Print

[cleanbowled]

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.
-

[Manormanic]

yeah depends how you judge it - on career, on bulk of career (consistency) or on best streak.

[Gerry SA]

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.

[Vic Nicholas]

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.

[petehosk]

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!!

[SOULMAN1012]

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.

[petehosk]

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.

[Gerry SA]

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.

[A-Swing-And-A-Miss]

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.

[smilley792]

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.

[A-Swing-And-A-Miss]

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.

[Vic Nicholas]

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.

[Gerry SA]

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 Nicholas]

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...

[A-Swing-And-A-Miss]

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.