Do you rate Mitchell Johnson?

[Richard]

Yeah, Johnson's methods of moving the ball are weird. Slingy round-arm types should generally struggle to move the ball very much (though clearly Laaasith Maaalinga is one exception) but he almost "drags" the thing in the direction it goes (ie, into the LHB, away from the RHB).

However, the ability to bowl a "natural" off-cutter like that should not be sniffed at at all (especially when it's a leg-cutter to the majority of batsmen - ie, RHers), and it's something Glenn McGrath and Michael Kasprowicz both used to considerable success. The delivery he dismissed ABdeV with earlier today was an absolute beauty out of the top drawer and what's more, the sort of ball that in theory he could be able to bowl on any pitch. Trouble is, so far, he hasn't done it very much, but if he could get himself to a situation where he could bowl that ball regularly, he'd be a fearsome prospect without really needing to bowl with the seam bolt-upright or at least pretty good the way far more seamers than not are required to do.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, Johnson's methods of moving the ball are weird. Slingy round-arm types should generally struggle to move the ball very much (though clearly Laaasith Maaalinga is one exception) but he almost "drags" the thing in the direction it goes (ie, into the LHB, away from the RHB).

However, the ability to bowl a "natural" off-cutter like that should not be sniffed at at all (especially when it's a leg-cutter to the majority of batsmen - ie, RHers), and it's something Glenn McGrath and Michael Kasprowicz both used to considerable success. The delivery he dismissed ABdeV with earlier today was an absolute beauty out of the top drawer and what's more, the sort of ball that in theory he could be able to bowl on any pitch. Trouble is, so far, he hasn't done it very much, but if he could get himself to a situation where he could bowl that ball regularly, he'd be a fearsome prospect without really needing to bowl with the seam bolt-upright or at least pretty good the way far more seamers than not are required to do.

Kasprowicz is a good bowler to bring up actually - Johnson's release isn't dis-similar to Kasprowicz's later in his career. Kasper was significantly more accurate and seemed to bowl to more of a proper plan, so he had a bit more to him.

I'm certainly not writing Johnson off, but I'm really not sold yet.

 

[Richard]

This is a bit of an over-simplification, but it comes down to something very close to:

If batsmen leave Johnson well, as they did for most of the first year of his career and emphatically haven't of late, he won't be very effective bowling in the style he currently operates.

If Johnson can bowl at the batsmen a bit more, as he did with the ball to ABdeV earlier, then he'll pose quite some problems to anyone and everyone.

 

[morgieb]

Now I do. WAG.

 

[JimmyGS]

I actually would like to know how much the other seam bowlers are annoyed when they get the ball back after each of Johnson's spells. With a seam position like that he has to be doing some serious damage to the ball.

Could Johnson be the reason that Lee (who relies to heavily on swing) has been in a bit of a drought as of late?

 

[Johnners]

I actually would like to know how much the other seam bowlers are annoyed when they get the ball back after each of Johnson's spells. With a seam position like that he has to be doing some serious damage to the ball.

Could Johnson be the reason that Lee (who relies to heavily on swing) has been in a bit of a drought as of late?

Lee hasn't even been getting new ball wickets though, and Clark/Siddle (apart from this test) have generally shared the new ball with him over the past few series. Aside from that, Lee has suffered from inaccuracy in general imo.

 

[Richard]

I actually would like to know how much the other seam bowlers are annoyed when they get the ball back after each of Johnson's spells. With a seam position like that he has to be doing some serious damage to the ball.

If cricket balls actually lasted remotely well at the current time, maybe.

Kookaburras are just crap balls really though. Hate the things. And Australian outfields tend to rough cricket-balls up more than most countries as well.

 

[JimmyGS]

If cricket balls actually lasted remotely well at the current time, maybe.

Kookaburras are just crap balls really though. Hate the things. And Australian outfields tend to rough cricket-balls up more than most countries as well.

First point doesn't make sense.

Kookaburra's are fine, I've never had a problem with them.

I'm very skeptical that an outfield does damage to a ball.

 

[Richard]

First point doesn't make sense.

Err, why not?

Kookaburra's are fine, I've never had a problem with them.

They don't seem to do quite so badly in NZ as Aus, but Dukes and Readers are still far better. I've bowled plenty with all three and there's no doubt Kookas swing least and deteriorate quickest.

I'm very skeptical that an outfield does damage to a ball.

Well given it spends about 99.99% of its time on the outfield, when not in the hands of the fielders (and I imagine most would agree that the fielders' hands don't do much damage) so therefore if the outfield doesn't damage it, not much is going to.

 

[JimmyGS]

Err, why not?

so therefore if the outfield doesn't damage it, not much is going to.

Because whether a ball deteriorates quickly or slowly, its rate of deterioration will still depend on its impact on the pitch.

Errrrrrrr..... I dunno........ maybe THE PITCH?!

Or, on second thought, maybe when it smashes into a hunk of wood at 120 kmph?

 

[Richard]

The ball always hits the bat lots - unless you deliberately allow the batsmen to leave lots, which is kind of counterproductive, there's not going to be any variance in deterioration dependant on the bats.

And why on Earth is the pitch relative to the fact that cricket balls currently aren't as hard-wearing as they used to be?

 

[Uppercut]

And Australian outfields tend to rough cricket-balls up more than most countries as well.

Oww! This grass is a lot sharper than the grass in my day...

 

[Richard]

You are aware that turf (and yes, even grass, though that's not enormously relevant to the amount of scuff on the ball) differs from place to place, aren't you?

There's all sorts of things that change: amount of sand, clay, etc.; coarseness and bind... I'm no biologist, but I'm sure one of them could tell you plenty about how soil types differ accross places and times.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

You are aware that turf (and yes, even grass, though that's not enormously relevant to the amount of scuff on the ball) differs from place to place, aren't you?

There's all sorts of things that change: amount of sand, clay, etc.; coarseness and bind... I'm no biologist, but I'm sure one of them could tell you plenty about how soil types differ accross places and times.

Soils is more pf a Geology/Geomorphology topic, not biology.

 

[Richard]

Meh. Never did nor was offered "geology" at school so it's not a subject to me. Used to be called "geography" of course.

 

[JimmyGS]

And why on Earth is the pitch relative to the fact that cricket balls currently aren't as hard-wearing as they used to be?

That's not what we were arguing about...

 

[JimmyGS]

The ball always hits the bat lots - unless you deliberately allow the batsmen to leave lots

And that's incorrect anyway. If you're getting a batsman to block the ball back down the wicket, it does a lot less damage to the ball than if he slices one through gully.

 

[Richard]

Maybe. I don't think there's a hard-and-fast rule, but obviously some strokes will cause more damage to the ball than others (would think a leg-glance or late-cut would be the least damaging, a full-blown pull or smack through the off the most in general), but nonetheless, the ball spends only a split-second on the bat and if the outfield is in good condition, nice and lush, it's unlikely that any form of contact with the bat will stop it swinging.

 

[Richard]

That's not what we were arguing about...

So where then did the comment:

First point doesn't make sense.

come from?

 

[JimmyGS]

So where then did the comment:

come from?

The fact that a ball will wear quicker when Mitchel Johnson is bowling.