Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Players => Topic started by: Buzz on January 03, 2013, 10:02:34 AM
-
This is for Vic ;)
Right - according to the statistics, Anderson and Johnson are a similar quality of bowler and in fact with Johnson's batting, he is a significantly better bet as a pick than Anderson. Now we have all watched Anderson lead our attack all over the world and be awesome, whilst laughing at Johnson's perceived ineptitude. But the stats don't point to this being fair. In the past they were both "daisy" bowlers (some days he does, some days he doesn't). The questions I have are around how has Mitchell Johnson got the stats he has!!
If you are reading this with incredulous disbelief, check for yourself.
Mitchell Johnson - www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/6033.html
Jimmy Anderson - www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/8608.html
Plus, even if you edit the stats to Anderson's second incarnation as a test bowler since he replaced Hoggy in New Zealand, the results are the same.
Personally I would never consider picking Johnson ahead of Anderson - but it is amazing what lies you can get from statistics - I mean they also suggest that Kallis is a better player than Tendulkar... ;)
-
The difference between Johnson and Anderson is that, mentally, you can get at Johnson and take him out of the game. You can't do that with Jimmy. Personally, I am praying Johnson is in the starting line up for the first Ashes test. The crowd will tear him apart on the first morning and that will be it.... :D The likes of Starc, Cummins and Patterson worry me far more than this excuse of a bowler does...
-
I had actually never realised that... I think both bowlers also had spells where they would absolutely devastate opposition, Johnson against SA and Anderson against NZ springs to mind. I would never pick Johnson ahead of Anderson either. I don't see how those stats could be right... Cricinfo NEVER lies though... ;)
Maybe it is because Johnson is so erratic even now, while Anderson is more consistent and dependable. Are there any ways to check where each player played their tests, and how their performances were at those specific areas? Maybe there are a few grounds which Johnson just seems to always excel in. ???
-
woow so Johnsons bowling average is miles better in ODI and T20s, but marginally worse in Tests.
The batting is again miles better than our jimmy. Even the economy of the bowling is similar. Has someone doctored this?
-
They're both different types of bowler used in different ways.
You would have both in the same team but not one or the other.
-
After watching the Aus v SL test today that stats suggest after 19 tests each Nathan Lyon was a better bowler than Richie Benaud.. Who in fact was the leading wicket taker for Australia when he retired until Dennis Lillee took that record off him
-
J Anderson anyday
His ability to swing the ball in air with such pace.. both ways :)
M Jhonson on other hand looks so injuryprone while bowling me thinks 8) and batsmen can easily pick him and score runs
-
When firing Johnson is world class there no doubt about that.
When he is on pomp he is better than Anderson I would say but he has 2 to 3 bad days for that one good day bit like his batting the enigma.
Anderson is steady away on his day he is devastating but in the main he is a steady bowler.
I suspect Mitchell will have his day again soon
-
Johnson seems to be too mentally fragile for test cricket. He gets worn down by the Barmy Army and struggles. Anderson is for sure the best bowler England have had for a while. Out of interest Buzz is there a comparison we can draw between Johnson and Broad?
-
To b honest the Kallis v Tendulkar debate that's a different ball game.
To me Kallis is the better cricketer by a long way
-
To b honest the Kallis v Tendulkar debate that's a different ball game.
To me Kallis is the better cricketer by a long way
Similar to this debate it's hard to compare people who do different roles. I think Broad is our version of MJ, at his best devastating but not mentally stable enough to shut off the demons when it's not going right for him.
-
The Johnson vs Broad comparison is good as the both started in 2007 and want to be bowling alrounders.
Broads stats are here www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/10617.html
-
Be the strike rate very similar the fact Johnson is a couple,of yards quicker.
Broad seems to be the better batsman shame we have not seen that more recently.
-
Johnson had a great first year or so, helped by his unusual slingy left arm action which was difficult to face for the first time, this gave his stats a kickstart but since he has declined and now only performs with the ball 1 in 5 matches at best. Batting is a sideshow for me, scoring 50 is no good if he's bowled 20 overs with figures of 0-110 and the opposition have racked up 500.
Anderson on the other hand had a woeful start to to Test career and ever since has been battling to bring his average down. He has led England's attack all over the world, consistently gets the best players in the opposition out and rarely breaks down with injury. Anderson DOESN'T perform with the ball 1 in 5 at worst.
I would say that if you looked at their careers they have very different growth curves and I expect the stats to back this up
'He bowls to the left, he bowls to the right' wasn't penned about Jimmy Anderson
-
MJ has also never played against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh!
-
http://www.sporting-heroes.net/cricket/england/james-anderson-2086/test-record-v-australia_a02271/
Not a geat record against them though
-
The Broad debate gives more interesting reading for me as its as close as a like for like comparison.
Both have days where they are near unplayable.
For me no matter what the stats say, gut instinct is that youd pick Johnson ahead of Broad. Although Broad may offer a little more with the bat, I feel he gives too little when he bowls!
-
I would have Johnson over Broad.
Not a fan of Broad and his arrogance. I think he is a poor choice as vice cap and cap of T20.
Proir test vice for me.
-
Stupid comparison.
Anderson was in a lot of ways in the early stages of his career similar to Johnson as his attitude was ordinary then he met David Saker.
Anderson is world class and for the wickets he does not take himself he builds pressure so that other bowlers can take wickets at the other end.
Johnson lacks mental strength to be a successful consistent international cricketer.
If Pat Cummins, Pattinson, Starc, Siddle and Bird are all fit Johnson will struggle to get a spot in England and lets hope Cummins is fit as the kid is an absolute freak!!
-
I watched cummins bowl a few overs in belfast he certainly is sharp
-
I watched cummins bowl a few overs in belfast he certainly is sharp
Real real quick and very clever along with it.
Aus top six will be ordinary but if Cummins is fit he could even it up on his own.
Will be very different return series in Aus
-
This might not be a fair comparison but think of MJ like Sehwag and Jimmy as Hayden (in prime)... both good and destructive but Jimmy is far more consistent...MJ on the other hand would have a series or a few matches where is absolutely dominant but then fades away for long periods...
-
Anderson is more of a Damien Martyn I'd wager.
India would take both in a shot.
However, both would be fat and shot this time next year.
-
This is a classic case of there being lies, damned lies and statistics; I think most everyone would agree that Anderson is one of the top three or four fast bowlers in teh world right now, and that he has been for at least three or four years, whereas Johnson had that one amazing year when he came in to Test cricket and occasionally shows the same form in Perth to remind us of what he could have been.
Yet their stats are surprisingly close - not just the average and wickets:matches ratio, but also their economies and strike rates. The conventional wisdom of Johnson's career is not even that accurate, as the following demonstrates:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/6033.html?class=1;template=results;type=allround;view=cumulative
His bowling average did briefly drop to the low 27's (8/61 in your arly career will cause that sort of blip), but has hovered around the 30 mark for most all of his Test career that apart, so he has always been roughly as effective...
The equivalent data for Jimmikins:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/8608.html?class=1;template=results;type=allround;view=cumulative
Shows that he briefly threatened 40 around the time that Fletch et al messed around with his bowling action, but that he has gradually worked that down to a fraction over 30....where it has sat for a while now, which implies that the improvement has gone as far as it is going.
Of course, these stats don't show how Anderson is a wicket taking threat in so many different conditions, nor how he has learnd to be the man to hold up an end whilst someone takes wickets at the other, neither of which apply to Johnson...
-
Is there a way to show who Jimmy and MJ are getting out? For example is MJ bowling poorly against the top order and then knocking over the tail. Vice Versa for jimmy, I've seen him a few times get smashed around by lower order batsmen after the hard yards have been done.
-
There may be some of that about it, not sure how you'd check...
-
The following shows wickets and average against batting position. Seems to suggest that Anderson is better against the top 4 and number 9 with Johnson better against 5,6,7, and 10.
Anderson
1st position 39 31.12
2nd position 37 18.81
3rd position 29 25.17
4th position 38 28.6
5th position 23 23.21
6th position 21 25.38
7th position 25 25.32
8th position 17 16.52
9th position 25 14.12
10th position 18 11.38
11th position 16 1.56
Johnson
1st position 17 38.52
2nd position 25 28.28
3rd position 23 43.26
4th position 19 37.05
5th position 20 21
6th position 21 16.14
7th position 20 21.3
8th position 15 16.26
9th position 16 19.43
10th position 13 5.38
11th position 13 2.15
-
Johnson over Broad, but Anderson over Johnson (Dale Steyn over all of them, though).
-
Thanks fros23 that's a great stat and I think it is vital in the comparison as some statistic can be very misleading.
-
Anderson, greatness and England's lost generation
Jon Hotten (the old batsman)
Barring injury and other disasters, James Anderson will, at some point next month, become the 26th bowler in the history of Test match cricket to take 300 wickets. He will be only the fourth Englishman to pass the mark, which, considering that Fred Trueman was the first to do so in 1964, puts him in elite company as far as the three lions go.
Trueman's landmark will be fifty years old come next summer. When he walked off the field at the Oval having taken the defining wicket of Neil Hawke, Fred was asked if he thought anyone would beat his record. "I don't know," he replied, "but they'll be bloody knackered if they do." To Trueman in 1964, the thought of 400 Test wickets was a distant Everest. The notion of a man taking 800 might have been enough to leave even Fred temporarily wordless, and he didn't quite live to see it done.
RELATED LINKSFeatures:The Anderson reportFeatures:More records in sight for AndersonPlayers/Officials: James Anderson| Sir Ian Botham| Fred TruemanTeams: England
Ian Botham retired with the English record of 383 wickets in 1992 but 11 bowlers have gone on past 400: three from India, two from West Indies, two from Australia, and one each from Sri Lanka, New Zealand, South Africa and Pakistan. Or, put another way, at least one player from each of the other seven major Test nations has achieved something that no English bowler has.
With his almost undetectable variations of grip and wrist position, his rudder of a thumb, his angle on the crease, his endurance and his pace, Anderson can be irresistible, symphonic in his variations on a narrow theme. He knows about as much as any man can about the fragile mysteries of swing, because he can on occasion be defenceless without it. Perhaps more than any other bowler in the elite echelon that he is about to join, Anderson is hostage to forces beyond his control.
When he surmounts that 300 barrier (he currently has 298), it will be with an average of above 30 runs per wicket. It's odd but unavoidable that such a blunt stat will temper judgement of the feat and of Anderson's standing, but he will be one of just three of the 26 bowlers in the club with an average of above thirty. Of the others, Harbhajan Singh and Brett Lee enjoyed long periods with their cumulative average below 30, and only Daniel Vettori has never dipped under the mark. Anderson was last there in August 2003, after his sixth Test match.
Andy Zaltzman once dug out a gem of a stat: that Viv Richards needed to make at least 20 in his final Test innings to end his career with an average of more than fifty. Twenty runs, after the levels of Richards' accomplishments, were nothing, but in a way they were everything too. It wouldn't seem right that the avatar of modern batsmanship was forever denied the statistical company of, for example, Shivnarine Chanderpaul.
So it is with bowlers. Thirty seems to be the mark at which ambiguity begins, where good and great slowly begin to separate from one another, where a decision has to be made as to who belongs where.
Anderson's career has had a different sweep to many. His first 100 wickets cost him 35. By the time he reached 200, the figure was under 32. Now it is a hair above 30. It is a gentle curve, reflective of a craft being slowly but progressively refined.
At his current strike rate of a wicket every 59 deliveries, he will need to bowl another 800 overs to go past Botham, in another thousand he could become the first Englishman to 400. At his rate of around 36 overs per Test, that's another 30 games, or three years of full fitness and endeavour.
At around the same time, Alistair Cook or Kevin Pietersen might be the first English Test batsman to pass 10,000 runs, a total already exceeded by three men from India, three from Australia, two from West Indies, two from Sri Lanka and one from South Africa.
During the ragged decade of the 1990s and beyond, England stalled while these records piled up. It's only now, as the same achievements come into view for a generation of players to have benefited from central contracts, consistency of selection, rigour in coaching and financial investment that their scale is apparent.
The record books say that the world left England a long way behind. The story of a generation is told through its absence from them.
-
Fascinating, and in many ways, a very sad article.
-
During the ragged decade of the 1990s and beyond, England stalled while these records piled up. It's only now, as the same achievements come into view for a generation of players to have benefited from central contracts, consistency of selection, rigour in coaching and financial investment that their scale is apparent.
Now this is the kind of blog post that is worth reading - weight of thought, understanding and research together with a light hearted style of prose.
Interesting point regarding 90s England - in the modern era of central contracts I reckon Atherton, Stewart, Hick, Ramprakash, Maynard, Smith, Irani, Croft, Fraser, Gough, Malcolm would have been a pretty strong force to be reckoned with.
-
Now this is the kind of blog post that is worth reading - weight of thought, understanding and research together with a light hearted style of prose.
Interesting point regarding 90s England - in the modern era of central contracts I reckon Atherton, Stewart, Hick, Ramprakash, Maynard, Smith, Irani, Croft, Fraser, Gough, Malcolm would have been a pretty strong force to be reckoned with.
I can't disagree with you. Some good players let down by a very poor system.
-
plus cork, tufnell, Gower and others...
-
plus cork, tufnell, Gower and others...
Gower was a bit earlier but a valid point that he maybe lacked the application. Tufnell would have benefitted greatly, as would Cork - I;d also add Dean Headley, Paul Jarvis and Chris Lewis, all of whom would have benefitted from the fitness regimen.
-
I think these comparisons often make more sense at the end if careers. Anderson is a more mature thinker than MJ, however, I think that MJ is still learning the mental side of his game & will prove himself, over time, a better player than Anderson (whom I will add is one if my favourite players).
-
He'll have to hurry up! By the end of this season Mitch will be 32!
-
He'll have to hurry up! By the end of this season Mitch will be 32!
Yeah, the clock is ticking for him. He should be a player that perform into his late 30's. He is one of those more athlete than cricketer.
-
I am hoping Mitch continues his form, he bowling as well as I can remember in a long time. There is nothing better than a good fast bowler on song no matter what country he represents.
-
I am hoping Mitch continues his form, he bowling as well as I can remember in a long time. There is nothing better than a good fast bowler on song no matter what country he represents.
Sure do agree with you on that.
-
Anderson has the consistant line and length combo plus pace and the ablity to swing the ball. He is also great in the field. But can't bat.
Johnson doesn't have the consistancy but when he's bowling well, there's few better in the world. Like Andreson he is also excellent in the field. But unlike him, Johnson can bat and bat very well.
The argument about them being miles apart is in my opinion unfair. They are, when you think about it, quite close. Anderson has the consistancy, but Johnson has his batting. Both are top notch fielders, and both (When Johnson's on) are dynamic with the cherry.
Heart over head being an Aussie, I reckon Mitch just shades Anderson!
-
I'm an Aussie and i think your dreaming.... i would prefer to have Anderson in my lineup any day.
Consistency is the key and Johnson's consistency is frustrating, which can create a massive hole in your team when he is not on song. You can ill afford inconsistent cricketers when playing a test match because they become a liability for 5 days.
-
they are indeed miles apart. andersen is indeed the better bowler and anderson is a much better fielder (johnson has regressed in this department).
-
I disagree mate. Johnson's fielding is sensational. Great hands, great arm from the deep and can throw the pegs down. And in regards to his bowling, I've watched him a bit of late and his consistancy is a lot better. And his pace is right up there. Hope he gets a run in the ASHES as I'm sure he will surprise many. Lion hearted cricketer who I rate highly. I rate Anderson too though!
-
Firstly, Anderson was mentally week before he met David Saker who sorted him out.
No comparison Anderson is miles ahead with the ball, but Johnson is a better fielder and batsman.
-
there is no way Johnson is a better fielder than Anderson, Jimmy is a different level.
regardless of the bowling stats, or that Johnson is a better batsman. no one would really pick Mitchell ahead of Jimmy
-
Anderson has the consistant line and length combo plus pace and the ablity to swing the ball. He is also great in the field. But can't bat.
Johnson doesn't have the consistancy but when he's bowling well, there's few better in the world. Like Andreson he is also excellent in the field. But unlike him, Johnson can bat and bat very well.
The argument about them being miles apart is in my opinion unfair. They are, when you think about it, quite close. Anderson has the consistancy, but Johnson has his batting. Both are top notch fielders, and both (When Johnson's on) are dynamic with the cherry.
Heart over head being an Aussie, I reckon Mitch just shades Anderson!
Johnson batting does not win test matches neither does his fielding...
Anderson bowling wins test matches and wins them regularly and not forgetting odi too.
You wouldn't pick either of them for there fielding or batting alone so that argument is redundant you have been reading far too much in the 2 out 3 department cricket ability too much.
Johnson has undiscovered potential with the ball I believe he could be a world beater but yet isn't and time shows he possibly will not be either.
Anderson has been a world beater for a number of years now there is the difference...
-
Wow!!! Did somebody actually just say Mitchell is a better fielder than Anderson?! Clueless
-
you cease to have potential when you get to your late 20's you can either use what you have or can't. Anderson can, Johnson (who is 31 or 32) has no idea if he is going to be on or off.
-
Being an Aussie and unbiased, Mitchell Johnson is by far a better bowler, batsman and fielder than Jimmy Anderson. Jimmy couldn't hold a candle to our Mitch and you pommy's are blinded by the hype... Say goodbye to the Ashes boys ;) ;) :D
-
Johnson is no where near consistent enough to be compared with Anderson. I don't also understand how people can say Johnson is a better fielder than Anderson. Not many opening bowlers are very capable slip fielders, which Anderson is. Batting not really a factor since we not comparing all-rounders and neither will ever be considered just on their batting.
-
Morning all, first post & thought I'd chime in.
Having spent a month in India recently and having watched IPL matches daily, Mitchell Johnson is on fire at the moment and the Aussies are crazy not to include him in the Ashes squad.
I'd take some perverse pleasure watching him silence the Barmy Army and I'm English.
-
Actually I take issue witht eh idea that Anderson is a competent slip fielder - he'd be okay at club level but he drops a seriously high percentage in international cricket - he's certainly no Paul Collinwood!
-
Anderson is no world beater boy's and nowhere near it and it could be argued he is playing against substandard opponents as it really isn't a golden era of cricket.
To be a world beater you need to be Shane Warne, Ian Botham, Sachin Tendulkar or Sir Donald Bradman and Anderson doesn't belong in the said company.
-
Currently he is as good as anybody in the world which I guess makes him world class
So I guess at the minute he is a world beater
The old adage you can only do what your up against
He is world class in the top 3 bowlers in the world I would have said currently
-
Currently he is as good as anybody in the world which I guess makes him world class
So I guess at the minute he is a world beater
The old adage you can only do what your up against
He is world class in the top 3 bowlers in the world I would have said currently
Anderson isn't as good as Steyn. Period.
Anderson plays in favourable conditions in England, yet still averages over 30 in his career.
Steyn and Philander are the two premier fast bowlers.
-
Anderson isn't as good as Steyn. Period.
Anderson plays in favourable conditions in England, yet still averages over 30 in his career.
Steyn and Philander are the two premier fast bowlers.
Agree!!
Anderson is good without being great period!!
-
Back on the topic of Anderson vs Johnson
Anderson is a control bowler. Builds pressure.
Johnson is an out and out fast bowler. Takes wickets.
If you have a Johnson he needs to be offset by playing two fast bowlers that offer control. Australia have this when Lee was in the side. McGrath, Gillespie and Clark allowed Australia to have Lee as the extra firepower.
-
Back on the topic of Anderson vs Johnson
Anderson is a control bowler. Builds pressure.
Johnson is an out and out fast bowler. Takes wickets.
If you have a Johnson he needs to be offset by playing two fast bowlers that offer control. Australia have this when Lee was in the side. McGrath, Gillespie and Clark allowed Australia to have Lee as the extra firepower.
Completely disagree strike rates are very similar to dispell the Johnson is a wicket taker
Johnson is at his best as is Anderson when there balls moving
Steyn is the best at what he does but Anderson is right up there with the best
-
Johnson and dernbach are more the same sort than comparing anderson to the aussie surley
-
Johnson and dernbach are more the same sort than comparing anderson to the aussie surley
What? They both bowl loads of rubbish and get hit around a lot by god batsmen?
-
Johnson and dernbach are more the same sort than comparing anderson to the aussie surley
Not at all. Johnson, at one point, proved himself as an word class bowler. For whatever the reason, he has struggled since.
Dernbach hasn't reached anywhere near Johnson's level, so can't compare them.
-
there is no way Johnson is a better fielder than Anderson, Jimmy is a different level.
regardless of the bowling stats, or that Johnson is a better batsman. no one would really pick Mitchell ahead of Jimmy
Anderosn would be easily better than MJ in the slips (where I have never seen MJ field), but in teh outfield, the reverse applies. MJ is a brilliant catch in the deep and has a rocket arm.
Anderson is easily more consistent than Johnson - you cannot argue with that from any perspective. Anderson will be destructive in favourable and at the very least bowl dry when conditions are not.
Johnson - on his day - is one of the most destructive bowlers in the world leaving a trail of broken hands and battered helmets in his wake along with big wickets.
I reckon Johnson test career is over as the Oz selectrors are looking to groom Starc to play that role of the left armer who can bat a bit.
The 2009 Ashes were the beginning of MJ's down fall with his mother and future wife not on speaking terms, his always questionable confidence was shattered and he was awful for large chunks of that series.
However, our memories are not always backed up by stats and reality. In that 2009 Ashes, Johnson took 20 wickets at 32.55. Anderson took 11 at 45.16. Yet we remember Johnson as being THE joke of that series.
Johnson, for whatever reason, is the player the English crowds love to hate the most, which is odd, because MJ is quite a quiet, likeable sort of bloke not given to making big statements or anything like that.
This illogical hatred forms the basis for all the manifestations of English opinion that "Johnson is (No Swearing Please)..." etc.
He is just an ordinary Aussie bowler....not as good as our greats like Lillee, McGrath, McKenzie, Lindwall, Miller, Alderman and co, but certainly not as bad as the English love trying to tell us he is.
-
he has more than 200 test wickets so can't be terrible!
I had heard the story about the wife and mother, not what you want at the best of times, let alone when you are under immense pessure at work.
Arh that 2009 ashes, that was the one after the 2005 ashes series wasn't
Johnson has been bowling well with a white ball recently.
it is unusual that you have 3 left arm quicks around.
-
Johnson isn't hated by the Barmy army at all he is begrudgingly admired
On his day Johnson was good very good as good as Anderson he just couldn't sustain it
-
anderson is in a different league to johnson and has been bar a brief spell when johnson first came on the scene against SA etc
-
Anderson has taken his time to get where he is as well remember Kevin Shine buggering him up with his change of action.
There always 2 sides of a coin and Johnson record says he had more than one series of success
Johnson when he does get it right and it is not very often is as devastating as Anderson it just doesn't happen that often
-
Johnson when he does get it right and it is not very often is as devastating as Anderson it just doesn't happen that often
This.
Johnson's best is for two tests a year...maybe three. The rest of the time he is underwhelming.
-
Johnson is by far the most elite of the two batting wise, although Anderson is a superb bowler.
-
And considering they are there to bowl and take wickets, why should we actually care who bats the best?
-
And Johnson, an 'Elite' batsman? Seriously?
Is this in comparison to the performances of the top order currently?
You may have a point there!!
-
In comparison of the two I would say that Johnson is the 'better' batsman.
-
The key difference with Johnson and Anderson is
Johnson is better as being one of many, eg not the leader of the attack
Anderson can lead the attack.
-
This topic is funny.
Props to Buzz for telling you all what I always knew...Mitchell Johnson has a better record than Jimmy "the greatest bowler of all time" Anderson.
"Johnson is similar to Dernbach" - in a thread of brainless comments, that is quote of the year!
-
The difference between Johnson and Anderson is that, mentally, you can get at Johnson and take him out of the game. You can't do that with Jimmy. Personally, I am praying Johnson is in the starting line up for the first Ashes test. The crowd will tear him apart on the first morning and that will be it.... :D The likes of Starc, Cummins and Patterson worry me far more than this excuse of a bowler does...
Hmmmmm...........
-
Mitch is really decimating England at the moment. He always had the potential or the x-factor, but was far too inconsistent. He has strung three brilliant performances here though, 16 wickets in 3 innings so far. Interesting, his overall test stats are actually better than Anderson (More wickets per match, lower average as well). Not sure he is ready yet to assume the mantle of the spearhead in the Aussie lineup, but if he keeps it up he might just become that. To me he looks like he much stronger mentally and way more confident in his own abilities.
-
Australian and SA fans will tell you that talent has never been the issue with Johnson, but, confidence is.
When he hit his lows in 2009/10/11, he was preferring to bowl first change rather than take the brand new pill.
At the moment, he looks like he wants the ball in his hand at all times.
-
Might be wrong, but I think it was Ricky Ponting who reckoned he had never seen anyone as talented as Mitch has such low self confidence in their own abilities. I think with him its always been getting his head right, and now it looks like he final has got that sorted, and got his self confidence back -if I was English I'd be pretty worried about the rest of this series. He blew them away in the first innings in Adelaide, wonder how they will face up at the WACA.
-
Where have England gone wrong.
Aussies came into the series after a disasterous India series
No one gave them a chance.
Hats off to them .
-
Did they take it too easy maybe? Thinking it would be a walk in the park
-
England's batsmen need to take a long, hard look at themselves.
I'm really sorry to the Aussies on here, but Mitchell Johnson hasn't suddenly found a magic formula, or 'realised his potential', because if he was bowling against a Dhawan, Amla, Kohli, Kallis... Etc... He would still be getting hit around because he bowls so many loose deliveries.
However, Being English, I am glad Cook, Pietersen and Prior are being taught a humiliating lesson about arrogance. Something which has been seriously needed for 2 years now - neither of them have played to the level they did when Strauss was captain and need to have a long, hard look at themselves.
England's bowlers have tried their hearts out. Anderson is never as effective down under. Swann and Panesar bowled tirelessly with little luck/support from fielders in the first innings. Broad has bowled well and stokes look like he could have the attributes of a new Flintoff (but 2nd test of an Ashes to test that theory... Really?!). If Finn isn't considered as a strike bowler for the WACA, I will be in disbelief. He is expensive but so dangerous when he gets it right.
Who knows - maybe 11 players will turn up for England at the WACA who look like they want to play - but let's be honest, I doubt it.
-
England's batsmen need to take a long, hard look at themselves.
I'm really sorry to the Aussies on here, but Mitchell Johnson hasn't suddenly found a magic formula, or 'realised his potential', because if he was bowling against a Dhawan, Amla, Kohli, Kallis... Etc... He would still be getting hit around because he bowls so many loose deliveries.
However, Being English, I am glad Cook, Pietersen and Prior are being taught a humiliating lesson about arrogance. Something which has been seriously needed for 2 years now - neither of them have played to the level they did when Strauss was captain and need to have a long, hard look at themselves.
England's bowlers have tried their hearts out. Anderson is never as effective down under. Swann and Panesar bowled tirelessly with little luck/support from fielders in the first innings. Broad has bowled well and stokes look like he could have the attributes of a new Flintoff (but 2nd test of an Ashes to test that theory... Really?!). If Finn isn't considered as a strike bowler for the WACA, I will be in disbelief. He is expensive but so dangerous when he gets it right.
Who knows - maybe 11 players will turn up for England at the WACA who look like they want to play - but let's be honest, I doubt it.
Spot on, spot on.
I would also add, it's been a long long few years for a lot of those guys, it's Christmas time and they are away from home playing back to back ashes. I know they are playing for their county etc, but they are only human. Even I am getting a bit weary of ashes cricket...
-
England look a bit shellshocked, I think they have gifted Mitchell a few wickets by what looks like just old fashioned panic and fear.
I think its been a little sad actually, had expected a little more fight - England were rightly on paper the favorites going in.
Not sure about Steve Finn, I haven't seen as much of him as you guys, but he hasn't really looked like the guy I saw a couple of years ago in the one dayers against India (when India lost the test match no 1 ranking). He was getting to 150 plus regularly, a very similar pace to what Mitch is generating now. In the last ashes he was no where near the same hostility and pace, and he hasn't really set the world on fire in the tour games.
-
Did they take it too easy maybe? Thinking it would be a walk in the park
No; as we were saying a few months ago, England are a tired team and have looked like they were on the verge for a while. Cook, Prior and to a lesser extent Pietersen look shot, Trott has gone and Root is having to learn his role whilst being shifted around the order. The bowling is still fine - would be better to have Bresnan around or to have gone for Rankin, but basically decent, if not entirely suited to Australian conditions - but the fielding has started to decline too. Australia, as I'm sure they'd say themselves, have performed more or less how they did in the Summer - the batting is okay when they are on top, poor when they're not, the seam bowling is strong with good plans - the difference is more that England have slipped.
As for Johnson, whilst I though he bowled more or less rubbish in the first test and was gifted a few wickets, he was bloody marvellous last night - really something to see.
-
When firing Johnson is world class there no doubt about that.
When he is on pomp he is better than Anderson I would say but he has 2 to 3 bad days for that one good day bit like his batting the enigma.
Anderson is steady away on his day he is devastating but in the main he is a steady bowler.
I suspect Mitchell will have his day again soon
I must be a mind reader :D
-
Just curious as I don't know enough about the England domestic scene, do England have someone capable of bowling in the speed bracket as Mitch regularly. The likes of Anderson and Broad are very skillful but they lack the sheer pace and hostility factor that Mitchell has, and I don't really see that in any of the other bowlers I know in the English setup.
-
This is for Vic ;)
Right - according to the statistics, Anderson and Johnson are a similar quality of bowler and in fact with Johnson's batting, he is a significantly better bet as a pick than Anderson. Now we have all watched Anderson lead our attack all over the world and be awesome, whilst laughing at Johnson's perceived ineptitude. But the stats don't point to this being fair. In the past they were both "daisy" bowlers (some days he does, some days he doesn't). The questions I have are around how has Mitchell Johnson got the stats he has!!
If you are reading this with incredulous disbelief, check for yourself.
Mitchell Johnson - www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/6033.html
Jimmy Anderson - www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/8608.html
Plus, even if you edit the stats to Anderson's second incarnation as a test bowler since he replaced Hoggy in New Zealand, the results are the same.
Personally I would never consider picking Johnson ahead of Anderson - but it is amazing what lies you can get from statistics - I mean they also suggest that Kallis is a better player than Tendulkar... ;)
I think it's because Johnson boom or bust are more significant. Either he gets pasted or he gets masses of wickets.
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk
-
When Johnson is on form he is unstoppable, like others have said he needs to be more consistent.
-
I would Always pick mitch over Anderson he is looking better with every match!!! His bowling coach must be very pleased with himself and it would be nice to hear what Saker is telling Anderson!!!!!
-
As a captain it is always nice to have an 'X factor' bowler in your line up. If it's not his day then you just have to spread out some of his overs between the other (or fiddle a few part time overs in). But when it is his day he's going to win you matches single handed. The consistency of of the other Aussie seamers has allowed Mitch to have a free reign. And when it's going well for him - you don't want to be down the other end !
-
Think Johnson liked getting Anderson out this morning as well :D
-
I would Always pick mitch over Anderson he is looking better with every match!!! His bowling coach must be very pleased with himself and it would be nice to hear what Saker is telling Anderson!!!!!
really.....? he's had two very good games. but lets not forget he was no where to be seen last summer! where as Anderson has been a consistent performer for years.
I also think when 500+ is on the board its a massive physiological factor, I'm pretty sure a bowler is going to be far more relaxed when the team have scored big runs. Taking nothing away from Johnson but lets not get carried away
-
The myth of James Anderson being anything other than a try harder continues to confuse me.
Anderson isn't a great bowler. Only in 2010 and 2011 has Anderson ever averaged below 26 runs per wicket.
Pat for the course for Anderson is an average of 30. Which he's been hovering around in 2012 and 2013.
Without a raging greentop, Anderson is just cannon fodder.
-
I'm sure sky were saying that both players stats were similar and Johnson was comparable AT&T his stage to Jeff Thompson (never saw him but reputation says he was pretty good!)
Personally Johnson can be devastating But can you really see him doing much if a few batsmen just resolved to see him off ?? Anderson is more accurate and can swing it about but if the conditions don't suit he's more just a stock bowler keeping it tight.
Both are different bowlers, with different roles within a team (more than the basic 'bowler=take wickets).
IMO he's a little over rated (Anderson) but is/was capable of some world class performances. He's no Steyn though!
-
The myth of James Anderson being anything other than a try harder continues to confuse me.
Without a raging greentop, Anderson is just cannon fodder.
Really? Think that's a little harsh, see, to remember him bowling very well in India, also not bad in India and his not exactly bowling badly in Aus, not the greatest but not bad.
Every now and then a steyn comes along but take him out of the equation then I would say Anderson in the best fast bowler in the world based on results over a 24month period.
-
Really? Think that's a little harsh, see, to remember him bowling very well in India, also not bad in India and his not exactly bowling badly in Aus, not the greatest but not bad.
Every now and then a steyn comes along but take him out of the equation then I would say Anderson in the best fast bowler in the world based on results over a 24month period.
Steyn aside.
Harris, Siddle, Philander are all better than Anderson.
-
Really? Think that's a little harsh, see, to remember him bowling very well in India, also not bad in India and his not exactly bowling badly in Aus, not the greatest but not bad.
Every now and then a steyn comes along but take him out of the equation then I would say Anderson in the best fast bowler in the world based on results over a 24month period.
Bumble also said something I agree with 'fast' is 90+.. Not 83 ish Anderson is a. Dry skillful bowler and he bowled quite well today as the ball is moving. He's no mug but not in the same class as Steyn etc so I wouldn't call him world class, I'd say and always have he's one of the best exponents of swing on the international stage. World class is vastly overused in all sports as there are very few world class players around !!
-
world class means to me, a player would get into any other team in the world. At the moment I am not sure Anderson would.
-
world class means to me, a player would get into any other team in the world. At the moment I am not sure Anderson would.
Fair enough. World class means so many different things to different people.
-
world class means to me, a player would get into any other team in the world. At the moment I am not sure Anderson would.
On current form he's looking fairly innocuous and given his age he might be discarded into the wilderness after a couple of bad tests, think Matthew Hoggard...
-
You guys are certainly harsh.... 6 months ago you were all saying how great Anderson is.... 1 poor test performance and he is ready for the scrap yard???
-
You guys are certainly harsh.... 6 months ago you were all saying how great Anderson is.... 1 poor test performance and he is ready for the scrap yard???
As I said in my above post - think Matthew Hoggard
Certainly wouldn't be the first time someone was discarded after one bad game
-
Hoggard and Anderson both similar types of bowler. If conditions are in their favour then very good performers. Thing is, if you drop Anderson, who is waiting in the wings to come in? Neither Finn, Rankin or Tremlett have impressed in their time in down under.
-
Genuinely cannot believe people are talking of getting rid of Anderson. It's exactly that sort of selection mentality which screwed England for most of the 90's. I think it's a shame this football style mentality to selection etc is creeping into cricket
-
Genuinely cannot believe people are talking of getting rid of Anderson. It's exactly that sort of selection mentality which screwed England for most of the 90's. I think it's a shame this football style mentality to selection etc is creeping into cricket
Not saying he should be dropped but he's 31, showing signs of age .. England should have already identified his replacement and be given them game time when against the crap of world cricket
-
Anderson averages 30 for a reason.
-
Very profound.
Are we supposed to guess what you feel the reason is, or are you being mysterious and enigmatic?
-
Your average is usually a picture of how you have performed over your total career, at times Anderson has been world class and at times he has been ordinary when you put all that together he averages 30. I hope this helps!! ;)
-
Well, what about Shane Warne?
He was one of the best spinners in the world, his average reflects that. However, he only played Zimbabwe and Bangladesh minimal times, didn't he.
Therefore his average would be better if he did.
Stats only show so much.
Doesn't Finn average 50 at 3 for England? Must mean he's the best number 3 England have?
-
Doesn't Finn average 50 at 3 for England? Must mean he's the best number 3 England have?
I've been saying this for months, thought he was a certainty to replicate Trott (and he could bowl a couple of overs if needed) ;)
-
700 wickets @25 is awful for a spinner. Warne's average was 47 against India so would of been a lot lower. The latter part of Anderson's career has been fantastic but early on he was very average I bet now he wished he met David Saker a touch earlier as no doubt his average would been mid 20's. Chin up boy's 3 more tests to go ;)
-
Anderson is these days very highly skilled but has always been soft. When things dont go his way hes always dropped his head, and pace. Not a lot in the guts department, never been any different.
-
Not saying he should be dropped but he's 31, showing signs of age .. England should have already identified his replacement and be given them game time when against the crap of world cricket
I agree. Don't think its time for Anderson to go but we need to be looking at where his replacement will come from. At the moment it's Finn, Rankin & Tremlett. Tall, fast-meduium, hit the deck bowlers. Who else is in the pipeline?
-
Anderson is these days very highly skilled but has always been soft. When things dont go his way hes always dropped his head, and pace. Not a lot in the guts department, never been any different.
Yep!!
-
700 wickets @25 is awful for a spinner. Warne's average was 47 against India so would of been a lot lower. The latter part of Anderson's career has been fantastic but early on he was very average I bet now he wished he met David Saker a touch earlier as no doubt his average would been mid 20's. Chin up boy's 3 more tests to go ;)
Highly unlikely.
Anderson is one dimensional. If it swings he looks almost great. If it doesn't he looks mediocre.
-
bowlers look a lot better when the batsmen have scored 450+ runs.
our batters haven't dome that in a long while.
accusing Anderson of a lack of guts is ridiculous
-
bowlers look a lot better when the batsmen have scored 450+ runs.
our batters haven't dome that in a long while
England have surpassed 450 on this tour already. Yes it took 4 innings and 30-odd batsmen,but they've scored more. Oh, you mean in one innings, sorry. Yeah, no.
-
some people have short memories on here.... Anderson is are front line bowler for a reason, form is temporary and class is permanent
-
Anderson looks exhausted. He (and Broad) struggled to hit 130kph in Adelaide, and looks like he's in need of a rest. Not going to happen with day one in Perth on Friday.
-
bowlers look a lot better when the batsmen have scored 450+ runs.
our batters haven't dome that in a long while.
accusing Anderson of a lack of guts is ridiculous
Probably, yes, too harsh and unfair. I do maintain he 'paces' himself if conditions or match situation dont suit his liking. However, having watched him closely in Perth, he's clearly tired. Its when fast bowlers get injured too, playing when in need of a rest.
-
Anderson went through a purple patch for 2 years where he averaged under 25, the rest of his career had been around 30, well above for a large chunk of it. Good bowler but certainly no great.
-
in terms of this series there is clearly only one winner.
-
James Anderson has upped the stakes in this rivalry!
After being carted for 28 off an over, he's now a joint world record holder(with Robin Peterson) for most runs conceded in a Test over.
I doubt Mitch will entertain the thought of joining Anderson though 😂
-
James Anderson has upped the stakes in this rivalry!
After being carted for 28 off an over, he's now a joint world record holder(with Robin Peterson) for most runs conceded in a Test over.
I doubt Mitch will entertain the thought of joining Anderson though 😂
This is the Jimmy Anderson of old!!!
-
I don't think I've seen a more knackered looking bowler on a test field.....
Sent from my HTC One mini using Tapatalk
-
Not even the energy to have a moan when a catch went down. Just not been his series, simple as. He hasn't suddenly become a poor bowler, much like Johnson isn't suddenly the greatest ever bowler. Just 2 bowlers, one in red hot form and catches sticking, another out of form and lacking any luck
-
So guys, a little water has passed under the bridge since this topic raised it's ugly head......
Has anyone's opinion changed as to who is the better bowler since everyone was flogging Mitchell Johnson as a lame duck with no consistency...... I know who I would want in my side.
The most lethal bowler in world cricket, a superb athlete/fielder and a batsmen who can score freely - only one choice comes to mind.....
Hello........ Is anyone out there
-
So guys, a little water has passed under the bridge since this topic raised it's ugly head......
Has anyone's opinion changed as to who is the better bowler since everyone was flogging Mitchell Johnson as a lame duck with no consistency...... I know who I would want in my side.
The most lethal bowler in world cricket, a superb athlete/fielder and a batsmen who can score freely - only one choice comes to mind.....
Hello........ Is anyone out there
I agree with almost everything you have said, except, I wouldn't class Jimmy as a free scoring batsman... he is more of a technically correct collector
-
Currently Johnson's stock is high,
Pace to spare
Accuracy
Fear
An awesome tache
Who cares about his batting, he can bat 11 asking as he bowls like this!
If he can keep this level of performance for two years, he will become a legend within the game!
Will be great when cummins comes off age to, two 90mph plus bowlers at each end? Wowsers.
-
Assuming that Cummins can stay fit for longer than 5 seconds.
With Starc at full pace there would be 3 bowlers of 90+ mph
-
Also bring back the Wild thing and have a 90+mph only pace attack
-
So guys, a little water has passed under the bridge since this topic raised it's ugly head......
Has anyone's opinion changed as to who is the better bowler since everyone was flogging Mitchell Johnson as a lame duck with no consistency...... I know who I would want in my side.
The most lethal bowler in world cricket, a superb athlete/fielder and a batsmen who can score freely - only one choice comes to mind.....
Hello........ Is anyone out there
I'd take Anderson for skill and longevity but right now I would have Johnson.
Not sure how long Johnson can keep this run of form going. He's either a world beater or panel beater. Very unpredictable. He seems to balance on the head of a pin.
-
With a bowling average sitting at 27.81, Mitchell Johnson has a bowling average that Jimmy Anderson can only dream about in his wet dreams.
Anderson will never get near Ryan Harris, Mitchell Johnson...or even the average of Peter Siddle.
Jimmy Anderson is the poster boy for everything that stinks about English cricket. He is extremely overrated and lacks any kind of ticker.
He will be rated an all time legend of English cricket along with those other overrated duds, Flintoff and Harmison.
Broad, on the other hand has ticker in spades and will continue to improve.
-
With a bowling average sitting at 27.81, Mitchell Johnson has a bowling average that Jimmy Anderson can only dream about in his wet dreams.
Anderson will never get near Ryan Harris, Mitchell Johnson...or even the average of Peter Siddle.
Jimmy Anderson is the poster boy for everything that stinks about English cricket. He is extremely overrated and lacks any kind of ticker.
He will be rated an all time legend of English cricket along with those other overrated duds, Flintoff and Harmison.
Broad, on the other hand has ticker in spades and will continue to improve.
Wey hey chips back on Vic's shoulder.
Why not heap praise on Johnson instead of having the same rant over and over again?
-
With a bowling average sitting at 27.81, Mitchell Johnson has a bowling average that Jimmy Anderson can only dream about in his wet dreams.
Anderson will never get near Ryan Harris, Mitchell Johnson...or even the average of Peter Siddle.
Jimmy Anderson is the poster boy for everything that stinks about English cricket. He is extremely overrated and lacks any kind of ticker.
He will be rated an all time legend of English cricket along with those other overrated duds, Flintoff and Harmison.
Broad, on the other hand has ticker in spades and will continue to improve.
Courage of your convictions and not worried about sharing it. I like it.
I agree about Flintoff and Harmison, at their best only erratically and on very short bursts.
-
I think Johnson has managed to keep it going for 6 matches now, don't think he has ever managed a streak like that before where he has been consistently menacing all through. He's just blown away the much vaunted SA batting lineup in SA. So maybe he's turned a corner on the one thing which was missing - consistency.
Anderson vs Johnson - no point comparing the batting as Mitch wins hands down.
In terms of bowling - you could have argued Anderson say even 3 months ago - Mitch was far too inconsistent before though he always had the X factor to turn it on suddenly.
On current evidence though, I think 6 matches is a decent streak - long enough I think to state its not just a fluke. The man is on fire. If this is how he will continue bowling its a no contest - Anderson ain't even close.
-
-
yeah depends how you judge it - on career, on bulk of career (consistency) or on best streak.
-
Johnson vs Anderson isn't even a comparable match up.
Johnson - match winner, X Factor, streaky bowler.
Anderson - tries hard, don't have X Factor and needs conditions to be in his favour.
This myth about Anderson be vastly more consistent is a joke as well.
Anderson's had two stand out years in his entire career. Based almost entirely on performances in England.
Johnson has bowled well in countries outside Australia as well.
-
Wey hey chips back on Vic's shoulder.
Why not heap praise on Johnson instead of having the same rant over and over again?
Forgive me for my sarcasm, but for the best part of two years, al I have heard around here is:
a/ Mitchell Johnson is absolute rubbish that wouldn't get a game for most English counties... AND
b/ Jimmy Anderson is the greatest English bowler ever (if you were 12 years old maybe), possibly the greatest the world has seen....even better than Dale Steyn (posters on here were suggesting that in all seriousness). In fact, it was the general consensus around here amongst Englishmen that Anderson was someone who should have won the Nobel Prize for mediating between the warring parties in the Middle East and that Jimmy boy had solved third world hunger with his understated and modest genius. Well, maybe not, but you get my drift.
I long resisted this stupidity telling anyone here who was prepared to listen that even out of the test team, MJ was a better bowler to the overrated Anderson. You can forget about Anderson being fit to tie Steyn's shoe laces as Steyn would eat him for breakfast.
So again, forgive me for my burst of sarcasm, but this has been a long time coming.
-
Vic and Gerry - the famous double act are back together!!
Love 'em or hate 'em (and most do the latter) they are entertaining!
More chips than Harry Ramsden's between them!!
-
I'm sorry but the notion that Jimmy Anderson is rubbish etc is just plain stupid. He was part of one of he best bowling attacks in England's history, he has also taken wickets and bowled well in most conditions and continents. Yes he has probably had the best success via figures when bowling in England but nearly all sportsmen and teams have best results in there home conditions as they were they will have learned there trade all there lives.
Mitch vs Jimmy is in my view a close call, all round. Mitch has been very impressive last 6 months or so but before that?? Jimmy is not at his best but i think it was pointed out he has bowled more than any other seamer in the last 2 years so in a lot of ways that's a credit to him and also invaluable to a team if me of your big guns is consistently available for the team.
Steyn is in a league of his own above both Mitch & Jimmy but you can't criticise either for how good Steyn is.
-
Chris - it's easy to do! You just wait until someone is going through bad form then slag them off!
Johnson at the time that this topic was going was on seriously bad form and continued that form for a long time, with the odd really good spell/match!!
And now that he has hit superb form for a while now, you get the odd person saying, "look how good he is!"
Cricketers go through form changes and even the likes of Tendulkar, Amla, ABdV, Clarke, etc will go through bad form!
Vic in particular likes to say, "I told you so!"
We can do the same to Gerry when Cook gets his form back and starts hitting centuries for fun!
We just have to accept that Johnson is on fantastic (and pretty scary) form and that Jimmy is looking pretty average at the moment!
I'm sure this will change! But for the moment, Johnson looks to be the World beater.
-
Anderson's never been 'world class'.
Only you deluded Poms think an average of 30 is 'world class'
Aside from 2009 and 2010, Anderson's never averaged below 29 in any other year of his career.
Anderson is vastly overrated.
-
Due his sheer pace Johnson has always been more destructive than Anderson, even during his years of mediocrity. The difference was that when Johnson wasn't tearing sides apart, he was utterly dreadful at times whereas Anderson was consistently good. On current form you'd take Johnson over Anderson every day of the week, if you looked over the last 3-4 years you'd almost certainly pick Anderson because although he might not be able to tear teams apart in the same way that Johnson could, you'd know that he wouldn't become a liability like Johnson could when he wasn't firing.
-
I'm deluded to, thinking maybe this forum could have an adult conversation. But some of you a far from capable.
People have opinions, rather than except them. There's a few on here that have to get aggressive, or start name calling in retaliation to that opinion.
It's just not cricket.
-
Anderson's never been 'world class'.
Only you deluded Poms think an average of 30 is 'world class'
Aside from 2009 and 2010, Anderson's never averaged below 29 in any other year of his career.
Anderson is vastly overrated.
Excellent point good sir. You, sat on Cricinfo, clearly have a far better view of Anderson than all of the people who have actually watched him throughout his career...
But seeing as how you want to judge players based on stats, I'll recommend you look at more than someone's average. One of Anderson's great strengths throughout his career has been his accuracy, his economy rate is lower than both Johnson's and Steyn's. That is something that may not have necessarily brought him plenty of wickets, but it creates pressure on batsmen which benefits those that bowl with him. When Johnson has his off days he goes for heaps of runs and creates pressure on the other bowlers so the team suffers. Anderson has bowled 788 Test match maidens, he bowls for the team rather than giving away runs just to make his wicket total look a bit better.
-
Excellent point good sir. You, sat on Cricinfo, clearly have a far better view of Anderson than all of the people who have actually watched him throughout his career...
But seeing as how you want to judge players based on stats, I'll recommend you look at more than someone's average. One of Anderson's great strengths throughout his career has been his accuracy, his economy rate is lower than both Johnson's and Steyn's. That is something that may not have necessarily brought him plenty of wickets, but it creates pressure on batsmen which benefits those that bowl with him. When Johnson has his off days he goes for heaps of runs and creates pressure on the other bowlers so the team suffers. Anderson has bowled 788 Test match maidens, he bowls for the team rather than giving away runs just to make his wicket total look a bit better.
And you, good sir, have failed to grasp the difference between the roles of a strike bowler (Johnson, Lee, Broad, Thomson etc) who because they bang it in short or full to try and prise out top order wickets will always go for a few - even on their best days. As opposed to holding bowlers like Anderson, McGrath, Harris who generally pitch it up to keep things economical.
Given that Anderson averages over 30, it seems that even as a holding bowler he has not excelled at his primary role (other than a couple of years).
Anderson is a good bowler in conditions that suit him and at least a capable bowler in conditions that don't, but the outlandish statements around here over the last few years suggesting he was better than Steyn...or even on a par, was simply delusional.
You cannot continue to also use the argument "but Johnson has played far less tests than Anderson" as MJ is now up to 251 wickets at a good average.
Anyways, you guys must be due to play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe again, so Ando can fatten up his stats and all will again be good in the world.
-
Excellent point good sir. You, sat on Cricinfo, clearly have a far better view of Anderson than all of the people who have actually watched him throughout his career...
But seeing as how you want to judge players based on stats, I'll recommend you look at more than someone's average. One of Anderson's great strengths throughout his career has been his accuracy, his economy rate is lower than both Johnson's and Steyn's. That is something that may not have necessarily brought him plenty of wickets, but it creates pressure on batsmen which benefits those that bowl with him. When Johnson has his off days he goes for heaps of runs and creates pressure on the other bowlers so the team suffers. Anderson has bowled 788 Test match maidens, he bowls for the team rather than giving away runs just to make his wicket total look a bit better.
Bowls maidens for the team? I've heard it all now.
Hiding the ball 2ft outside off pole with a split field is just being plain defensive.
There are attacking maidens. And pointless defensive maidens.
-
Vic and Gerry - the famous double act are back together!!
Love 'em or hate 'em (and most do the latter) they are entertaining!
More chips than Harry Ramsden's between them!!
I am quite offended Hosko!
I thought we were friends? :)
I also have never sensed hate for me around here...not from any of the intelligent posters who PM their support to me.
I do not blame anyone who does not wish to swim against the tide here. But, I am happy to call a spade a bloody shovel...if nothing else to try and provoke some intelligent discussion.
It doesn't always work... :)
-
Bowls maidens for the team? I've heard it all now.
Hiding the ball 2ft outside off pole with a split field is just being plain defensive.
There are attacking maidens. And pointless defensive maidens.
Have you ever actually played or even watched cricket? Because if you had you'd know the pressure that someone bowling maidens can have on batsmen and how it usually leads to wickets, although often in the case of Anderson they are taken by others.
Would you like to show me some proof of this theory you have that he bowls defensive maidens? Or are you going to continue making ridiculous and inaccurate points? Having seen him bowl a lot I'd say he definitely bowls attacking maidens, he very rarely strays from the corridor of uncertainty on and around the off stump and is excellent at creating pressure.
And you, good sir, have failed to grasp the difference between the roles of a strike bowler (Johnson, Lee, Broad, Thomson etc) who because they bang it in short or full to try and prise out top order wickets will always go for a few - even on their best days. As opposed to holding bowlers like Anderson, McGrath, Harris who generally pitch it up to keep things economical.
Given that Anderson averages over 30, it seems that even as a holding bowler he has not excelled at his primary role (other than a couple of years).
Anderson is a good bowler in conditions that suit him and at least a capable bowler in conditions that don't, but the outlandish statements around here over the last few years suggesting he was better than Steyn...or even on a par, was simply delusional.
You cannot continue to also use the argument "but Johnson has played far less tests than Anderson" as MJ is now up to 251 wickets at a good average.
Anyways, you guys must be due to play Bangladesh and Zimbabwe again, so Ando can fatten up his stats and all will again be good in the world.
I had grasped that, I was stating that a bowlers average is not everything. If Anderson averaged around 30 and the England bowling attack had struggled for several years then you could say that he wasn't that good. The fact that he averaged around 30 whilst England as a bowling unit have done very well all over the world shows that there is more to Anderson than his average shows.
Before this tour Mitchell Johnson averaged around 35 away from home so clearly he's in the same boat as Anderson there then. Although I agree he was never on par with Steyn, he was probably the closest in the world to matching Steyn for a year or two.
Please can you show me where I've talked about how many tests Johnson has played? Because it seems to me that you're the one who brought that up.. ???
And with that final comment you ruined any sort of point you may have made. I suggest you find a new hobby as clearly Anderson is making you rather bitter.
-
There is no right or wrong answer, as on their day, both can produce exceptional bowling.
Averages show one thing, their whole career.
Rankings show form over the past few years.
Stats, I think stat are great and you can pick out one small stat to make your whole argument....
For instance, around 74% of Anderson's wicket are top 7, over his whole career. This drops to around 70% for Mitchell Johnson.
Therefore, taking this one piece of information out of context of all the others, like so many aready have done on here, you would have to rate Anderson higher than Mitch, overall in career terms.
-
Not current ratings. But there highest ever achieved test ratings
Johnson 825
Anderson 813
12 isn't that big a difference, and either score if current would put them 5 th on today's list.
Steyn highest ranking score is 908 which shows what class he is.
Be interstitial to see what Johnson's ranking score will be if he keeps this form up for the next 2tests.
-
Anderson
92 Test - 343 wkts - 30.6 ave - 59.3 SR - 10.3 bat average
174 ODI - 245 wkts - 29.1 ave - 35.1 SR - 7.4 bat average
19 T20 - 18 wkts - 30.6 ave - 23.4 SR - 1.1 bat average
Johnson
57 Test - 254 wkts - 27.5 ave - 49.8 SR - 22.6 bat average
136 ODI - 208wkts - 25.8 ave - 31.9 SR - 15.9 bat average
30 T20 - 38 wkts - 20.9 ave - SR 17.2 - 10.9 bat average
The stats are compelling and there wouldn't be many people in the history of cricket that can and consistently single handily win a team a game of cricket off their own back with devastating spells of bowling like Johnson has. His match winning spells have been accumulating, even when he was a so called pie chucker....
-
As a neutral, I feel they're both pretty different bowlers, but I think it would be silly not to choose Johnson in his current form over Anderson. I would say that Anderson at his best isn't nearly as devastating as Johnson is right now. I admit, before the Ashes down under, I would have sided with Anderson being the better bowler, but that's probably because the only time I watched Johnson bowl was when he was erratic. But watching him bowl now, I think it is obvious who is the better bowler, and I've not even mentioned their batting! He would get into any side in the world right now - just shows what confidence can do to players!
That being said, if Anderson managed to bowl like he did in the last 2 tests with a broken rib, then it's pretty clear that he is a pretty damn good bowler too.
-
And with that final comment you ruined any sort of point you may have made. I suggest you find a new hobby as clearly Anderson is making you rather bitter.
Bitter?
No.
Just stating the facts.
Anderson HAS played against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh (more than one series too), yet Mitch Johnson in his six years in test cricket has never played even one series against these minnows as we have never played them in that time.
The last time we played Bangladesh in a test, Dizzy Gillespie was racking up an unbeaten 200 and Gilchrist, Hayden and Warne were still in the team.