Do you rate Mitchell Johnson?

[stephen]

Don't get the Lee hate here. On his day, he's the best bowler in the world. If he gets back to the effectiveness he had a couple of years ago, I'd drop just about anyone for Lee.

Maybe except Clark - he's in the McGrath league. But the best of Lee > the best of this whole lot, comfortably.

In ODIs yes, in real cricket he's poor, always has been (except in his debut season).

 

[Richard]

Actually Lee is not a very streaky player. He is very consistent with his wicket taking. He's the kind of guy who will take you four wickets a match whether the wicket is a greentop or a road.

It's not that he's a bad bowler, and has huge heart but over his career he hasn't really become a great bowler. More of a bowler who's better than most around the world, but short of greatness.

Not really. Lee for most of his career has been a very poor bowler, who's had a couple of brief flashes of being sheer brilliance.

Who knows, maybe Siddle and\or Johnson might end-up being better than that.

 

[Matt79]

If we are to persist with the four quicks strategy, I'd like to see a) a better spin-bowling allrounder , and b) Johnson, Siddle, Lee and Clark. I think both Clark and Lee are 50/50 chances to regain anything like their best, so realistically, the Ashes line up should/will probably be Johnson, Siddle, whichever of Lee/Clark has recovered better, and McGain. I'd take McDonald on the tour - his very straight bowling puts me in mind of Terry Alderman, and he could be a real option in England if McGain is not fit - at the very least, he looks to have good endurance and to get through his overs quickly, so he could play a defensive role.

Hilfenhaus seems to be more likely to be a useful depth player in the mould of Andy Bichel at the moment.

 

[Richard]

Don't get the Lee hate here. On his day, he's the best bowler in the world. If he gets back to the effectiveness he had a couple of years ago, I'd drop just about anyone for Lee.

Maybe except Clark - he's in the McGrath league. But the best of Lee > the best of this whole lot, comfortably.

When Lee produces said best for 7 Tests in 1999/2000 and 2000/01 then again for 8 in 2007/08... and does nothing whatsoever for pretty much all the rest of the time... then that doesn't really matter too much.

Someone who has fundamental naturals like Lee - reasonable length legs, a perfect high arm action and body position on release, excellent arm speed and an excellent wrist-position on delivery - is always going to be almost as good as it gets when the accuracy is spot-on. When it's not, though, none of them are a hell of a lot of use. And that's been how Lee's career's turned-out. Though there was one unusual piece of "middle ground" (where he was neither excellent nor poor) in 2005/06, in which he had 9 reasonable Tests.

15 Tests of excellence... split evenly 7:8... 8 years apart. 9 of reasonable-ness. And in the other 44 he's averaged just shy of 40 - and this flatters him, he bowled far worse than that in reality.

 

[Craig]

I'll be interested to see what people think of him now. He blitzed England, and has been rubbish thus far in this Test, and in the 2009 Ashes, he was also shocking, I mean at Lord's, he was struggling to land the ball on the cutting strip (hyperbole I know, but he did serve up some trash).

 

[Burgey]

He would be a perfect third bowler, in the sense he's capable of these insane spells but is inconsistent. If you have two bowlers ahead of him who are world class, he's a great weapon.

Trouble is, I don't honk you want the beat description of your go-to guy to be "enigmatic".

 

[Ruckus]

He would be a perfect third bowler, in the sense he's capable of these insane spells but is inconsistent. If you have two bowlers ahead of him who are world class, he's a great weapon.

Trouble is, I don't honk you want the beat description of your go-to guy to be "enigmatic".

Yeah I totally agree. If he keeps being used as the spearhead bowler in our side though, you have to question his value to the team.

As someone in the commentary said a while ago (think it was Chappell) you need a bowling leader in the attack. However, due to his inconsistency, and him being of best use in smaller spells, Johnson isn't the man for the job. We need a new bowler in the side who can adopt that role and be able to take wickets, if not regulary, at least consistently. For me, Hilfenhaus has to be the one replaced. He just isn't of enough value to the team.

 

[Blaze 18]

I know India would kill for a bowler like Johnson; that is enough for me to vote 'yes'.

 

[stephen]

Yeah I totally agree. If he keeps being used as the spearhead bowler in our side though, you have to question his value to the team.

As someone in the commentary said a while ago (think it was Chappell) you need a bowling leader in the attack. However, due to his inconsistency, and him being of best use in smaller spells, Johnson isn't the man for the job. We need a new bowler in the side who can adopt that role and be able to take wickets, if not regulary, at least consistently. For me, Hilfenhaus has to be the one replaced. He just isn't of enough value to the team.

Unfortunately I agree with you.

The problem with Hilfenhaus isn't that he's a bad bowler, it's that he's just not a particularly good bowler. He bowls good lines and gets swing, but does not trouble the batsmen enough with it. I have been a big supporter of his since I saw him in 2005, but I am really finding it hard to see him as being good enough to hold his place in our test side.

Johnson really is the kind of guy that you would like in the side if the other fast bowlers were consistently taking wickets. They don't even need to be McGrath's, just bowlers who are very good like Gillespie, Hughes or McDermott. With a couple of these type of bowlers Johnson's on again off again type of play would make him extremely valuable. Right now he switches between being a liability to being a matchwinner over and over again. It's getting hard to watch.

 

[Prince EWS]

DWTA. Not that he needs to necessarily, but he can't at the moment.

I'm really not sure where I stand with him. I think some of the criticism he gets is quite over the top and unfounded, but at the same time I don't really think he's one of Australia's best three quicks.

I don't really enjoy watching him bowl at all but he's not completely terrible as far as his effectiveness goes.

I haven't changed my opinion too much despite his recent efforts - I'm still pretty undecided. I'll willing to consider the fact that he could well be one of Australia's best three quicks but I'm not 100% on that and I'm still not buying the hype as such.

He's still absolutely terrible to watch for mine which may put a slight bias on my opinion, but whilst he's a decent bowler and whilst he's copped a lot of undeserved crap on this forum lately, I still fail to see how a bowler with a terrible seam position and less-than-average accuracy is going to maintain above-par performances. Unlike many on here and in the commentary box, I don't think he has to swing the ball to be effective, but if he's not going to get any swing he has to at least hit the seam regularly or, failing all that, at least have awesome discipline, accuracy and cricketing nous. He doesn't have any of that at the moment.

Regarding the Ntini comparisons, I think they're pretty apt. However, Ntini actually hits the seam a lot even though he doesn't swing the ball, which makes him very effective on any surface that has a bit in it. Johnson's seam position is absolutely terrible and any movement he gets off the pitch is actually more like the purchase a spinner would get than what a genuine seam bowler would get due to how much he undercuts the ball.

I still AWTA.

 

[GIMH]

I read some Aussies claiming he was a better bowler than Jimmy Anderson last week.

Preposterous.

 

[Eclipse]

I read some Aussies claiming he was a better bowler than Jimmy Anderson last week.

Preposterous.

Stats wise he is plus he can bat.

I would rather Jimmy though because he is more consistant

 

[GIMH]

Stats wise he is sure, but Johnson debuted in Tests at what, 27?

 

[Eclipse]

Stats wise he is sure, but Johnson debuted in Tests at what, 27?

Whats that got to do with anything?

I think Jimmy is a better bowler right now no doubt. I was just pointing something out.

 

[GIMH]

Well what I think it has to do with anything, is that I don't think the better bowler should be judged on career stats - you agree and it wasn't really aimed at you, just a general reply to your post. It's impossible to say, but if Johnson had debuted in Tests at the age Anderson did, well, I know who I'd back to have the higher average.

 

[GIMH]

On the very same topic, my mate just said:

[Saying Johnson is better than Anderson] is just like claiming Dexy's Midnight Runners are better than The Beatles because Come On Eileen is great when you're pissed

 

[Uppercut]

Johnson now is basically Anderson back when he was crap.

If you were to take the average of their entire test careers they'd probably be about as close as the stats suggest but why on earth would you do that?

 

[GIMH]

What's the age difference between them?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Just as I voted 'yes' a couple of years back because it was closer to what I thought of him than 'no', I'd now vote 'no' because it's much closer to my opinion of his abilities now than 'yes'.

I enjoy watching him tear apart another team once in a blue moon...but I don't enjoy watching all the crap dished up in between. Would take a bowler like Anderson every day of the week given the problems our current team have with consistency. Would probably have him in the team anyway over Johnson, even if we had bowlers like McGrath and Gillespie opening.

 

[Uppercut]

Six months~?