14.82 or so. If Bradman took 200 Test wickets at 25 he'd be the greatest batsman ever who also happened to be an outstanding bowler too. Certainly not a genuinely rounded all-rounder.

Swann is not an all-rounder because there's considerable disparity between his batting and bowling abilities. With Broad, there isn't. Swann is a good bowler and a decent lower-order batsman; Broad is a pretty poor (by Test standards) bowler and batsman.

To say an all-rounder has to be good, which is essentially what you're doing, is not right IMO. AFAIC, you can get poor all-rounders, same way you can get poor specialist batsmen and poor specialist bowlers. Has often seemed to me that the classification "all-rounder" seems to confer some sort of status of excellence for some people.

And as for Broad not being a very good bowler or batsman. As I said in the match thread, Burgey made a great post on this matter in the Lord's thread. You might believe he shouldn't be playing international cricket, fair, a lot of people don't. But to say he's not a very good cricketer (which is essentially what you're saying) is ludicrous.

By Test standards, he's not very good. By the standards of the cricket I play, he's bloody unbelievably brilliant. But when there's a Test on the table, calling him "not very good" is fair noof IMO.

 

[GIMH]

To me, an all-rounder is someone who can be expected to contribute to the team with both bat and ball. Obviously Swann isn't a pure all-rounder (tbh I don't consider him an all-rounder per se, just don't think you can call Broad one and not him) but it's not unreasonable to expect a couple of 50s from him in a series if he gets to bat for long enough, as well as wickets. It's all semantics though, I guess, but I certainly don't think to be considered an all-rounder you have to be as good at one as you are the other. By that logic Flintoff isn't an all-rounder and I'm not paying that.

 

[Richard]

Flintoff is most certainly a bowling-all-rounder, in Tests, in my book (genuine all-rounder in ODIs). Distinct from a bowler who bats a bit, like Swann, but not an out-and-out all-rounder.

I've heard people go through the "can contribute to the game with bat and ball" thing before - think Fuller was one of the most vocal - but I've never agreed with that. Ricky Ponting can contribute to the game with the ball, he just hardly ever does; James Anderson can contribute to the game with the bat, but he's still no more than a very good number-ten. Certainly, neither are all-rounders nor close to it; Ponting is a batsman who occasionally bowls; Anderson is a bowler who bats a little bit. Swann is a bowler who bats a bit. Even Mark Ealham, who's a considerably better batsman than Swann, was no more than a bowler who bats a bit at the top level.

For me, there's:
batsman
batsman who bowls a little bit
batsman who bowls a bit
batting-all-rounder
all-rounder
bowling-all-rounder
bowler who bats a bit
bowler who bats a little bit
bowler
All of whom can be anywhere on a scale of outstanding to poor.

No need for all this over-sanitised three-stage-only stuff. It's semantics, but so is "cricket player" or "baseball player". It's a question of what you define things as.

 

[GIMH]

Flintoff is most certainly a bowling-all-rounder, in Tests, in my book (genuine all-rounder in ODIs). Distinct from a bowler who bats a bit, like Swann, but not an out-and-out all-rounder.

I've heard people go through the "can contribute to the game with bat and ball" thing before - think Fuller was one of the most vocal - but I've never agreed with that. Ricky Ponting can contribute to the game with the ball, he just hardly ever does; James Anderson can contribute to the game with the bat, but he's still no more than a very good number-ten. Certainly, neither are all-rounders nor close to it; Ponting is a batsman who occasionally bowls; Anderson is a bowler who bats a little bit. Swann is a bowler who bats a bit. Even Mark Ealham, who's a considerably better batsman than Swann, was no more than a bowler who bats a bit at the top level.

For me, there's:
batsman
batsman who bowls a little bit
batsman who bowls a bit
batting-all-rounder
all-rounder
bowling-all-rounder
bowler who bats a bit
bowler who bats a little bit
bowler
All of whom can be anywhere on a scale of outstanding to poor.

No need for all this over-sanitised three-stage-only stuff. It's semantics, but so is "cricket player" or "baseball player". It's a question of what you define things as.

You cut three important words out of my post there tbf, I said "can be expected to contribute with bat and ball." Ponting wouldn't be expected to, neither would Anderson (well actually...), so it's not really a relevant analogy.

I think you're overcomplicating something that doesn't need to be overcomplicated. Flintoff has hardly ever batted lower than seven, and generally either takes the new ball or bowls first change, it's fair to say he's an all-rounder...

 

[Richard]

As I say - I think people are under-complicating something that's actually a bit less small-scale than is convenient to think of.

For me it makes far more sense to use the definitions I gave than any others. Which, really, is not surprising, as if I thought any others made more sense, I'd use them...

Flintoff - at least, the Flintoff of Tests from 2003/04 onwards - is most certainly a bowling-all-rounder for mine, and I've heard many describe him as such.

 

[GIMH]

I can live with the bowling all-rounder tag, as bowling is his strongest suit for sure. But he is somebody who for large parts of his career has been picked on the back of both disciplines.

 

[Richard]

Between 1998 and 2000 he was picked because people thought he was good at both disciplines, and in fact he was **** at them both. As I say, since 2003/04 he'd have played as one of the (often the) first names on the teamsheet purely as a bowler if he didn't know one end of the bat from the other.

Flintoff for me has been a bowling-all-rounder throughout the portion of his career which is significant - ie, the time he's been a good Test cricketer. That doesn't mean he's a shocking batsman, just that he's quite clearly better as bowler than batsman.