Johnson vs broad

[Avada Kedavra]

Both r exciting young talents,who's better as all rounder??

 

[Burgey]

Broad tends to hit the pitch more often. Probably puts him in front

 

[GIMH]

Johnson's 29, hardly an exciting young talent.

Anyway:

Broad is a better bowler, better batsman and doesn't have a **** sleeve tattoo. He's from a better country. He's won two Ashes series (to Johnson's zero) and one Twenty20 World Cup (to Johnson's zero).

Did Johnson go to the 2007 ODI WC, serious question? I know he was playing some ODIs by then.

 

[Howe_zat]

I've started to lose patience with both of them to be honest. Two years ago it was Johnson, no question, and six months ago it looked like Broad was starting to hold his own.

But I've got so sick of the hype surronding them and the bizarrely strong feelings people seem to have one way or the other - not to mention the inherent, sporadic awesomeness/****ness/hatefulness/stupidity of them - that I'm beginning to lose interest, and would be happy to see them both leave.

 

[MW1304]

Both r exciting young talents,who's better as all rounder??

If you're talking about the young, 26 year-old, American, mass murdering Mitchell Johnson, then I'd say Broady.

If you're talking about the not-at-all-young, 29 year-old, Australian, 4th slip disturbing Mitchell Johnson, then I'd say Broady.

 

[MW1304]

Johnson's 29, hardly an exciting young talent.

Anyway:

Broad is a better bowler, better batsman and doesn't have a **** sleeve tattoo. He's from a better country. He's won two Ashes series (to Johnson's zero) and one Twenty20 World Cup (to Johnson's zero).

Did Johnson go to the 2007 ODI WC, serious question? I know he was playing some ODIs by then.

Pretty sure he did, yeah.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Nothing to do with his quality of lack of, but Stuart Broad is such a fricking boring, uninspiring bowler.

 

[Mike5181]

Broad is overrated. I have a feeling Yuvraj would agree with me.

 

[Spark]

As a bowler, Broad is talented, dovetails nicely with the rest of England's attack. Johnson is probably "better" ATS but I doubt that'll last long.

As a batsman, I'd have Broad ahead, he's actually one of the most watchable bats in the England team.

 

[Noble One]

Irrelevant to the debate, but who was/is the better batsman out of Broad and Paul Reiffel? I see a lot of Reiffel in the technique of Broad, and he places a very high value on his wicket like Reiffel.

 

[vcs]

I've started to lose patience with both of them to be honest. Two years ago it was Johnson, no question, and six months ago it looked like Broad was starting to hold his own.

But I've got so sick of the hype surronding them and the bizarrely strong feelings people seem to have one way or the other - not to mention the inherent, sporadic awesomeness/****ness/hatefulness/stupidity of them - that I'm beginning to lose interest, and would be happy to see them both leave.

This.

 

[Teja.]

Not much of a debate - Johnson

 

[Spark]

Not much of a debate - Johnson

Why? At least in between his wonder spells Broad doesn't bowl complete rubbish. The difference between them as batsman is negligible at best.

 

[Teja.]

Why? At least in between his wonder spells Broad doesn't bowl complete rubbish. The difference between them as batsman is negligible at best.

Johnson's wonder spells come more often though and are almost always more destructive. I reckon people underrate the value of Johnson because of how bad he looks when he's not taking wickets while someone else like Broad or Huilfeh look like they're bowling very well and are just unlucky not to get wickets. I don't take this into consideration. Johnson just gets results more often, I don't really mind if Johnson bowls a godawful length while they bowl a penetrative one for getting nil results anyway.

In 2010, An year when many considered Broad an improved bowler, he has taken 26 wickets in 10 matches @ 37.7 with no 5-fers, In the same year Johnson went from being considered a serious candidate for the 2nd best bowler in the world to being dropped midway, yet his results are 40 wickets in 11 games @ 34.1 with 3 5-fers. So despite angering people with how he bowls when having a bad match, By virtue of his performances in his big games, He still takes a substantial number of wickets on average per match. It could also be argued that Johnson bowled against better opposition, but that argument isn't even necessary. Now you bring in the results Johnson has achieved over the last three years and compare that to Broad. and I don't see why this argument exists.

You could say that Broad was unlucky in the Ashes but then again many people were praising Hilfenhaus for how he bowled in India and reckoning how he'd soon get the results he deserved. I was the only one criticizing him IIRC and he bowls the same unpenetrative accurate drivel in the Ashes and got owned. Johnson ended with much more respectable results in both series' too. I'm extremely hesitant to rate bowlers when their good bowling is not backed up by wickets.

 

[Spark]

DWTA that Hilfenhaus bowled "the same unpenetrative accurate drivel" in the Ashes. Hilfenhaus constantly at least beat or found the edge in India, which he rarely ever did in the Ashes. He wasn't very accurate either, constantly straying onto the pads of the LHs.

 

[marc71178]

In 2010, An year when many considered Broad an improved bowler, he has taken 26 wickets in 10 matches @ 37.7 with no 5-fers,

I've said it before and I'll say it again - try watching the game rather than just looking at stats.

 

[GIMH]

Broad has bowled excellently in partnership with Anderson throughout 2010. It's not a simple case of who has the better average, although Broad should maybe have cashed in a bit more in the English summer.

I couldn't care less what the numbers say, Johnson is a complete liability for at least half the games he plays. Broad's role in the team isn't to be the strike bowler, it's to keep control and I think he does it fairly well.

 

[Teja.]

DWTA that Hilfenhaus bowled "the same unpenetrative accurate drivel" in the Ashes. Hilfenhaus constantly at least beat or found the edge in India, which he rarely ever did in the Ashes. He wasn't very accurate either, constantly straying onto the pads of the LHs.

For the first 2-3 tests atleast, I found his bowling extremely similar to how he bowled in India. Sure, He bowled slightly more bad balls, but he wasn't really taking wickets despite lingering quite a few times between off and slightly outside off. My point is you have to be more pro-active as a bowler to take wickets.Something which Johnson does and it shouldn't matter whether one bloke looks like he's trying to get wickets while another bloke just looks like he's bowling badly intentionally when they both get the same reward.

 

[Spark]

I mean it is extremely impressive that Broad bowled on the two flattest decks only and yet no one was able to better his ER.

Yes, he bowled too short to take a bagful of wickets but as I said he dovetails very nicely with an England attack that isn't exactly short on wicket-takers. Their entire philosophy nowadays is pressure bowling, and tight, probing bowling is exactly the way to go about that. Broad's arguably their best bowler at doing so.

 

[Spark]

For the first 2-3 tests atleast, I found his bowling extremely similar to how he bowled in India. Sure, He bowled slightly more bad balls, but he wasn't really taking wickets despite lingering quite a few times between off and slightly outside off. My point is you have to be more pro-active as a bowler to take wickets.Something which Johnson does and it shouldn't matter whether one bloke looks like he's trying to get wickets while another bloke just looks like he's bowling badly intentionally when they both get the same reward.

In India he did actually look like taking wickets though. You generally do if you consistently beat the bat and find the edge.

Plus that he did actually take a few wickets.