What should we do with Mitchell Johnson?

[Ikki]

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

A bowler could get a dubious decision yet go a whole innings not getting reward for outstanding bowling - it is neither here nor there.

 

[GIMH]

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.

He was going around 6 an over in England's first innings at Lord's. There's a case to be made that that was huge in the end result, certainly more so than any of his wickets were.

 

[Ausage]

What's that? An Aussie having a bad game? Cue Roebuck digging the boot in.

Misfiring Johnson not worthy of leading tourists' attack - Cricket - Sport

 

[age_master]

I think Johnson will come good, but i get the feeling he is one of those guys who needs lots of bowling. The more he bowls the better he seems to get. After he has a break he tends to not bowl as well.

 

[stephen]

I think Johnson will come good, but i get the feeling he is one of those guys who needs lots of bowling. The more he bowls the better he seems to get. After he has a break he tends to not bowl as well.

Agreed. I'd also like to keep him in the team for the psychological factor of having him there. England may dismiss him now, but if he hits his stride they will be crapping their boots. You don't break the hand of the best opening batsman in world cricket twice without being at least somewhat dangerous.

Heck, it was only three months ago that he nearly forced two batsmen "retired hurt" in the same innings on a good deck, which hasn't ever been done since helmets were invented.

 

[pup11]

I think the new-ball should no longer be given to him though, its important that Australia make a good start with the new ball, because its the new ball that has been doing most of the damage in this series so far, and Mitch unfortunately has been spraying it all over the place.

I think he is trying too hard to swing the new-ball which is one of things that's causing him these problems, as stephen pointed out, he has the ability to be extremely hostile with the ball, and he should concentrate on rattling and intimidating the batsmen, if the balls swings or reverses for him then he should just take it as a bonus, but he shouldn't really lose sleep over it, as he can still be very dangerous, even without swinging the ball.

 

[vic_orthdox]

What should we do with a Mitchell Johnson?

Put him in the scuppers with a head tie on him.
Put him in the scuppers with a head tie on him.
Put him in the scuppers with a head tie on him.
Earl-eye in the morning.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

I'm not happy with Warney, cause if ever there was a case for "I blame me mum" then this is it. Sadly however, thats already been used.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What's that? An Aussie having a bad game? Cue Roebuck digging the boot in.

Misfiring Johnson not worthy of leading tourists' attack - Cricket - Sport

Can never jump on a bandwagon quick enough, that man. Two points particularly brought out the "disgusted of East Cambs" in me:

England's weaknesses in Cardiff were superficial, Australia's appear deeper rooted.

He never really eleborates on this point, but how are the failings of Bopara, Broad, Panesar & Swann any more or less superficial than those of Johnson & Siddle? Because one of the three Englishmen who were retained performed at Lords? In that case we'll know more after Birmingham, surely?

It's either simply padding the article or bollox.

it's hard to see this attack [Australia's] winning Test matches in England.

Really? Over ten overs at #10 & #11 to take the twentieth wicket & it's still hard to see a win? FFS.

 

[pietersenrocks]

Twittering with Bumble is the best he can do.

 

[superkingdave]

Haha Roebuck never tires of proving how much of a ****wit he is

 

[TT Boy]

Complete volte-face from Peter. He was lauding how good Johnson and Australia's attack (spinner aside) was in the first test.

 

[Pigeon]

Agreed. I'd also like to keep him in the team for the psychological factor of having him there. England may dismiss him now, but if he hits his stride they will be crapping their boots. You don't break the hand of the best opening batsman in world cricket twice without being at least somewhat dangerous.

Heck, it was only three months ago that he nearly forced two batsmen "retired hurt" in the same innings on a good deck, which hasn't ever been done since helmets were invented.

I guess Virendar Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir would be upset with that massive call.

 

[aussie]

A bowler could get a dubious decision yet go a whole innings not getting reward for outstanding bowling - it is neither here nor there.

Exaclty. Its just like criticizing a batsman who scored a hundred because he was dropped 3 times. Nonsense.

 

[Richard]

Put him in the scuppers with a head tie on him.
Put him in the scuppers with a head tie on him.
Put him in the scuppers with a head tie on him.
Earl-eye in the morning.

Astonished it took until the 46th reply TBH. I would've done it myself if I'd seen this thread with 3-4 replies.

 

[Richard]

You don't break the hand of the best opening batsman in world cricket twice without being at least somewhat dangerous.

He broke Smith's hand because of uneven pitches and the fact that Smith was most unfortunate that a blow hit in exactly the wrong place. Batsmen only ever get hit on the hand on uneven decks and most hits on the hand merely result in a bit of pain and some bruising, not a break.

You can't bowl to break a batsman's hand.

 

[Richard]

Complete volte-face from Peter. He was lauding how good Johnson and Australia's attack (spinner aside) was in the first test.

Newsflash: Peter Roebuck changes mind quicker than a post posts on CW again.

Seriously, can't recall a time when he didn't do that.

 

[stephen]

I guess Virendar Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir would be upset with that massive call.

Refresh my memory?

At the time the commentators were saying that the last time two batsmen retired hurt in one innings was in the thirties or something.

 

[stephen]

He broke Smith's hand because of uneven pitches and the fact that Smith was most unfortunate that a blow hit in exactly the wrong place. Batsmen only ever get hit on the hand on uneven decks and most hits on the hand merely result in a bit of pain and some bruising, not a break.

You can't bowl to break a batsman's hand.

Of course you can't bowl to break his hand.

But to do what Johnson did to Smith you have to be an accurate, fast and dangerous bowler, which is what Johnson on song is. That's why Kallis nearly had to retire hurt from that innings as well. Without helmets he may very well be dead.

 

[howardj]

Johnson needs to bowl bowl bowl.

If there is one thing that ****s the hell out of me, it is resting for the sake of it (like with Johnson in the first tour game down in Sussex). Johnson has been very very good in the last 12 months, which incidentally coincides with him bowling non-stop. He played something like 10 Tests between October and 6 January, then played ODIs and then the compact 3 Test tour of South Africa - with only 10 days off (when he was rested in the ODIs in January).

These guys are professional athletes in their mid twenties - they need work, and lots of it. To that end, I would bowl Johnson into the ground at Northhampton this weekend. It will be great for him to get some overs in, away from the pressure of the Test match theatre.