***Official*** Australia in South Africa 2013/14

[Athlai]

Na **** heaps of people have rated Johnson for yonks.

 

[hendrix]

cbf digging up my old posts but I was pro-Johnson.

 

[adub]

Bro u dont even have to go back to the 80s. Curtly Ambrose was as brutal (when the mood took him) as any among WI fast bowlers. But to answer ur question, they were and even more so, with no bouncer restrictions in those days and especially after what they received from Lillee and co in 75-76.

All that and the fact it wasn't just one guy. It was usually 4 of them and they were all brutal. For instance the 81 Boxing Day test. Famous for Lillee destroying the Windies with a 10-fer, his best ever test bowling innings and going past Gibbs' world record. That along with Hughes' gutsy ton on the first day gave Australia a rare win (Windies first loss in 15 tests). But look at what we were up against. Holding, Roberts, Garner and Croft. No bouncer restrictions, no over rate restrictions (12 an hour was about right for em), only just starting to see helmets (not too many face guards) and no ****ing let up. Mikey took 11/107 for the match and Big Bird chipped in with 5/96. They rolled us for 198 and 222.

That was they way they rolled back then and teams rarely made it to 300 against em. In Michael Holding's 113 Test Match innings bowling the opposition only passed 300 24 times. In the same period WI rolled the opposition for under 200 40 times. You'd get next to nothing to drive, and they'd constantly pepper your body, and whilst they didn't have the speed gun on em they were all rapid. And they'd just keep doing it to you all day with no respite. Probably the best illustration of how strong they were is in the fact Courtney Walsh debuted in 84 and was pretty much the fourth bowler in the side until the 90s. The only time he touched a new ball in the 80s were a few tests in NZ and India where Clyde Butts (wtf?) was included as a spinner. It wasn't that Courtney wasn't plenty quick or didn't bowl a sharp bouncer, it was just that he was usually playing with at least two if not three of Holding, Garner, Marshall, Ambrose, and Bishop and they were all brutal bastards. Don't think we'll see the likes of it again, and in many ways that's a good thing. But those Windies quicks and the dudes who manned up to go out and face it were hard. Mitch in his current incarnation would have been at home in that era, but nothing the batsmen hadn't already copped double with interest from the Windies.

 

[the big bambino]

would it be impolite to suggest using her thighs as ear muffs?

Very gentlemanly of you to offer a piggy back.

 

[the big bambino]

To guys who have watched 70s/80s cricket. Were West Indian quicks actually more brutal than the MJ we are seeing now?

Been answered I see but the summary is there were 4 instead of one and the bouncers weren't limited nor the no. of overs mandatory. Plus PPE was nascent at best.

 

[adub]

Very gentlemanly of you to offer a piggy back.

You should always offer a lady a seat.

 

[Slifer]

Let me also state, that I like what Johnson has done with himself. His career wasn't really going ne where (as reflected in his ok but not spectacular stats). Now, he is bowling with in himself and more than ne thing else with CONTROL. Sustained and aggressive but controlled!!! I wish some of our own bowlers would learn this!!! Damn, I hate Australia. Just when you think they've come back down to the rest of the pack, this happens. They just seem to somehow unearth excellence. I really and truly believe Oz's attack has a lot of potential and the series is still early but IMO their bowling attack has really and truly turned the corner in the last year or so.

 

[Adders]

cbf digging up my old posts but I was pro-Johnson.

So was everyone that's not Australian. I was definitely pro-crap-Johnson.........not too much of a fan of this new bloke.

Seriously though, plenty were "pro" Johnson leading into the Ashes based on half the Aussie bowling attack being crippled........but I don't think there'd be a single poster that could honestly say he would have been in their first choice lineup for Brisbane.

Most incredible turn around in a career I think I've ever seen...........has anyone tested him for drugs

 

[Slifer]

so was everyone that's not australian. I was definitely pro-crap-johnson.........not too much of a fan of this new bloke.

Seriously though, plenty were "pro" johnson leading into the ashes based on half the aussie bowling attack being crippled........but i don't think there'd be a single poster that could honestly say he would have been in their first choice lineup for brisbane.

Most incredible turn around in a career i think i've ever seen...........has anyone tested him for drugs

lmao!!!!

 

[benchmark00]

Oi.

Ok look I've bit my tongue enough, but it's probably time for us to let you know why people never acknowledge you when you try and say you've always rated Johnson. I mean ffs, a quick, two second search comes up with these two results (first couple that I could find):

I'm not saying Starc should definitely play, but the constant comparisons with Mitchell ****ing Johnson are really beginning to grind my gears.

Both rubbish
Both left handers
Both bat a bit
Both called Mitchell

Fair enough comparison IMO.

I quite like NUFAN's theory that some of the improvement can be put down to Johnson not being there to destroy the ball for everyone else.

There would doubtless be dozens upon dozens more but I could not be ****ed finding them. So no, not you.

 

[brockley]

I thought Johnson was a pile of doggy doo doo.

 

[benchmark00]

I thought Johnson was a pile of doggy doo doo.

+1 here.

 

[Daemon]

There was that sachin95 or karan316 guy who was firmly behind Johnson all the way. Even went as far as to say he would dominate iirc.

 

[Pothas]

It was pretty hard to come to any other conclusion.

 

[adub]

I thought Johnson was a pile of doggy doo doo.

Doggy doo doo had more consistency and didn't stink quite as often

 

[Maximas]

There was that sachin95 or karan316 guy who was firmly behind Johnson all the way. Even went as far as to say he would dominate iirc.

karan316 said Johnson 'would prove his critics wrong' or something like that from what I remember

ftr I was ok with Johnson in the side for the first test, but if it had been completely up to me I probably wouldn't have picked him given the shield games in the lead up, I probably would've picked Bollinger or something

 

[hendrix]

yeah I don't think anyone was picking him had Pattinson been fit.

 

[Riggins]

Johnson having an okay series just meant that CHADD SAYERS didn't get a game. We'd be in an even better position now.

 

[Riggins]

Also, been ****ing pouring with rain here today. Be surprised if we get much play at all tonight. Will swing though.

 

[Maximas]

It's been fine in Geelong, clearly a much better reference point