Australia have 2 new matchwinners for the Ashes !

With bizarrely 2 ashes test series this year, it looks as though Australia are going to win at least one of these of not both of them. Firstly they have found this guy called Jackson Bird who bowls a menacing consistent line and length wicket to wicket and could be the new Glenn McGrath that Australia are looking for. Secondly they now have in Mitchell Johnson a second potential matchwinning bowling all-rounder who can bat consistently well in his new batting position at number 7 whilst still being a big menace and a threat with the ball when bowling. In contrast, our own team don't even have 1 bowling all-rounder who can score runs consistently well and also play a huge part as a bowler when we are out in the field bowling.

Plus Starc and the reliable Siddle.

This Mitchell Johnson that you describe sounds exciting. Where did they unearth him from. This Clarke chap also looks a great find at no. 5.

seanmichaels wrote:This Mitchell Johnson that you describe sounds exciting. Where did they unearth him from. This Clarke chap also looks a great find at no. 5.

I didn't unearth him, the Aussies did!

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:This Mitchell Johnson that you describe sounds exciting. Where did they unearth him from. This Clarke chap also looks a great find at no. 5.

I didn't unearth him, the Aussies did!

That's what I said?

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:This Mitchell Johnson that you describe sounds exciting. Where did they unearth him from. This Clarke chap also looks a great find at no. 5.

I didn't unearth him, the Aussies did!

That's what I said?

No you didn't.

No doubt Australia have some fantastic fast bowler options to choose from:

Cummins
Pattinson
Hilfenhaus
Siddle
Bird
Starc
Johnson

That is one hell of a list. However, I still think England are favorites plus, now Hussey has retired, the batting line up does look a bit fragile, with only Clarke imo capable of scoring big runs when it really matters. Plus they are only playing Sri Lanka.

Yes I did Ollie.

Liam wrote:No doubt Australia have some fantastic fast bowler options to choose from:

Cummins
Pattinson
Hilfenhaus
Siddle
Bird
Starc
Johnson

That is one hell of a list. However, I still think England are favorites plus, now Hussey has retired, the batting line up does look a bit fragile, with only Clarke imo capable of scoring big runs when it really matters. Plus they are only playing Sri Lanka.

They are genuinely not a fantastic bunch.

England have comfortably dealt with Hilenhaus, Siddle and Johnson in the past.

Starc, Bird, Pattinson and Cummins are very brittle much like our own Stuart Broad.

The most important factor in there is that they do not have a spinner. Nence why they failed to bowl out SA in 5+ sessions on a day 4 / 5 pitch.

WTF

Johnson isnt a genuine no 7 all-rounder.....and i dont know why people are suddenly raving about him? He bowled well at perth, but he always bowls well there, and does Frak all everywhere else! He is a slogger with the bat, and shouldnt be near the test side these days!

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:This Mitchell Johnson that you describe sounds exciting. Where did they unearth him from. This Clarke chap also looks a great find at no. 5.

I didn't unearth him, the Aussies did!

That's what I said?

No you didn't.

Like a Two Ronnies sketch

Liam wrote:No doubt Australia have some fantastic fast bowler options to choose from:

Cummins
Pattinson
Hilfenhaus
Siddle
Bird
Starc
Johnson

That is one hell of a list. However, I still think England are favorites plus, now Hussey has retired, the batting line up does look a bit fragile, with only Clarke imo capable of scoring big runs when it really matters. Plus they are only playing Sri Lanka.

Also there is Alastair McDermott the son of some certain guy called Craig McDermott who played in 2 ashes tours in England. With his addition, it makes the list of bowling choices for Australia a very formidable one indeed. Therefore, I don't think that England are the favourites as a lot of our batsmen struggled last summer against extremely hostile pace bowling of the highest quality.

CF wrote:WTF

Johnson isnt a genuine no 7 all-rounder.....and i dont know why people are suddenly raving about him? He bowled well at perth, but he always bowls well there, and does Frak all everywhere else! He is a slogger with the bat, and shouldnt be near the test side these days!

I think I fell for a wind up thread. The Aussies are a poor team generally with a couple of stars. None of them unfortunately are tried and tested bowlers as yet.

To compare any of the group to Philander Morkel and Steyn is lunacy.

seanmichaels wrote:

CF wrote:WTF

Johnson isnt a genuine no 7 all-rounder.....and i dont know why people are suddenly raving about him? He bowled well at perth, but he always bowls well there, and does Frak all everywhere else! He is a slogger with the bat, and shouldnt be near the test side these days!

I think I fell for a wind up thread. The Aussies are a poor team generally with a couple of stars. None of them unfortunately are tried and tested bowlers as yet.

To compare any of the group to Philander Morkel and Steyn is lunacy.

The Aussies are in no way a poor team. They so nearly beat South Africa in a test match, and are comfortably beating Sri Lanka. Also the bowlers whilst individually over the course of their overall test careers may not match up well with Philander, Steyn and Morkel are collectively as good the the South African trio in terms of bowling performances in the past year.

seanmichaels wrote:

Liam wrote:No doubt Australia have some fantastic fast bowler options to choose from:

Cummins
Pattinson
Hilfenhaus
Siddle
Bird
Starc
Johnson

That is one hell of a list. However, I still think England are favorites plus, now Hussey has retired, the batting line up does look a bit fragile, with only Clarke imo capable of scoring big runs when it really matters. Plus they are only playing Sri Lanka.

They are genuinely not a fantastic bunch.

England have comfortably dealt with Hilenhaus, Siddle and Johnson in the past.

Starc, Bird, Pattinson and Cummins are very brittle much like our own Stuart Broad.

The most important factor in there is that they do not have a spinner. Nence why they failed to bowl out SA in 5+ sessions on a day 4 / 5 pitch.

The Aussies do indeed now have an established frontline spinner. Nathan Lyon is their premier spinner in the test team and his bowling style is like that of the 1970's off-spinner Ashley Mallett,

IN Starc, Bird, Siddle and Pattinson, the Aussies do have a very good attack. It's their batting that may struggle.

Stella wrote:IN Starc, Bird, Siddle and Pattinson, the Aussies do have a very good attack. It's their batting that may struggle.

They still have good enough batsmen to post adequate enough totals of around 250-300 odd for their bowlers to bowl to against what must be remembered is also a very fragile England batting lineup which is just as likely to fall apart when put under pressure.

Fragile?

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

Liam wrote:No doubt Australia have some fantastic fast bowler options to choose from:

Cummins
Pattinson
Hilfenhaus
Siddle
Bird
Starc
Johnson

That is one hell of a list. However, I still think England are favorites plus, now Hussey has retired, the batting line up does look a bit fragile, with only Clarke imo capable of scoring big runs when it really matters. Plus they are only playing Sri Lanka.

They are genuinely not a fantastic bunch.

England have comfortably dealt with Hilenhaus, Siddle and Johnson in the past.

Starc, Bird, Pattinson and Cummins are very brittle much like our own Stuart Broad.

The most important factor in there is that they do not have a spinner. Nence why they failed to bowl out SA in 5+ sessions on a day 4 / 5 pitch.

The Aussies do indeed now have an established frontline spinner. Nathan Lyon is their premier spinner in the test team and his bowling style is like that of the 1970's off-spinner Ashley Mallett,

3 for 49 from 50 overs on the 4th and 5th day at Adelaide is not very impressive I'm afraid.

Stella wrote:Fragile?

Yes Fragile! Just look at the batting collapses we have suffered in various tests over the past year particularly in the UAE and in the first test V India.

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

Liam wrote:No doubt Australia have some fantastic fast bowler options to choose from:

Cummins
Pattinson
Hilfenhaus
Siddle
Bird
Starc
Johnson

That is one hell of a list. However, I still think England are favorites plus, now Hussey has retired, the batting line up does look a bit fragile, with only Clarke imo capable of scoring big runs when it really matters. Plus they are only playing Sri Lanka.

They are genuinely not a fantastic bunch.

England have comfortably dealt with Hilenhaus, Siddle and Johnson in the past.

Starc, Bird, Pattinson and Cummins are very brittle much like our own Stuart Broad.

The most important factor in there is that they do not have a spinner. Nence why they failed to bowl out SA in 5+ sessions on a day 4 / 5 pitch.

The Aussies do indeed now have an established frontline spinner. Nathan Lyon is their premier spinner in the test team and his bowling style is like that of the 1970's off-spinner Ashley Mallett,

3 for 49 from 50 overs on the 4th and 5th day at Adelaide is not very impressive I'm afraid.

May not look impressive based on looking at these figures, but he is surely a more solid spin bowling option for Australia than the likes of Xavier Doherty, Steven Smith and Michael Beer who all got carted around the pitch in the last Ashes test series in 2010.

But in England?

I think we have the 2nd best batting line up in the world, especially with Prior coming in at seven.

Stella wrote:But in England?

I think we have the 2nd best batting line up in the world, especially with Prior coming in at seven.

2nd best batting lineup in the world ! What on earth does that mean out in the middle? Absolutely JACKS##T! England's batsmen still are very fragile when they are placed under the microscope by pace bowlers of genuine quality, rather than the mickey mouse rubbish that the likes of Zaheer Khan, Fidel Edwards and co have served up to England's batsmen in the two test series which England have won in the past year.

England have more batsmen in the top 20 ICC rankings than any other team in the world. I'll refer you to an earlier comment of yours on the Kapil Dev thread:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

Of course but it doesn't mean by not taking 300 wickets that you're not great, which is what you're implying.

Well then it becomes just a bit less clear to gauge whether a bowler is great or not, such as with the Garner and Holding example above.

Best to judge by watching.

Best to judge by gathering evidence from stats.

seanmichaels wrote:England have more batsmen in the top 20 ICC rankings than any other team in the world. I'll refer you to an earlier comment of yours on the Kapil Dev thread:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

Of course but it doesn't mean by not taking 300 wickets that you're not great, which is what you're implying.

Well then it becomes just a bit less clear to gauge whether a bowler is great or not, such as with the Garner and Holding example above.

Best to judge by watching.

Best to judge by gathering evidence from stats.

That is the Kapil Dev thread. This is the thread discussing about Australia's 2 potential matchwinners. In any case having more batsmen in the ICC's world top 20 rankings means absolutely nothing as most of them have got there by getting runs of mickey mouse bowlers such as those which were fielded by the West Indies and by India.

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:England have more batsmen in the top 20 ICC rankings than any other team in the world. I'll refer you to an earlier comment of yours on the Kapil Dev thread:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

Of course but it doesn't mean by not taking 300 wickets that you're not great, which is what you're implying.

Well then it becomes just a bit less clear to gauge whether a bowler is great or not, such as with the Garner and Holding example above.

Best to judge by watching.

Best to judge by gathering evidence from stats.

That is the Kapil Dev thread. This is the thread discussing about Australia's 2 potential matchwinners. In any case having more batsmen in the ICC's world top 20 rankings means absolutely nothing as most of them have got there by getting runs of mickey mouse bowlers such as those which were fielded by the West Indies and by India.

I think they got more runs against the Mickey Mouse attack of Siddle, Johnson and Hilfenhaus last time around

fros23 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:England have more batsmen in the top 20 ICC rankings than any other team in the world. I'll refer you to an earlier comment of yours on the Kapil Dev thread:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

Of course but it doesn't mean by not taking 300 wickets that you're not great, which is what you're implying.

Well then it becomes just a bit less clear to gauge whether a bowler is great or not, such as with the Garner and Holding example above.

Best to judge by watching.

Best to judge by gathering evidence from stats.

That is the Kapil Dev thread. This is the thread discussing about Australia's 2 potential matchwinners. In any case having more batsmen in the ICC's world top 20 rankings means absolutely nothing as most of them have got there by getting runs of mickey mouse bowlers such as those which were fielded by the West Indies and by India.

I think they got more runs against the Mickey Mouse attack of Siddle, Johnson and Hilfenhaus last time around

They certainly did, but I fear that the boot is likely to be on the other foot now as this mickey mouse trio have become a different animal altogether! Sid Vicious with his new diet and his new ability to swing the ball away from the right hander is certainty a better bowler, whilst Hilfenhaus has become a better bowler since the last ashes test series as he seems to have gained greater control and accuracy. As for Mitchell Johnson, well it seems he is now managed to get a better control over his wayward deliveries which plagued him during the last ashes test series having spend the time away from the Australian team by working hard on refining/tuning up his own bowling action.

[quote="gboycottnut"]

fros23 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:England have more batsmen in the top 20 ICC rankings than any other team in the world. I'll refer you to an earlier comment of yours on the Kapil Dev thread:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:It's a little to simplistic to say 300 wickets and above = being great.

300 wickets is about similar to scoring 8000 test runs, so this being the case, Bradman wasn't great.

Is it heck. Of course having 300+ wickets means a bowler is great.

Of course but it doesn't mean by not taking 300 wickets that you're not great, which is what you're implying.

Well then it becomes just a bit less clear to gauge whether a bowler is great or not, such as with the Garner and Holding example above.

Best to judge by watching.

Best to judge by gathering evidence from stats.

That is the Kapil Dev thread. This is the thread discussing about Australia's 2 potential matchwinners. In any case having more batsmen in the ICC's world top 20 rankings means absolutely nothing as most of them have got there by getting runs of mickey mouse bowlers such as those which were fielded by the West Indies and by India.

I think they got more runs against the Mickey Mouse attack of Siddle, Johnson and Hilfenhaus last time around

They certainly did, but now I fear that the boot is likely to be on the other foot as this mickey mouse trio have become a different animal altogether![/quote]

Leading wicket takers in 2012
HMRKB Herath 10 473.5 80 1247 60 6-43 20.78 2.63 47.38

GP Swann 14 518.4 100 1386 59 6-82 23.49 2.67 52.75

JM Anderson 13 519.2 132 1283 44 5-72 29.16 2.47 70.82

VD Philander 9 282.1 66 776 43 6-44 18.05 2.75 39.37

PM Siddle 8 326.1 92 947 41 5-49 23.10 2.90 47.73

SCJ Broad 11 349.0 77 985 40 7-72 24.63 2.82 52.35

KAJ Roach 7 263.4 47 852 39 5-41 21.85 3.23 40.56

DW Steyn 10 340.3 79 1064 39 5-56 27.28 3.12 52.38

Saeed Ajmal 6 304.0 64 802 39 7-55 20.56 2.64 46.77

M Morkel 10 307.2 65 973 38 6-23 25.61 3.17 48.53

R Ashwin 8 397.4 76 1218 37 6-31 32.92 3.06 64.49

BW Hilfenhaus 9 326.1 93 776 37 5-106 20.97 2.38 52.89

NM Lyon 10 376.2 99 966 36 5-68 26.83 2.57 62.72

MS Panesar 6 349.4 94 818 33 6-62 24.79

seanmichaels wrote:Leading wicket takers in 2012
HMRKB Herath 10 473.5 80 1247 60 6-43 20.78 2.63 47.38

GP Swann 14 518.4 100 1386 59 6-82 23.49 2.67 52.75

JM Anderson 13 519.2 132 1283 44 5-72 29.16 2.47 70.82

VD Philander 9 282.1 66 776 43 6-44 18.05 2.75 39.37

PM Siddle 8 326.1 92 947 41 5-49 23.10 2.90 47.73

SCJ Broad 11 349.0 77 985 40 7-72 24.63 2.82 52.35

KAJ Roach 7 263.4 47 852 39 5-41 21.85 3.23 40.56

DW Steyn 10 340.3 79 1064 39 5-56 27.28 3.12 52.38

Saeed Ajmal 6 304.0 64 802 39 7-55 20.56 2.64 46.77

M Morkel 10 307.2 65 973 38 6-23 25.61 3.17 48.53

R Ashwin 8 397.4 76 1218 37 6-31 32.92 3.06 64.49

BW Hilfenhaus 9 326.1 93 776 37 5-106 20.97 2.38 52.89

NM Lyon 10 376.2 99 966 36 5-68 26.83 2.57 62.72

MS Panesar 6 349.4 94 818 33 6-62 24.79

Your point being?

Boycott you cannot be serious - what makes you think this new crop won't go the same way as Hilfenhaus, Siddle et al? They're decent, but by no means world beaters. I'll be surprised if a couple of them don't get a tonking at the hands of a Pietersen or Prior.

Fists of Fury wrote:Boycott you cannot be serious - what makes you think this new crop won't go the same way as Hilfenhaus, Siddle et al? They're decent, but by no means world beaters. I'll be surprised if a couple of them don't get a tonking at the hands of a Pietersen or Prior.

Well how about this then. These new crop of dangerous terror speedsters (Pattinson, Starc, Cummins) all have that one vital ingredient in their bowling arsenal which all batsmen must find uncomfortable to handle and that is the ball coming onto them at a very high express pace of 90+ mph. It will be like a batsman having to face 3 Brett Lee's or Dale Steyn's during an innings or facing that menacing quartet of the West Indian speedsters whom terrorised England's hapless batsmen in the 1986 test series.

gboycottnut wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Boycott you cannot be serious - what makes you think this new crop won't go the same way as Hilfenhaus, Siddle et al? They're decent, but by no means world beaters. I'll be surprised if a couple of them don't get a tonking at the hands of a Pietersen or Prior.

Well how about this then. These new crop of dangerous terror speedsters (Pattinson, Starc, Cummins) all have that one vital ingredient in their bowling arsenal which all batsmen must find uncomfortable to handle and that is the ball coming onto them at a very high express pace of 90+ mph. It will be like a batsman having to face 3 Brett Lee's or Dale Steyn's during an innings or facing that menacing quartet of the West Indian speedsters whom terrorised England's hapless batsmen in the 1986 test series.

Johnson has always been quick but like Devon Malcolm it is just whether he can land it on the cut patch.

Pattinson, Stark and Cummins are also fairly rapid but they are unable to put a series of tests together without breaking down.

Hilfenous and Siddle are no quicker than Finn, Broad and Anderson on the whole. Anderson is a far better bowler than any of that lot.

seanmichaels wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Boycott you cannot be serious - what makes you think this new crop won't go the same way as Hilfenhaus, Siddle et al? They're decent, but by no means world beaters. I'll be surprised if a couple of them don't get a tonking at the hands of a Pietersen or Prior.

Well how about this then. These new crop of dangerous terror speedsters (Pattinson, Starc, Cummins) all have that one vital ingredient in their bowling arsenal which all batsmen must find uncomfortable to handle and that is the ball coming onto them at a very high express pace of 90+ mph. It will be like a batsman having to face 3 Brett Lee's or Dale Steyn's during an innings or facing that menacing quartet of the West Indian speedsters whom terrorised England's hapless batsmen in the 1986 test series.

Johnson has always been quick but like Devon Malcolm it is just whether he can land it on the cut patch.

Pattinson, Stark and Cummins are also fairly rapid but they are unable to put a series of tests together without breaking down.

Hilfenous and Siddle are no quicker than Finn, Broad and Anderson on the whole. Anderson is a far better bowler than any of that lot.

Well judging by the Sri Lanka test series, it seems that Mitchell Johnson has now gained greater control of his deliveries, whilst Sid Vicious and Hilfenhaus have both improved as bowlers since the last ashes test series. On the whole an Australian pace quartet of say Pattinson, Hilfenhaus, Sid Vicious and Johnson looks more menacing and is more likely to destroy the opposition batting lineup for a total under 150, than is the case with an England pace trio of Anderson, Broad and Bresnan.

I think Swann, Finn, Anderson and Broad will be a better attack in English and Australian conditions. I'd be incredibly surprised if they went with 4 seamers. More likely Lyon + 3 seamers with Watson and Clarke as back up.

seanmichaels wrote:I think Swann, Finn, Anderson and Broad will be a better attack in English and Australian conditions. I'd be incredibly surprised if they went with 4 seamers. More likely Lyon + 3 seamers with Watson and Clarke as back up.

Well they are going with the 4 pacers in this current test match V Sri Lanka as their keeper Wade is batting at 6. Anyway I was only making a general comparison of the pace attacks for the two nations (without bringing the spinners into the equation). It does look increasingly likely now that Hussey won't be playing anymore that should Watson bat at 4, the Aussies will play 5 frontline bowlers with Watson himself playing as a specialist batsman only in order to reduce his workload.

Let's not kid ourselves that Johnson is an all rounder. They are picking an attacking side against a fairly weak Sri Lankan bowling attack. Good selections for this match (wish England would do this more often) but against an attack that is anything like they'll only pick 3 seamers.

seanmichaels wrote:Let's not kid ourselves that Johnson is an all rounder. They are picking an attacking side against a fairly weak Sri Lankan bowling attack. Good selections for this match (wish England would do this more often) but against an attack that is anything like they'll only pick 3 seamers.

Well Johnson can turn himself into a half of an all-rounder like what Andrew Flintoff eventually became for England from 2007-2009, i.e. a player who isn't actually good enough to bat in the top 6 but is best placed to bat at 7 or 8 whilst still being a constant menace to opposition batsmen when bowling.

Constant menace? Johnson had one good game at Perth. He was back to his usual dross in this Test.

Finn is just as quick as any of the Aussie lot, and he's a more rounded bowler than their young guns. Hilfenhaus and Siddle have improved because they are playing dross like Sri Lanka - I'm sure they'll be back to looking guff when the man at the opposing end is Kevin Pietersen as opposed to Angelo Mathews.

What massively overated ? Hes done that already hasnt he?
Both have probably put in a similar number of "all round" good performances, ie not many.
On his day Mitch has been a match winner, he did batter England in the third test when they were last over. But those performances are not the norm. Hes bowled some real filth for long periods and been dropped more often than an edge to Kamran Akmal.
At 31 years of age hes not really got much time left to develop into the new Ian Botham.

Fists of Fury wrote:Constant menace? Johnson had one good game at Perth. He was back to his usual dross in this Test.

Finn is just as quick as any of the Aussie lot, and he's a more rounded bowler than their young guns. Hilfenhaus and Siddle have improved because they are playing dross like Sri Lanka - I'm sure they'll be back to looking guff when the man at the opposing end is Kevin Pietersen as opposed to Angelo Mathews.

Finn ! Don't make me laugh. Despite supposedly having high pace to trouble batsmen, Finn got easily carted on the legside for sixes and fours by a supposed genuine tailender in Pakistani Umar Gul at Trent Bridge in 2010.

gboycottnut wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:Let's not kid ourselves that Johnson is an all rounder. They are picking an attacking side against a fairly weak Sri Lankan bowling attack. Good selections for this match (wish England would do this more often) but against an attack that is anything like they'll only pick 3 seamers.

Well Johnson can turn himself into a half of an all-rounder like what Andrew Flintoff eventually became for England from 2007-2009, i.e. a player who isn't actually good enough to bat in the top 6 but is best placed to bat at 7 or 8 whilst still being a constant menace to opposition batsmen when bowling.

where are you reading your stuff? Flintoff peaked 2004-2006. He only played one test in 2007????

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:What massively overated ? Hes done that already hasnt he?
Both have probably put in a similar number of "all round" good performances, ie not many.
On his day Mitch has been a match winner, he did batter England in the third test when they were last over. But those performances are not the norm. Hes bowled some real filth for long periods and been dropped more often than an edge to Kamran Akmal.
At 31 years of age hes not really got much time left to develop into the new Ian Botham.

Who said he should develop into the new Ian Botham? Not many wannabe all-rounders are good enough/lucky enough to get to Botham's standard of 1981 vintage performances. What Johnson can do is develop his game to become half of a genuine all-rounder like that of an Andrew Flintoff.

Botham wsnt good enough to bat in the top 6, yet Johnosn will develope into not as good an all rounder who can play in the top 6? Admittedly that wouldnt be hard looking at Aus's current crop but really this is just too silly now.

Please try harder.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Botham wsnt good enough to bat in the top 6, yet Johnosn will develope into not as good an all rounder who can play in the top 6? Admittedly that wouldnt be hard looking at Aus's current crop but really this is just too silly now.

Please try harder.

Botham was good enough to bat in England's top 6, and I have never said or suggested anything for one minute that Johnson will/can develop into an all-rounder/player who is good enough to bat at 6.

Flintoff

79 matches
3845 runs
226 Wickets

Johnson

50 Matches
1389 runs
202 wickets

Fists, did you got your own gordy because you missed his presence on the boxing board?

ShahenshahG wrote:Fists, did you got your own gordy because you missed his presence on the boxing board?

I enjoy this chap. I think he may be a school boy wanting to get into sports journalism. He needs to use reliable sources instead of wiki though.

He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right that Mitchell Johnson he really is..............

Besides which how to you figure Australia are going to shoehorn the three Dale Stains, Piddle, Johnson, Hilfenguff and Lyons into the same side?

Ha, not far off, Shah.