Johnson vs broad

[Teja.]

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.

IMHO, he certainly has had a bad year. I disagree, fair enough.

 

[Teja.]

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

I do watch the game, Thank you very much. I just have a completely different idea of what being a good bowler is all about.

 

[GIMH]

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.

Makes my point so much better than I did.

TBF to Johnson (not something you hear me saying a lot) it's not his fault he doesn't have an Anderson or a Swann, although I suppose he's meant to be Australia's Anderson. Johnson and Broad have different roles as bowlers so it's not an easy comparison.

 

[Spark]

At the end of the day who would you prefer, the dream-spell-every-5-matches that you get from Johnson and utter filth in between where he'll take a few wickets but leak so many runs that it makes the entire attack less effective, or the dream-spell-every-10-matches but bowls tight, probing bowling that makes the entire attack more penetrative that you get from Broad?

I'll pick the latter. Pressure bowling is a severely underrated tactic nowadays. Too many bowlers trying to be bloody heroes than to just bowl in a partnership for 10 overs for 20 runs.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I prefer Johnson's broad.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I prefer Johnson's broad.

I mean, its a no-brainer when the competition is Broad's johnson.

 

[morgieb]

Broad's more consistent, Johnson's more lethal at his best. Depends on the side.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I mean, its a no-brainer when the competition is Broad's johnson.

*alleged

 

[Spark]

Broad's more consistent, Johnson's more lethal at his best. Depends on the side.

In either side I would pick Broad. Johnson just leaks far too many runs when he's off-colour and is off-colour far too often for mine.

 

[G.I.Joe]

In either side I would pick Broad. Johnson just leaks far too many runs when he's off-colour and is off-colour far too often for mine.

Probably a UTI.

 

[Teja.]

At the end of the day who would you prefer, the dream-spell-every-5-matches that you get from Johnson and utter filth in between where he'll take a few wickets but leak so many runs that it makes the entire attack less effective, or the dream-spell-every-10-matches but bowls tight, probing bowling that makes the entire attack more penetrative that you get from Broad?

I'll pick the latter. Pressure bowling is a severely underrated tactic nowadays. Too many bowlers trying to be bloody heroes than to just bowl in a partnership for 10 overs for 20 runs.

IMO, Johnson's leakage of runs is seriously overrated by how bad he looks looks when he's leaking runs while the other bowlers leak runs through pitched up balls with a chance of taking wickets et al.

If I had to pick one for India, I'd take Johnson without a doubt. In the end, he bowled extremely well in India and basically he's a bowler capable of winning a match on his own and just not taking a wicket when he's not bowling well(It's not like he becomes 5 rpo expensive). Only Steyn of the other bowlers can win matches on his own and it's an incredible asset to have.

This does not mean I consider Johnson Steyn's equal or even Zaheer/Anderson's equal but I do consider him a comfortably better bowler than Stuart Broad.

 

[Shri]

Probably a UTI.

Uterus transmitted infection?

 

[GIMH]

His bad bowling is certainly not overstated. I sat through Harmison's darkest days and he never plumbed the depths of Johnson at Lord's 09 or Brisbane 10, just to give two examples. The guy is a joke.

 

[Shri]

Broad is blonde. Disqualified on principle.

 

[Spark]

IMO, Johnson's leakage of runs is seriously overrated by how bad he looks looks when he's leaking runs while the other bowlers leak runs through pitched up balls with a chance of taking wickets et al.

Not at all. Constantly goes for over 4 an over. That's just dire. Yes, he's not as rubbish as made out by the horror wides and such, but going at over 4 an over constantly is just bad.

If I had to pick one for India, I'd take Johnson without a doubt. In the end, he bowled extremely well in India and basically he's a bowler capable of winning a match on his own and just not taking a wicket when he's not bowling well(It's not like he becomes 5 rpo expensive). Only Steyn of the other bowlers can win matches on his own and it's an incredible asset to have.

Yes, he'll win one match out of five to ten for you on his own. But how many matches will he lose for you in between?

I mean look at the 09 Ashes. Hilfenhaus did bowl well, was penetrating (highest wicket taker, remember) and all but we just weren't able to build any pressure whilst Johnson was bowling for three tests, which made it bloody hard for us to take wickets at speed because England could just sit on our good bowlers, playing them very cautiously, and then cash in on the rank balls bowled by Johnson - or by the good bowlers trying too hard in desperation for a wicket.

 

[Teja.]

His bad bowling is certainly not overstated. I sat through Harmison's darkest days and he never plumbed the depths of Johnson at Lord's 09 or Brisbane 10, just to give two examples. The guy is a joke.

Well, maybe because I've sat through Ishant Sharma give 35 runs per opening spell everytime with 7 no-balls each time. I'm a little more liberal to excuse a bowler going at 4.5 and more desperate for a bowler taking 10 wickets a game.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yes, he'll win one match out of five to ten for you on his own. But how many matches will he lose for you in between?

Thats not a bad thing by itself. Between Sreesanth and Johnson, we'd have two players winning us 2 out of 5 matches on their own.

It's a bit like the Sehwag situation. Only he's a batsman, and his failures don't play out on the field over a prolonged pariod of time as they do for bowlers.

 

[Teja.]

Not at all. Constantly goes for over 4 an over. That's just dire. Yes, he's not as rubbish as made out by the horror wides and such, but going at over 4 an over constantly is just bad.

Yes, he'll win one match out of five to ten for you on his own. But how many matches will he lose for you in between?

I mean look at the 09 Ashes. Hilfenhaus did bowl well, was penetrating (highest wicket taker, remember) and all but we just weren't able to build any pressure whilst Johnson was bowling for three tests, which made it bloody hard for us to take wickets at speed because England could just sit on our good bowlers, playing them very cautiously, and then cash in on the rank balls bowled by Johnson - or by the good bowlers trying too hard in desperation for a wicket.

Assuming this post is still in the Indian context, We have either Ishant or Sree conceding runs at about an equal amount almost every game.

 

[Spark]

Thats not a bad thing by itself. Between Sreesanth and Johnson, we'd have two players winning us 2 out of 5 matches on their own.

It's a bit like the Sehwag situation. Only he's a batsman, and his failures don't play out on the field over a prolonged pariod of time as they do for bowlers.

Sehwag is more consistent than that though.

A better comparison is actually Marcus North. How much **** did he cop for being awesome for one innings, horrible for the next ten?

---

FTR I'd still pick him in our team simply because he does have the ability to win matches, and we can't seem to do it without him. But in the other strong teams with a genuine pace spearhead then he'd probably be relegated to 3rd seamer.

 

[andyc]

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.

Not sure you can say that makes up for his pretty average record, tbh. Once Broad went home in the Ashes, his replacements bowled far better than he had IMO, and his absence was hardly detrimental to Jimmy's form.