Do you rate Mitchell Johnson?

[Richard]

Haha, knew there'd be a few knee-jerks. Mind, so far there's been fewer ha-I-told-you-so's than you might expect.

Anyway, suffice to say I doubt anyone (with much sense) saw Johnson's Aus-summer-so-far coming. 21 wickets (and still 2 more tailenders available this innings) in 2-and-a-half matches, at less than 10. That's a decent start, and another 5 games to come (including 3 in SA).

 

[Bobisback]

Haha, knew there'd be a few knee-jerks. Mind, so far there's been fewer ha-I-told-you-so's than you might expect.

Anyway, suffice to say I doubt anyone (with much sense) saw Johnson's Aus-summer-so-far coming. 21 wickets (and still 2 more tailenders available this innings) in 2-and-a-half matches, at less than 10. That's a decent start, and another 5 games to come (including 3 in SA).

DWTA

 

[Uppercut]

Not sure why people would think a left-hander is crap if he can't swing the ball in. Never seems to come up for RH bowlers. There are a ton of great bowlers who couldn't swing the ball.

It's because when bowling to right-handers over the wicket, which is what left-handers like Johnson do, outswing can't get you an lbw because the ball will have pitched outside leg for all but half-volleys or yorkers. That means a batsman can pad up to take getting out bowled out of the equation too. Hence they can leave everything except really easy shots.

That's in theory. In reality it doesn't really work like that, batsmen play shots like off-drives which seem like they have a good chance of success when really they have a pretty poor percentage because you're playing across the line. So Johnson picks up a lot of wickets, but most are due to the batsmen playing poor shots when they don't have to. That's where the "only gets wickets from bad balls" comes from.

Well, that and all the bad balls that he got wickets with.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's because when bowling to right-handers over the wicket, which is what left-handers like Johnson do, outswing can't get you an lbw because the ball will have pitched outside leg for all but half-volleys or yorkers. That means a batsman can pad up to take getting out bowled out of the equation too. Hence they can leave everything except really easy shots.

That's in theory. In reality it doesn't really work like that, batsmen play shots like off-drives which seem like they have a good chance of success when really they have a pretty poor percentage because you're playing across the line. So Johnson picks up a lot of wickets, but most are due to the batsmen playing poor shots when they don't have to. That's where the "only gets wickets from bad balls" comes from.

Well, that and all the bad balls that he got wickets with.

But as I alluded to earlier, guys who bowl inswingers at LHB from right arm over aren't always considered "good bowlers to left handers". Think it's a bit of a fallacy, TTYTT. Sure, it's an advantage having that ball, but do you reckon many left handers enjoyed facing Courtney Walsh?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Cricket doesn't really work that way though, as you say. If a left-armer pitches on off stump angling away, a batsman can leave it if they are sure it isn't going to come back in, but they're not going to leave deliveries like that all day, especially not when they get a little wider.

You can leave 90% of deliveries in test cricket and defend the rest, but scoring 5 off 100 deliveries doesn't do a lot to win tests.

There's ample evidence that you don't have to be able to swing the ball as a right-armer to be a dangerous bowler, same thing applies for left-armers as well. Not everyone has to be Wasim.

 

[Richard]

It's because when bowling to right-handers over the wicket, which is what left-handers like Johnson do, outswing can't get you an lbw because the ball will have pitched outside leg for all but half-volleys or yorkers. That means a batsman can pad up to take getting out bowled out of the equation too. Hence they can leave everything except really easy shots.

That's in theory. In reality it doesn't really work like that, batsmen play shots like off-drives which seem like they have a good chance of success when really they have a pretty poor percentage because you're playing across the line. So Johnson picks up a lot of wickets, but most are due to the batsmen playing poor shots when they don't have to. That's where the "only gets wickets from bad balls" comes from.

Well, that and all the bad balls that he got wickets with.

If, as a left-armer, your stock-ball (to the RHB) is the outswinger, you're infinitely best-served bowling around-the-wicket whenever you're aiming for that ball.

Always surprised me Johnson doesn't do this far more.

 

[vic_orthdox]

If, as a left-armer, your stock-ball (to the RHB) is the outswinger, you're infinitely best-served bowling around-the-wicket whenever you're aiming for that ball.

Always surprised me Johnson doesn't do this far more.

Tends to do it when it's reversing big, and against tail enders.

Should Makhaya Ntini always bowl around the wicket to the left hander?

 

[Richard]

Cricket doesn't really work that way though, as you say. If a left-armer pitches on off stump angling away, a batsman can leave it if they are sure it isn't going to come back in, but they're not going to leave deliveries like that all day, especially not when they get a little wider.

You can leave 90% of deliveries in test cricket and defend the rest, but scoring 5 off 100 deliveries doesn't do a lot to win tests.

I reckon almost every bowler in history will require 1\5th of that, maybe less, before they lose patience and start bowling straigher and as a result drifting onto the pads.

A really good leaver will be successful, and not to the tune of a strike-rate of 5, but to that of 40-45.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I really struggle to think of Mitchell Johnson being clipped straight of midwicket off the front foot. Because of his angle, it's a very hard shot to play. Therefore, when he strays straighter, it's very hard to score off him.

 

[Richard]

Tends to do it when it's reversing big, and against tail enders.

Should Makhaya Ntini always bowl around the wicket to the left hander?

Ntini's a funny one, because much of the time he's not actually moving the ball at all - it's all on the angle. He bowls from such a wide angle (amplified by his release point, which is often beyond the perpendicular) that many LHBs are simply duped into playing down the wrong line. This often results in play-and-misses, and from time to time an edge to the cordon.

However, he can and sometimes does move the ball away from the LHB (and occasionally even away from the RHB) and whenever he does this I'm always far, far happier to see him bowling around-the-wicket. One of the best examples came just yesterday, when he dismissed Hayden. Absolutely perfect example of how to nick-off a LHB. Andrew Flintoff couldn't have bettered it, and he's the best going around currently at bowling round-the-wicket at the LHB.

 

[Richard]

I really struggle to think of Mitchell Johnson being clipped straight of midwicket off the front foot. Because of his angle, it's a very hard shot to play. Therefore, when he strays straighter, it's very hard to score off him.

Above post isn't 100% on the subject of Johnson, more in general in response to Fuller's suggestion that really good leavers aren't going to be very useful.

However, it's an interesting point. A ball that pitches outside leg is a ball that pitches outside leg, and a decent batsman should be able to whip it away without massive difficulty, however big the angle it's shaping in the opposite direction is. I've never taken that much note of how many strokes Johnson gets taken through mid-wicket and square-leg with, I might just try and have a look over the next few months.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He tends to go through square leg quite a bit (off both back and front foot), but - as I said - rarely straight of midwicket. Mainly due to how high he hits on the bat, very hard to on drive balls that steeple.

 

[Uppercut]

But as I alluded to earlier, guys who bowl inswingers at LHB from right arm over aren't always considered "good bowlers to left handers". Think it's a bit of a fallacy, TTYTT. Sure, it's an advantage having that ball, but do you reckon many left handers enjoyed facing Courtney Walsh?

Yeah, in a way that's the sum of what i was saying. Logic would suggest that Johnson would be a very unthreatening bowler going over the wicket to right-handers, but in reality it doesn't work out like that.

 

[GGG]

It doesn't matter how he gets them but he gets wickets.

 

[Uppercut]

Ntini's a funny one, because much of the time he's not actually moving the ball at all - it's all on the angle. He bowls from such a wide angle (amplified by his release point, which is often beyond the perpendicular) that many LHBs are simply duped into playing down the wrong line. This often results in play-and-misses, and from time to time an edge to the cordon.

However, he can and sometimes does move the ball away from the LHB (and occasionally even away from the RHB) and whenever he does this I'm always far, far happier to see him bowling around-the-wicket. One of the best examples came just yesterday, when he dismissed Hayden. Absolutely perfect example of how to nick-off a LHB. Andrew Flintoff couldn't have bettered it, and he's the best going around currently at bowling round-the-wicket at the LHB.

It's not just an illusion, he's definitely shaping the ball in that direction. The illusion might just make it appear to move more than it actually is.

 

[Richard]

Johnson or Ntini?

As I say - throughout his career there's been lengthy spells when Ntini gets the ball to do precisely sod-all. And, especially when bowling at lots of RHBs, this makes him decidedly ineffective.

However, when he gets the ball to move, even into the RHB, that makes him dangerous (as with McGrath the RHB can nick the straight ball having played and become accustomed to 15 ones that deck in a bit). And on the odd occasion he gets it to go both ways at will, he's deadly. Has never happened very often though.

 

[Uppercut]

Johnson or Ntini?

As I say - throughout his career there's been lengthy spells when Ntini gets the ball to do precisely sod-all. And, especially when bowling at lots of RHBs, this makes him decidedly ineffective.

However, when he gets the ball to move, even into the RHB, that makes him dangerous (as with McGrath the RHB can nick the straight ball having played and become accustomed to 15 ones that deck in a bit). And on the odd occasion he gets it to go both ways at will, he's deadly. Has never happened very often though.

Ntini has a better record than that suggests though, and has done for long enough that it's hard to write off. I'd say his unusual angle on the crease makes (some) RHBs more likely to make a mistake than they otherwise would. He's even bowled a few round their legs a few times IIRC.

 

[social]

145 ks ALL DAY is tough to keep out and the difficulty is compounded by the fact that he's a left hander

 

[Richard]

Ntini has a better record than that suggests though, and has done for long enough that it's hard to write off. I'd say his unusual angle on the crease makes (some) RHBs more likely to make a mistake than they otherwise would. He's even bowled a few round their legs a few times IIRC.

Ntini has a record of consistency - consistently inconsistent.

Up to 2000 he was poor full-stop; 2000/01 he was superb; 2001/02 he was diabolical; 2002/03 he was excellent; etc. etc. The fact that he can be both bang on the button ball after ball and absolutely all over the place, and that this usually goes hand-in-hand with how much he's getting the ball to do, explains this.

Ntini has, all career, constantly lurched from excellence to very poor. There's no particularly obvious reason for this - the only conclusion to come to is that he's got the skill to do very well but only on an on-off basis.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.