Print

[tim2000s]

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?

[langer17]

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.

[Vic Nicholas]

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.

[Buzz]

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.

[procricket]

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

[03jaworf]

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

[procricket]

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

[Vic Nicholas]

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.

[Jacky]

Johnson is by far the most elite of the two batting wise, although Anderson is a superb bowler.

[petehosk]

And considering they are there to bowl and take wickets, why should we actually care who bats the best?

[petehosk]

And Johnson, an 'Elite' batsman? Seriously?
Is this in comparison to the performances of the top order currently?
You may have a point there!!

[Jacky]

In comparison of the two I would say that Johnson is the 'better' batsman.

[Gerry SA]

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.

[Vic Nicholas]

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!

[Pendles10]

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.... The likes of Starc, Cummins and Patterson worry me far more than this excuse of a bowler does...

Hmmmmm...........