Do you rate Mitchell Johnson?

[sledger]

I quite like him, but I don't particularly rate him. A danger for the opposition when it's his day, and a danger to his own side when it's not. Being able to bowl a fantastic spell once a series isn't much chop if for the rest of the time you bowl pies. Hoping I'm not tempting fate here.

 

[Teja.]

Yes, he's Australia's best bowler.

I'd trust him to take over 40-45 wickets @ below 29-30 in 10 matches always and not get injured very often while doing so. I think he gets underrated here because of how bad he usually is against England. Everything said and done, He still is one of the top 5-6 most effective bowlers in the world, IMHO and infinitely better than someone like Hilfeh. It's not his fault he doesn't satisfy people's romantic perceptions of how a good fast bowler is supposed to bowl in order to be effective.

 

[Flem274*]

Ryan Harris is better than Mitchell Johnson over a time period.

When Johnson gets going though he's unstoppabubble.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think Phelgm has it, myself. Not Australia's "best" bowler as such but their most potentially devastating when all the planets are aligned.

Think it's best to think of him as a fast bowling idiot savant; he can't tell you how it's done any more than anyone else watching can (how does he swing it ever with his seam position?), but it's still mightily impressive.

 

[Ruckus]

I think the reason his variant of swing is so dangerous is because of the scrambled seam. For some reason it makes it swing really late.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah, that's what was so noticeable with his efforts in Perth. While some were saying 'the English batsmen should've been able to handle it etc etc", the fact was it was swinging very, very late. Much later than either Anderson or Hilfenhaus manage.

Add to that the fact the Poms didn't expect it, and it didn't happen every ball, and you have a recipe for a very destructive spell of bowling at 140kph+

You could tell the guy that was totally out of form vs the rest though. His bat was a foot away and still coming down when he got pinned.

 

[Jono]

He is Australia's best bowler. Best isn't always most consistent or most reliable. But over the journey he gets more wickets at a better average than any other bowler.

You can't say Harris is better than him yet. How many wickets does Harris have in the subcontinent? Or in England?

How many wickets does Harris have today in fact?

 

[Uppercut]

I think he gets underrated here because of how bad he usually is against England.

He gets rated lowly here because of how bad he usually is against England.* Not all matches are necessarily of equal importance and for Australia, games against England matter much more than all the others.

But I definitely think he was underrated amongst England fans for a long time, even allowing for that.

 

[Cevno]

He does not do too well against India too, in what are very hard fought series.

 

[Ruckus]

He is Australia's best bowler. Best isn't always most consistent or most reliable. But over the journey he gets more wickets at a better average than any other bowler.

You can't say Harris is better than him yet. How many wickets does Harris have in the subcontinent? Or in England?

How many wickets does Harris have today in fact?

Just from observation, I reckon Harris is better. He hasn't played long enough to answer any of those questions, but he is a quality bowler and much more consistent than Johnson. Talking about having a bowling leader, Harris would be perfect imo - consistent, fast and intimidating. The only problem is he doesn't have the endurance for really long spells and just won't last in the long (perhaps even medium) term.

There are also uncapped bowlers who could prove to be a fair bit better than Johnson as well, the obvious ones being Cameron and Copeland. Bollinger is right up there as well.

 

[vcs]

I think South Africa might really take to Johnson next time Australia play them, though he might produce one special spell in the series as he usually does.

 

[Teja.]

He does not do too well against India too, in what are very hard fought series.

Nah, He was Oz's leading wicket taker and took 8 wickets @ 30 which is quite similar to his record and in the context of the series was impressive.

Just because Hilfeh was swinging it and looked better doesn't mean he was actually better.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

As i have said, he is the only match winner Australia have. They need to take the rough with the smooth with him and support him to try and get more good days out of him when the others aren't good enough/have fitness issues.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He is Australia's best bowler. Best isn't always most consistent or most reliable. But over the journey he gets more wickets at a better average than any other bowler.

You can't say Harris is better than him yet. How many wickets does Harris have in the subcontinent? Or in England?

How many wickets does Harris have today in fact?

Harris looked mildly buggered today, sadly. With his knee his workload is going to literally hurt.

What I mean with Johnson not being Australia's "best" bowler was more that he's so very inconsistent. One can't imagine him keeping an end tight like McGrath or Dizzy could when things weren't quite happening for them. Johnson's always going to be expensive when the force isn't with him because of his MO.

With Rhino one can see him as a stock bowler or a strike bowler; Johnson, not so much.

 

[Ruckus]

As i have said, he is the only match winner Australia have. They need to take the rough with the smooth with him and support him to try and get more good days out of him when the others aren't good enough/have fitness issues.

Hmmm...while that's true, you have to really question whether producing infrequent match winning spells but also a lot of uneconomical garbage in between, is better than consistently taking a few wickets every match.

As was said before, to get the best out of Johnson he should be used in short bursts if required to break partnerships etc. At the moment he is bowling far too many overs, even when he is uneconomical. Aus desperately need a new bowling spearhead. That way if Johnson is looking like Mr Hyde then he can be taken off after a few overs and used sparingly in the match.

 

[Jono]

Harris looked mildly buggered today, sadly. With his knee his workload is going to literally hurt.

What I mean with Johnson not being Australia's "best" bowler was more that he's so very inconsistent. One can't imagine him keeping an end tight like McGrath or Dizzy could when things weren't quite happening for them. Johnson's always going to be expensive when the force isn't with him because of his MO.

With Rhino one can see him as a stock bowler or a strike bowler; Johnson, not so much.

Comparing him to McGrath or Gillespie is harsh though, since they're better than everyone Australia has had bowling for them since 2006.

A fairer comparison would be Johnson against Zaheer perhaps, who can keep it tight when he's not taking wickets.

But either way, Mitch will win more tests for Australia than any other bowler. He may not show up in a few more than Harris or Bollinger, but to a negligible amount really.

 

[Furball]

What's the age difference between them?

Johnson is 8 months older than Jimmeh.

 

[Uppercut]

What I mean with Johnson not being Australia's "best" bowler was more that he's so very inconsistent. One can't imagine him keeping an end tight like McGrath or Dizzy could when things weren't quite happening for them. Johnson's always going to be expensive when the force isn't with him because of his MO.

With Rhino one can see him as a stock bowler or a strike bowler; Johnson, not so much.

I wouldn't be certain of anything with Johnson. It's funny how dramatically perceptions of him have changed- he used to be something a bit like the bowler Ben Hilfenhaus is now, the guy plugging away on a length outside off stump and keeping the pressure on for other bowlers to attack. The occasional filthy spell was always there, but in general he was actually a pretty economical fast bowler.

Check it out- since the 2009 Ashes- 20 matches, 83 wickets @ 31, Econ 3.71. Before the 2009 Ashes- 21 matches, 94 wickets @ 28, Econ 2.97. I can remember now why I was so taken aback by his sudden sewage eruption during the Ashes.

So it's clearly not correct to say that his MO means he's always going to be expensive when the force isn't with him.. there's not much you can say about him with any certainty, really. Who knows what's going to happen next?

 

[stephen]

He's going to be one of those players that you can't really judge properly until his career is over I feel.