What should we do with Mitchell Johnson?

[Gamblor]

Clearly, Mitch is out of form. Whether it's because his Jerry Springer'esque mother crawled up from a storm drain and opened her large mouth, or whether it's because of other reasons, the fact remains that Mitch is out of form (with the ball) and seems to lack confidence. Dropping him may compound the problem, but persisting with him may cost us the Ashes. There needs to be some third option...

So, what do we do?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Lets change things around, and get some "net batsmen" instead of net bowlers. Few local cricketers who'd like to get filled in, get Mitchy up and roaring again. Then chuck him in for the Tour game, all fired up, and see how he goes.

 

[Pigeon]

Lets change things around, and get some "net batsmen" instead of net bowlers. Few local cricketers who'd like to get filled in, get Mitchy up and roaring again. Then chuck him in for the Tour game, all fired up, and see how he goes.

Am not entirely in agreement with your idea of net batsmen. You obviously can't expect teenaged inexperienced batsmen getting pounded by the out and out efforts of a world test class bowler. Chances of injuries are way higher as compared to an ordinary match situation. Especially when the bowler is trying to work himself into some form.

 

[vic_orthdox]

...was a gag.

 

[Uppercut]

Lets change things around, and get some "net batsmen" instead of net bowlers. Few local cricketers who'd like to get filled in, get Mitchy up and roaring again. Then chuck him in for the Tour game, all fired up, and see how he goes.

sounds good to me.

If he doesn't find some form in the tour game, I'd leave him out for Brett Lee (if fit) for the next game. I'm trying not to use the word "drop". Midge is a quality bowler, and I have no doubts that in time he will rediscover some form and destroy a few batting lineups. But at the minute, he's not bowling well, and if he's not going to take any wickets he shouldn't play- especially with bowlers of the quality of Brett Lee and/or Stuart Clark waiting in the wings. Let him sit this one out, do some work on his action in the nets over the next few weeks, and with the pressure off hopefully he'll rediscover some form.

Alternatively, if his problems have vanished in the tour game, he should play at Edgbaston.

 

[Burgey]

Lee's out for the 3rd test.

 

[Uppercut]

Lee's out for the 3rd test.

Yeah? Balls. Well, keep an eye on Stuart Clark then. But I'd be a LOT less keen on that unless Johnson's bowling absolutely horrendously.

 

[Richard]

Odd that a poster apparently so new has come accross the uniquely-CW feature of irrelevant third poll options.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd expect Clark to be in for Siddle anyway, save an absolute mare at Northants.

I'd still be inclined to give him another test because, unlike Gillespie who was in a very similar situation four years back, age isn't likely to be a factor. I'm not sure it's mental either, blokes who're gone upstairs don't generally score 50s in pressure situations, so I'm inclined to think it must be a technical issue. Time for Cooley to earn his corn.

If he's similarly dire at Birmingham tho I'd have to advocate the chop, tbh.

 

[Richard]

I'd still be inclined to give him another test because, unlike Gillespie who was in a very similar situation four years back, age isn't likely to be a factor.

Why does it matter whether the factors are age or an inability to lace the bowling boots? Poor bowling is poor bowling. If you think it's likely to stop very soon, you persist; if you don't, you ease out of the firing-line, and only consider a return once things have changed.

In any case, Gillespie was hardly ancient in 2005 - 30, even with a body that'd had all his injuries, is about when you expect a cricketer to be in his prime.

 

[Craig]

Would the fact that Johnson up until this Tour has never bowled with a Duke ball (this is just a wild guess, but maybe he has used them in up in North Queensland or at the Acadamy) at FC and Test level have any bearing?

Then again I'm not a fast bowling expert.

 

[andyc]

Odd that a poster apparently so new has come accross the uniquely-CW feature of irrelevant third poll options.

Wouldn't say it was unique to CW...

 

[Athlai]

For a guy in poor form he is still getting quite a lot of wickets.
Out of the fellow pacers only Hilfy has more out of both teams:

Hilfenhaus 9 @ 31.77
Johnson 8 @ 41.37
Flintoff 7 @ 35.28
Siddle 7 @ 44.57
Anderson 6 @ 41.83
Broad 4 @ 64
Onions 3 @ 30.33

If out of form he can still take wickets at a reasonable rate then he most certainly should be retained for when he hits his stride.

I also think his form is coming too much into question, he has definitely bowled better but even on Johnson's best days with the ball he can bowl some tripe. The guy bowls some of the best wicket taking balls in cricket and he bowls some tripe. He hasn't performed any worse than almost any other bowler on either team, he has only bowled worse than we know he can.

Also @ Broad

 

[BoyBrumby]

He's bowled some good nuts amidst the dross, no doubt. His lines have just been awful tho. Siddle, who's far from flattered by his figures IMHO, has worse returns but has bowled far better spells and has earned his wickets from pressure. Johnson's have seemed more like bolts from the blue.

Johnson has a lot more credit in the bank, however (better bat too, if that matters), so I'd stick with him for at least another test.

 

[Richard]

Wouldn't say it was unique to CW...

Well you might well know more about it than me, but every genuinely and obviously new poster who's posted a poll early on has omitted the irrelevant option... and often quite rightly got the "IRRELEVANT OPTIONS FFS!!!!!!!!!!!" treatment.

 

[Richard]

Would the fact that Johnson up until this Tour has never bowled with a Duke ball (this is just a wild guess, but maybe he has used them in up in North Queensland or at the Acadamy) at FC and Test level have any bearing?

Then again I'm not a fast bowling expert.

I have to doubt it TBH. People go on about it, but a cricket ball is a cricket ball. It's not like he's having trouble controlling the thing because it's swinging too much, nor because it doesn't fit in his hand. He's just technically all over everywhere. That's not new - he's done that before and gotten over it.

Plainly and simply, I think the only explanation is "it happens sometimes. And possibly more with Mitchell Johnson than most."

 

[Richard]

For a guy in poor form he is still getting quite a lot of wickets.
Out of the fellow pacers only Hilfy has more out of both teams:

Hilfenhaus 9 @ 31.77
Johnson 8 @ 41.37
Flintoff 7 @ 35.28
Siddle 7 @ 44.57
Anderson 6 @ 41.83
Broad 4 @ 64
Onions 3 @ 30.33

If out of form he can still take wickets at a reasonable rate then he most certainly should be retained for when he hits his stride.

I also think his form is coming too much into question, he has definitely bowled better but even on Johnson's best days with the ball he can bowl some tripe. The guy bowls some of the best wicket taking balls in cricket and he bowls some tripe. He hasn't performed any worse than almost any other bowler on either team, he has only bowled worse than we know he can.

Also @ Broad

Amazing that the bowlers have said figures despite the fact that in five out of seven innings' the batsmen have essentially disappointed (Australia in the Lord's second-innings obviously not helped by Umpires). Says quite a bit about how flat the decks have been.

 

[Gamblor]

Odd that a poster apparently so new has come accross the uniquely-CW feature of irrelevant third poll options.

Actually, in my case the 3rd option was the point of the thread. The rest of it was the lead-up.

 

[Richard]

So you made a thread whose entire point was the irrelevant-option in the poll? Odd TSTL.

 

[Gamblor]

So you made a thread whose entire point was the irrelevant-option in the poll? Odd TSTL.

There is no off position on the genius switch, Richard.