Print

[Buzz]

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

[procricket]

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...

[19reading87]

Wow!!! Did somebody actually just say Mitchell is a better fielder than Anderson?! Clueless

[Buzz]

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.

[Number4]

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

[sfa82]

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.

[Tuntun]

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. 

[Manormanic]

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!

[Johng]

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.

[procricket]

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

[Gerry SA]

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.

[Johng]

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!!

[Gerry SA]

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.

[procricket]

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

[lankykeeper33]

Johnson and dernbach are more the same sort than comparing anderson to the aussie surley