What should we do with Mitchell Johnson?

[JimmyGS]

I have to doubt it TBH. People go on about it, but a cricket ball is a cricket ball.

Agree with the rest of your post, but this is just wrong. Most of our under 19 bowling attack struggled to get the hang of bowling with the duke ball. It is very different, not only in feel but also in how you try to maintain it and how you try to get it to swing.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but the problems from the Duke generally result from being unable to control the fact that it moves more. It's not like it has fifty times the lacquer or it's twice the size. Johnson's troubles are far more wide-ranging than that - they could and would have occurred with a Kookaburra.

Personally I've been brought up with Dukes and on the odd occasion I've used a Kookaburra I've not had any problems with the change - nor with a Reader or whatever else we get given. Going the other way, though, can easily cause problems.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There is no off position on the genius switch, Richard.

Quality username too.

 

[tooextracool]

I'd expect Clark to be in for Siddle anyway, save an absolute mare at Northants.

I'd still be inclined to give him another test because, unlike Gillespie who was in a very similar situation four years back, age isn't likely to be a factor. I'm not sure it's mental either, blokes who're gone upstairs don't generally score 50s in pressure situations, so I'm inclined to think it must be a technical issue. Time for Cooley to earn his corn.

If he's similarly dire at Birmingham tho I'd have to advocate the chop, tbh.

Don't understand why Siddle goes ahead of Johnson tbh. Siddle btw has been just as consistent this past year as Johnson has, even though Johnson has received infinitely more of the accolades because hes played more games, taken a few more wickets and broken a few more hands. It is clear that Siddle has bowled far better in this series than Johnson so I cannot see how it is that clear cut.

My personal view is that Johnson needs to play in the tour game against Northants and if he doesn't find any form, then he should be dropped. He isn't in the team for his batting so his all-rounder status is irrelevant given that hes one of the 4 bowlers in the side.

I understand that hes only really had a couple of poor games, and perhaps he is unfortunate if he does get dropped, but the fact of the matter is that Australia have to change the side. You cant go in with the same bowling attack that looked completely toothless in the previous test and Mitch has easily been the worst bowler on the Australian side this series. Arguably, along with the batting in the first inning, Mitch had a big influence in costing Australia the game in the first inning by bowling one of the most horrific spells seen in Ashes cricket by any Australian since perhaps Brendan Julian. I don't think Australia can afford to carry someone like that again in this part of the series, not as part of a 4 man bowling attack at least, especially with someone like Hauritz as the team's tweaker.

 

[tooextracool]

For a guy in poor form he is still getting quite a lot of wickets.
Out of the fellow pacers only Hilfy has more out of both teams:

Hilfenhaus 9 @ 31.77
Johnson 8 @ 41.37
Flintoff 7 @ 35.28
Siddle 7 @ 44.57
Anderson 6 @ 41.83
Broad 4 @ 64
Onions 3 @ 30.33

If out of form he can still take wickets at a reasonable rate then he most certainly should be retained for when he hits his stride.

I also think his form is coming too much into question, he has definitely bowled better but even on Johnson's best days with the ball he can bowl some tripe. The guy bowls some of the best wicket taking balls in cricket and he bowls some tripe. He hasn't performed any worse than almost any other bowler on either team, he has only bowled worse than we know he can.

Err, I do not agree with the sentence in bold. Couldnt care less about his bowling average, but with the exception of a handful of balls, Mitchell Johnson has been consistently poorer than everyone else including Broad and Panesar this series. Yes hes taken 8 wickets, but in comparing him to the England bowlers, one has to consider that hes also bowled in 1 extra inning than the England bowlers.

 

[Athlai]

But he also bowled those good balls. You know the ones that took the wickets. If we exclude those then yes I'm sure he has been unforgivably bad. Yet we include them and he has made good breakthroughs.

 

[tooextracool]

I have to doubt it TBH. People go on about it, but a cricket ball is a cricket ball. It's not like he's having trouble controlling the thing because it's swinging too much, nor because it doesn't fit in his hand. He's just technically all over everywhere. That's not new - he's done that before and gotten over it.

Plainly and simply, I think the only explanation is "it happens sometimes. And possibly more with Mitchell Johnson than most."

His technique is a big issue, and slingers in general are always likely to have days where they are all over shop because it just takes one thing to go astray and its almost impossible to land the ball on the square.

However, many people have reported that the shine or lacquer on the ball is more pronounced in the Dukes than the Kooks and this as a result has the effect of making the Duke balls feel smaller in the hand. Not sure if this is an issue with Johnson, although considering he didn't have such issues in India bowling with the SG ball which is supposed to be similar would suggest maybe not.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Don't understand why Siddle goes ahead of Johnson tbh. Siddle btw has been just as consistent this past year as Johnson has, even though Johnson has received infinitely more of the accolades because hes played more games, taken a few more wickets and broken a few more hands. It is clear that Siddle has bowled far better in this series than Johnson so I cannot see how it is that clear cut.

My personal view is that Johnson needs to play in the tour game against Northants and if he doesn't find any form, then he should be dropped. He isn't in the team for his batting so his all-rounder status is irrelevant given that hes one of the 4 bowlers in the side.

I understand that hes only really had a couple of poor games, and perhaps he is unfortunate if he does get dropped, but the fact of the matter is that Australia have to change the side. You cant go in with the same bowling attack that looked completely toothless in the previous test and Mitch has easily been the worst bowler on the Australian side this series. Arguably, along with the batting in the first inning, Mitch had a big influence in costing Australia the game in the first inning by bowling one of the most horrific spells seen in Ashes cricket by any Australian since perhaps Brendan Julian. I don't think Australia can afford to carry someone like that again in this part of the series, not as part of a 4 man bowling attack at least, especially with someone like Hauritz as the team's tweaker.

I think it's simply because Johnson has more credit in the bank than Siddle. Johnson was viewed as the banker for Oz before the series. Granted Siddle has outbowled him, regardless of their returns, but if a bowling change is going to be made it'll surely be one of the two of them and, for consistency's sake if nothing else, it'll probably be the junior partner of the two.

I'd personally play both & Clark in the Northants game regardless, if Siddle outstrips Johnson again it's possible the latter might yet be spared tho.

 

[tooextracool]

But he also bowled those good balls. You know the ones that took the wickets. If we exclude those then yes I'm sure he has been unforgivably bad. Yet we include them and he has made good breakthroughs.

That is all part of luck though. I think many of the bowlers have bowled just as many if not more good balls, Johnson was just more fortunate to have got wickets off them in the first test. As a bowler, all you can do is bowl as many balls in the right places and hope that they take wickets. Johnson bowled precious few and took wickets, but that isnt likely to happen every game and his 3/200 odd at Lords is more indicative of the way hes bowled so far this series than his figures at Cardiff.

 

[Ikki]

Clark for Sids, and to open the bowling.

 

[Pigeon]

His technique is a big issue, and slingers in general are always likely to have days where they are all over shop because it just takes one thing to go astray and its almost impossible to land the ball on the square.

However, many people have reported that the shine or lacquer on the ball is more pronounced in the Dukes than the Kooks and this as a result has the effect of making the Duke balls feel smaller in the hand. Not sure if this is an issue with Johnson, although considering he didn't have such issues in India bowling with the SG ball which is supposed to be similar would suggest maybe not.

He was pretty poor in the India series.

 

[aussie]

He was pretty poor in the India series.

No he wasn't. He was the only AUS pacer that seemed likely to take wickets & he ran in tirelessly.

 

[Pigeon]

No he wasn't. He was the only AUS pacer that seemed likely to take wickets & he ran in tirelessly.

Nope. It was Shane Watson who did all the running in. Mitchell Johnson was mediocre at best and terrible most of the time, as reflected in his record.

For the record, out of the 13 wickets he took in that series @ 40, including 3 lbw decisions which were clearly not out. And the rest included 3 catches which could be deemed lucky as batsmen were caught behind chasing wide ones, or down the leg side.

 

[tooextracool]

I think it's simply because Johnson has more credit in the bank than Siddle. Johnson was viewed as the banker for Oz before the series. Granted Siddle has outbowled him, regardless of their returns, but if a bowling change is going to be made it'll surely be one of the two of them and, for consistency's sake if nothing else, it'll probably be the junior partner of the two.

I'd personally play both & Clark in the Northants game regardless, if Siddle outstrips Johnson again it's possible the latter might yet be spared tho.

Yeah that is what I would use to decide who to pick between the 2 of them. But if I were Australia, I wouldn't be against the idea of dropping him. He has money in the bank, but one needs to focus on whats best for the team in this series, rather than what's best for him.

 

[tooextracool]

He was pretty poor in the India series.

He was, but he wasn't spraying it around in the manner that he has been so far this series. He struggled in the India series, because he was not that good of a bowler ITFP.

 

[aussie]

Nope. It was Shane Watson who did all the running in. Mitchell Johnson was mediocre at best and terrible most of the time, as reflected in his record.

For the record, out of the 13 wickets he took in that series @ 40, including 3 lbw decisions which were clearly not out. And the rest included 3 catches which could be deemed lucky as batsmen were caught behind chasing wide ones, or down the leg side.

I think you are judging Johnson's performance in IND from the wrong standard. ITFB going into that series he was not hyped as "world beater" like in this current Ashes series after his heroics in SA. He was coming off woeful efforts vs WI a few months earlier on some flat pitches, not much was expected of him going into that series. He selection was even questioned, given he didn't posses any prerequiste skills that would suggest he would be a wicket-taking threat during that series.

As the series began with Lee injured & the AUS attack not getting the ball reverse swing. Johnson although he wasn't superb by any means, was AUS most threatening bowler. He ran in tirelessly & bowled better than his average suggested without a doubt.

 

[Pigeon]

I think you are judging Johnson's performance in IND from the wrong standard. ITFB going into that series he was not hyped as "world beater" like in this current Ashes series after his heroics in SA. He was coming off woeful efforts vs WI a few months earlier on some flat pitches, not much was expected of him going into that series. He selection was even questioned, given he didn't posses any prerequiste skills that would suggest he would be a wicket-taking threat during that series.

As the series began with Lee injured & the AUS attack not getting the ball reverse swing. Johnson although he wasn't superb by any means, was AUS most threatening bowler. He ran in tirelessly & bowled better than his average suggested without a doubt.

Quite simple. He did not. There are umpteen number of proofs suggesting my point. None, am afraid, yours.

 

[tooextracool]

He ran in tirelessly & bowled better than his average suggested without a doubt.

All the aussie bowlers that series varied between poor and dreadful, which was expected.
You can pick a spot for Johnson in between those categories but it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't very good.

 

[Ikki]

Agree with Aussie here. Whilst all the bowlers were somewhat woeful, Johnson's figures do him a disservice because he clearly was threatening at times and did bowl long spells of high-octane bowling when we were getting nothing out of the pitch.

 

[Pigeon]

Agree with Aussie here. Whilst all the bowlers were somewhat woeful, Johnson's figures do him a disservice because he clearly was threatening at times and did bowl long spells of high-octane bowling when we were getting nothing out of the pitch.

His figures ought to be even terrible considering 25% of his wickets came of dubious decisions.