Craig McDermott quits as Australia's bowling coach

[TT Boy]

Last test Johnson played he pretty much won Aus the game, albeit with the bat. Still a valuable cricketer though test bowling average would be closer to 35 if it wasn’t for the Kiwis. 31 this year mind, so hasn't got too many chances left.

 

[Andre]

For me it's not about statistics; sometimes you simply need to make a statement in order to breed a different, a winning mentality.

The nearest parallel I can think of to explain where I'm coming from is the Spanish national football team. A few years ago they were pretty good but always under-performing at major tournaments. It was a mystery because man for man they had players to match teams like Germany and Italy and France that were doing better than them.

For whatever reason a new coach came in and decided that he would no longer pick Raul, the team's talisman and Spain's all-time record top scorer who was at the time at or very near to his peak and widely acknowledged as one of the best players in the world. The new coach made it clear that instead he would be relying on forwards like David Villa and Fernando Torres - both of whom had made their debuts, but were at that point seen as behind Raul in the pecking order. As well as giving those strikers more responsibility and encouraging them to express themselves, he encouraged midfielders like Xavi and Iniesta who had previously played second fiddle to the Real Madrid striker to assert themselves more. Suddenly Spain started winning everything in sight.

Unlike Johnson, Raul was at that time a top player, and the country's all-time top scorer, but the coach made it clear he would not be reverting to him in order to draw a line under past failures. It was not necessarily fair - as your Anderson comparison might superficially indicate that ending Johnson's Test career might not be fair -, but is life fair? The point is that once the new coach made it clear that he would not be going back to Raul it released the pressure on the youngsters and they began to play with more freedom. In fact the decision is far easier to make in this case because Johnson is no Raul.

Sorry mate, story doesn't relate. Soccer is built at international level towards World Cup's. Every Test match in cricket is as important as any other

If Johnson comes back, performs and demands selection you'd be mad not to at the very least consider him. This is a bloke with a Test 8-fer, 190 wickets and Test hundred against South Africa - not exactly a bit part player but a genuine match winner who had had a bad trot.

Not saying he will, but of he does find his confidence again he's got a few match winning performances left.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think not having Troy "Not So Very" Cooley ****ing about with his action is what's helped Jimmeh the most.

On Johnson: I'd be ecstatic as a pom if he's in the squad for The Ashes. Can see the attraction, especially when one factors in his batting which is a cut above any of the incumbents', but I think it'd be a mistake to ignore just how merde he's looked at times in attaining what are now no more than respectable career figures.

 

[CWB304]

Think not having Troy "Not So Very" Cooley ****ing about with his action is what's helped Jimmeh the most.

On Johnson: I'd be ecstatic as a pom if he's in the squad for The Ashes. Can see the attraction, especially when one factors in his batting which is a cut above any of the incumbents', but I think it'd be a mistake to ignore just how merde he's looked at times in attaining what are now no more than respectable career figures.

In eight or nine situations out of ten I reckon Siddle 2.0 and Pattinson too are better bets with the bat. They don't have Johnson's shots, but they'll hang around with Clarke, Hussey or Wade and help to build valuable partnerships for the team.

 

[Ruckus]

I don't mind Johnson in the limited overs sides, but part of me wants to agree with CWB as well. He has always been seen as this kind of marquee/star player in the team, and I fear that if he is brought back into the side (and maybe does pretty well) it could mean he will jump a few spots in the test bowling order because of his 'matchwinning' status or some other BS. He is by no means a bad test bowler, but the fact is we have better options now, and potentially quite a few of them. I can't say I agree with Spikey's implication as well that Johnson could do an Anderson, because, as Marcuss pointed out, there isn't really much similarity between their careers at all (or in fact their entire approach to bowling). For Johnson to improve significantly he would have to remodel his whole game quite a lot, and I just can't see that coming off successfully given his age and previous attempts at it.

 

[Ruckus]

Sorry mate, story doesn't relate. Soccer is built at international level towards World Cup's. Every Test match in cricket is as important as any other

If Johnson comes back, performs and demands selection you'd be mad not to at the very least consider him. This is a bloke with a Test 8-fer, 190 wickets and Test hundred against South Africa - not exactly a bit part player but a genuine match winner who had had a bad trot.

Not saying he will, but of he does find his confidence again he's got a few match winning performances left.

I think that's being too kind. Wasn't a bad trot imo, was something that was pretty much just inevitable given his approach to bowling. The 'match winning' argument is so overstated as well imo. To truly gauge how good a bowler he was you have to take into account everything, rather than cherry picking...and the bottom line is while he had some pretty amazing performances, there were an equal (if not more) amount of terrible ones and a lot of fairly serviceable results in between. So what you end up with is pretty decent test bowler, but probably not much more than that. Aside from that though, I think a worrying thing about Johnson was that I reckon teams were really beginning to work him out (especially the English). Probably not the hardest thing to do either, when you have a left arm bowler who doesn't even know how to swing the ball or why he can do it when he it happens to be a good day.

 

[Spikey]

I can't say I agree with Spikey's implication as well that Johnson could do an Anderson

That wasn't the implication at all. I was simply pointing out that Johnson hasn't got a half bad record at this point, and that he clearly has a bit of talent, which was in response to

"Once you've shown - as Johnson has - that you can't cut it in Tests"

Johnson's career is at the crossroads, just like Anderson's was at one stage, and many many other test cricketers. You don't make your decision about the rest of their career at that point. And that's what it seems CWB304 wants to do. What if you make that call, that he's not being picked ever again, and he goes out and takes 70 wickets and sets a new shield record next season? You never quite know what's going to happen in this game, and this is Mitchell Johnson we're talking about.

 

[Furball]

MJ has 190 wickets at an average of 32.19. James Anderson, who showed a few times that he might not be up to it, averaged more than that when he had 190 wickets....

Johnson's not about to get picked in the test team anytime soon, but you'd be insane to never ever consider him for test cricket. Yes he's shown he can self-destruct like few others, but few others can match him when he's on song. You don't start thinking about never picking him again until he loses it at domestic level. Australia A selection makes perfect sense, particularly given the other 5 seamers in the squad are all young guys anyway. He's a fair way away from playing another test match, he's miles back in the line. But "never again play for Australia in any form of international cricket" is insane, if only because he probably has a case for being an automatic selection for any tests played at the WACA.....

Anderson's average as he approached 200 wickets was 31

Fully agree about Johnson in OD cricket. His ability in the shorter forms of the game has been massively over-looked because his Test bowling has gone to **** in the last 2 years.

 

[Ruckus]

That wasn't the implication at all. I was simply pointing out that Johnson hasn't got a half bad record at this point, and that he clearly has a bit of talent, which was in response to

Johnson's career is at the crossroads, just like Anderson's was at one stage, and many many other test cricketers. You don't make your decision about the rest of their career at that point. And that's what it seems CWB304 wants to do. What if you make that call, that he's not being picked ever again, and he goes out and takes 70 wickets and sets a new shield record next season? You never quite know what's going to happen in this game, and this is Mitchell Johnson we're talking about.

I still don't really get the point of the comparison with Anderson. Both their careers were/are at crossroads, but that's pretty much were the similarity ends for me. Anderson knows how to make the ball talk at a masterful level, but had previously lacked the consistency and perhaps mental strength to fully exploit his talents. Johnson on the other hand has never known what he is doing with the ball and how to do it, and despite many attempts to try and change things in his game still didn't have much of a clue as to what he his overall game plan was. Given his age - and just the general idea that it's hard to 'teach old dogs new tricks', so to speak - I have serious doubts he would ever improve enough to warrant test selection again on a permanent basis. Sure he could tear up shield cricket or something next season, but unless there is solid evidence he has finally come to an proper understanding about how his game works, then I still wouldn't be that convinced he has really improved given how erratic his performances have been over his entire career.

 

[CWB304]

I still don't really get the point of the comparison with Anderson. Both their careers were/are at crossroads, but that's pretty much were the similarity ends for me. Anderson knows how to make the ball talk at a masterful level, but had previously lacked the consistency and perhaps mental strength to fully exploit his talents. Johnson on the other hand has never known what he is doing with the ball and how to do it, and despite many attempts to try and change things in his game still didn't have much of a clue as to what he his overall game plan was. Given his age - and just the general idea that it's hard to 'teach old dogs new tricks', so to speak - I have serious doubts he would ever improve enough to warrant test selection again on a permanent basis. Sure he could tear up shield cricket or something next season, but unless there is solid evidence he has finally come to an proper understanding about how his game works, then I still wouldn't be that convinced he has really improved given how erratic his performances have been over his entire career.

Good post. There's far too much special pleading on behalf of favourites on this forum: why bother will cool rational analysis when some random data point can be plucked out of thin air to support the flimsiest of arguments?

Before the India/England series last summer Broad and Ishant had pretty much identical bowling records. No doubt if I were to argue now that Ishant should never again bowl for India, as he has now proven to have more in common with Mohammed Sami than Stuart Broad, some of his diehard fans would emerge from the woodwork to imply I'm being absurdly unfair, as, at a certain point less than a year ago, their man and the now-highly-rated Broad had similar records.

Ignore the fact that Broad has always had so much more going for him; that Ishant like Johnson has never looked remotely capable of bowling to a programme or making it difficult for batsmen in any but the friendliest of conditions; that mere numbers plucked out of thin air as a snapshot in the career of a still developing player rarely tell the whole story: as long as someone out there can get hold of a data point he can use to throw dust in everyone's eyes, he'll spring from the cricinfo database to this site before you can say "Jack Robinson" - and you can be guaranteed two or three pages of idle disputation on the "matchwinning" qualities of Johnson/Ishant in no time at all.

It was bad enough when someone was rating Bell at par with Sanga - on the basis of the latter's poor performance in two Tests in Papua New Guinea, or wherever, ten years ago - the other day. But now it's getting positively surreal. They're comparing a guy who's always known how to make the ball talk (but only in the last three years or so mastered the intelligent and economical use of variation to reap the maximum benefits from that skill) with a headless chicken whose approach has always been to shuffle up in an ugly and ungainly way that is all too indicative of the end product and hurl down 140kph half trackers interspersed with the odd half-volley - in the vague hope that something might happen through the air. It just won't wash.

 

[smash84]

It was bad enough when someone was rating Bell at par with Sanga - on the basis of the latter's poor performance in two Tests in Papua New Guinea, or wherever, ten years ago - the other day. But now it's getting positively surreal. They're comparing a guy who's always known how to make the ball talk (but only in the last three years or so mastered the intelligent and economical use of variation to reap the maximum benefits from that skill) with a headless chicken whose approach has always been to shuffle up in an ugly and ungainly way that is all too indicative of the end product and hurl down 140kph half trackers interspersed with the odd half-volley - in the vague hope that something might happen through the air. It just won't wash.

Very well written I should say. I couldn't help but chuckle and nod in agreement at certain places

 

[Burgey]

the only good thing to have happened to Aussie cricket in the last one year so is leaving?

Agreed. In all the gloom of winning in SL & WI, drawing in SA and giving India a pizzling; it is very sad to see the one bright light leave

It is a blow though. Our bowling has been the better by far for his involvement.

 

[uvelocity]

lots of good posts about johnson. One other thing, his mental condition. Ashes 09 - head****ed. Recent article, reckons was head****ed.

You don't want weak minded people around elite sporting teams. Doesn't mix.

 

[Andre]

To truly gauge how good a bowler he was you have to take into account everything, rather than cherry picking...and the bottom line is while he had some pretty amazing performances, there were an equal (if not more) amount of terrible ones and a lot of fairly serviceable results in between. So what you end up with is pretty decent test bowler, but probably not much more than that.

Yeah, but isn't that the point? I think we are all happy to agree that him as a 'spearhead' type definitely didn't work. But you can't argue he's got a happy knack of getting wickets from nowhere, can produce unplayable spells and offers quite a lot with the bat to the balance of the side.

I wouldn't consider him as our best Test bowler - far from it - but the sum of his parts makes him a useful person to have around the set-up when required.

Also, sometimes I think we get lost in the thought that everyone has to be an all-time great as well. There is no shame in being just a good Test cricketer - most of us would give anything to be one of them. Would be awesome if we had 5 all-timers ahead of him, but he doesn't and it is as much relative to what is around him as it is to him.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But if you're going to be a solid Test cricketer, even if you're not taking wickets, you've got to contribute towards pressure and making the "attack" in general stronger. Johnson, too often, does the opposite.

 

[Strike!]

Don't understand the hate for Johnson, The only decent all rounder Australia have in tests.

 

[Andre]

But if you're going to be a solid Test cricketer, even if you're not taking wickets, you've got to contribute towards pressure and making the "attack" in general stronger. Johnson, too often, does the opposite.

Yep and admittedly that has been a big issue for him. The shame is he didn't really have much time with McDermott - would have liked to have seen what may have happened. Bowling plans for the Aussie attack during Johnson's time (or Ponting's captaincy) have been pretty changeable and haphazard. Would/may be interesting to see how he'd fit in to a more structured unit.

 

[howardj]

Cooley dusting off his resume' aws

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah, but isn't that the point? I think we are all happy to agree that him as a 'spearhead' type definitely didn't work. But you can't argue he's got a happy knack of getting wickets from nowhere, can produce unplayable spells and offers quite a lot with the bat to the balance of the side.

I wouldn't consider him as our best Test bowler - far from it - but the sum of his parts makes him a useful person to have around the set-up when required.

Also, sometimes I think we get lost in the thought that everyone has to be an all-time great as well. There is no shame in being just a good Test cricketer - most of us would give anything to be one of them. Would be awesome if we had 5 all-timers ahead of him, but he doesn't and it is as much relative to what is around him as it is to him.

I think calling him a good test cricketer is probably close to pushing the truth (I don't think he is as good as his bowling record suggests ftr), but I agree with some aspects of what your saying. My main points of concern though, other than what Vic already stated, would be that we just don't really need him anymore even for an occasional fill-in role (unless it's perhaps a test at the WACA). It's seems like a negative move, much like CWB said, and there are plenty of other young players who should be given priority ahead of him now imo. For example, even though I think Johnson would perform better than Starc in tests currently, and as much I don't think Starc should be as high in the pecking order as he is, I'd still prefer the latter. Some serious questions would have to be raised if our attack is once again Johnson, Siddle and Hilfenhaus - you'd have to ask, what the hell are we doing back here? Sure players improve, and go in and out of form, but the bottom line is it's still the same team that just didn't gel over a long period of time...something has to give, and it's Johnson for me.

 

[Spark]

Don't understand the hate for Johnson, The only decent all rounder Australia have in tests.