Do you rate Mitchell Johnson?

[Harry Harrison]

He is the best among the recent Aussie bolwlers.

 

[Richard]

It's a percentage of 20. 11 overs to strike while the ball is doing something isn't much, 20 overs is is a significantly better opportunity.

Not really. Neither are remotely long and if the ball is only "new" for that length of time pretty much any bowling attack, unless it's got a top-class wristspinner, is going to struggle.

 

[Ikki]

Spamming the forum by posting useless material again I see.

LOL, for someone with almost 70k of spam that's a mighty judgement.

 

[Richard]

Nah, the only posts of mine that can accurately be described as spam came in the spam forum and thus don't count towards your postcount.

 

[Savvy Saffer]

Left-arm genuinely quick bowler with striking ability and limitless energy, whats not to like?
Personally I would rate him better that Brett Lee and Morne Morkel and about on par with Dale Steyn. There should be more like him in this day and age of fast/medium merchants.

 

[susudear]

lol yeah definitley a good call

 

[Evilhoopler]

Balls r usually stuffed by 80 overs anyway so in an innings with say 110 overs, 9 overs does not change much.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Balls r usually stuffed by 80 overs anyway so in an innings with say 110 overs, 9 overs does not change much.

...lucky you get a new one at 80 then, isn't it...

And nearly doubling the time that the ball is swinging around is a ridiculously huge advantage.

 

[JimmyGS]

Not really. Neither are remotely long and if the ball is only "new" for that length of time pretty much any bowling attack is going to struggle.

DWTA

AWTB

And nearly doubling the time that the ball is swinging around is a ridiculously huge advantage.

 

[Richard]

And nearly doubling the time that the ball is swinging around is a ridiculously huge advantage.

That's only an estimate, FTR, it might just as easily be a difference of 4 or 5 overs.

However, I'd say you're hugely disadvantaged whether you've got a ball that's doing sod-all for 60 or 69 overs. You can never expect to get more than 1 wicket or so in the 9 that've gone "differently".

 

[gwo]

Yes, Yes I do rate Mitchell Johnson.

<3

 

[Evermind]

Personally I would rate him better that Brett Lee and Morne Morkel and about on par with Dale Steyn..

YEAH I dont think so

 

[Richard]

Johnson's final record for the Australian Test summer reads 5 matches, 31 wickets, average 19.16, economy-rate 2.63-an-over. An "about time" would be fair enough, but so too would a "well bowled fella, looks like we're getting somewhere now".

Incidentally, his closest competitor at the top of the First-Class averages is Michael Hussey with 22. And his fourth Andrew McDonald with 24.33.

 

[Manee]

Johnson's final record for the Australian Test summer reads 5 matches, 31 wickets, average 19.16, economy-rate 2.63-an-over. An "about time" would be fair enough, but so too would a "well bowled fella, looks like we're getting somewhere now".

Incidentally, his closest competitor at the top of the First-Class averages is Michael Hussey with 22. And his fourth Andrew McDonald with 24.33.

McDonald looks a solid bowler, gets a good deal of swing and appears to have significant control of his swing. If he can keep it tight when he isn't recieving swing and the pitch is not offering assistence, then he could provide an extremely useful role for Australia.

Back to Johnson though - bravo for a superb performance! Lillee touted him as once in a generation and despite the action which is still as cringeworthy to me as always, he really is coming good on his talent. His pace is understated, despite him bowling from 140-150kph consistently throughout a Test series, as is his unmatched (at least to me) ability to bowl a cutter at 130kph which has the ability to leap and turn dangerously. I would say that Johnson is missing the ol' killer yorker though to complete his game somewhat as it could prove quite awkward with his unusual release position, perhaps Thomson esque?

 

[Richard]

McDonald looks a solid bowler, gets a good deal of swing and appears to have significant control of his swing. If he can keep it tight when he isn't recieving swing and the pitch is not offering assistence, then he could provide an extremely useful role for Australia.

You know what? If this is McDonald's only Test I won't be in the least surprised.

Not to say he didn't bowl pretty damn decently, that is, because he certainly did.

 

[Manee]

You know what? If this is McDonald's only Test I won't be in the least surprised.

Not to say he didn't bowl pretty damn decently, that is, because he certainly did.

I would not be against him getting a long stint, though I do accept his possible status as a one Test wonder. When you have strike bowlers like Siddle and Johnson who can also be awfully expensive when it is not going their way, it is invaluable to have someone who can keep it tight. This being said, he does have just the 2.16 wickets per FC match so perhaps cannot be entrusted with a long term bowling role. If he can come good with the bat though, could be an invaluable all rounder - it is highly speculative I know but I see quite a lot in his bowling.

 

[Manee]

It must be asked...

With his cutters, changes in pace and low arm, is Mitchell Johnson the next Andy Roberts

 

[Johnners]

Just like to confirm that my answer in indeed "Yes". WAG

 

[chrisbroxton]

i wasnt sure at first, but now i think hes one of the best at the moment, seeing him play today was a joy to watch, hes kept up a great pace throughout the game, over after over, although i do think the aussies need Lee back, i dont think johnson is experienced enough to lead the attack

 

[Son Of Coco]

i wasnt sure at first, but now i think hes one of the best at the moment, seeing him play today was a joy to watch, hes kept up a great pace throughout the game, over after over, although i do think the aussies need Lee back, i dont think johnson is experienced enough to lead the attack

I'd prefer Clark back, especially if Lee isn't going to regain top form.