Mitchell Johnson

[Dogwatcher]

Punky, great thread. Exactly what I was going to post.

[Hondo]

There is no need to bat Johnson any higher. Just because he is pretty much as good as any "allrounder" we have doesn't mean he should bat at 6 or 7. Leave him at 8 and let him concentrate on his bowling and he will give us handy runs and strengthen the tail.

I think we actually all agree, at the end of the day. He is almost an all-rounder however that doesn't mean we should be picking a 5th bowler and batting him at 7. He should be left as a bowler who bats at 8.

There's a difference between:

- Johnson being called an "all rounder", solely as a nice label; and
- Johnson actually playing as the team's "all rounder" as defined by the current selection policy (that is, bat 6 or 7 and bowl 5th - ie, replacing MacDonald).

What this thread is actually about is whether we should play someone like MacDonald or Watto V a 6th specialist batsman. The selectors are after a 5th bowler, not an all-rounder to bat at 8. They want a Flintoff, Botham or a Kallis. Not a Hadlee, Dev .... or a Johnson . A batting all-rounder, not a bowling all-rounder.

[Punk Rooster]

They want a Flintoff, Botham or a Kallis. Not a Hadlee, Dev .... or a Johnson . A batting all-rounder, not a bowling all-rounder.

well, we can only play what we've got & if Johnon is a bowling all-rounder, then so be it- we can be thankful he can also bat a bit.

Next question- is Johnson currently a better batsmen than Brett Lee?

[hearts on fire]

They want a Flintoff, Botham or a Kallis. Not a Hadlee, Dev .... or a Johnson . A batting all-rounder, not a bowling all-rounder.

well, we can only play what we've got & if Johnon is a bowling all-rounder, then so be it- we can be thankful he can also bat a bit.

Next question- is Johnson currently a better batsmen than Brett Lee?

Yes, miles better.

When Lee returns, i think he should be batting below Johnson.

[ubeauty]

NO he is definitely not an allrounder................at the moment he's averaging around 26, which is good but the last thing you wanna do to a relatively new test player is put additional pressure on him and say he's an "all-rounder"..........

he is a very useful tailender,who in this series has excelled but he isnt an all-rounder....

[Lightning McQueen]

NO he is definitely not an allrounder................at the moment he's averaging around 26, which is good but the last thing you wanna do to a relatively new test player is put additional pressure on him and say he's an "all-rounder"..........

he is a very useful tailender,who in this series has excelled but he isnt an all-rounder....

Can I ask what does constitute an all-rounder then. It's not very often that players become all-rounders, they are normally tagged before they actually play test cricket. I think in Mitchell's case, he has developed into one, I can't remember the last player that has done this.

[Dogwatcher]

It's been suggested that Brett Lee could be, but that hasn't happened.

[Brock Landers]

Can I ask what does constitute an all-rounder then. It's not very often that players become all-rounders, they are normally tagged before they actually play test cricket. I think in Mitchell's case, he has developed into one, I can't remember the last player that has done this.

I've heard somewhere that true all-rounder status is achieved when a player's batting average is higher than their bowling average.

[locky801]

Can I ask what does constitute an all-rounder then. It's not very often that players become all-rounders, they are normally tagged before they actually play test cricket. I think in Mitchell's case, he has developed into one, I can't remember the last player that has done this.

I've heard somewhere that true all-rounder status is achieved when a player's batting average is higher than their bowling average.

wouldn't that depend on whether he was a batting allrounder or a bowling allrounder

[Brock Landers]

Can I ask what does constitute an all-rounder then. It's not very often that players become all-rounders, they are normally tagged before they actually play test cricket. I think in Mitchell's case, he has developed into one, I can't remember the last player that has done this.

I've heard somewhere that true all-rounder status is achieved when a player's batting average is higher than their bowling average.

wouldn't that depend on whether he was a batting allrounder or a bowling allrounder

Not really. The only variation would be in the averages.
A batting all-rounder should average about 35-45 in both disiplines.
A bowling all-rounder should average 25-35.

[Hondo]

Some players are capable of achieving stats that would label them as an all-rounder, but don't achieve them due to the demands of their main discpline (or their own desire). ie, Wasim Akram - averaged 22 with the bat but was cleary capable of better.

Even Sir Richard Hadlee only averaged 27 (which is still good, don't get me wrong). If he'd focussed more on his batting it surely would have ended up better. But that's the challenge of trying to develop both skills when you are one of the lead fast bowlers. Naturally, bowling takes priority which is what Johnson will find. As Brett Lee did too.

It's easier for an Andrew MacDonald to work on both skills because he's not expected to bat 3 or open the bowling. That's why they are so hard to find. Hence the debate: is it better to just play the 6 best batsman if there's not an obvious Kallis around, as Punky suggests?

[locky801]

6 Batsman, then a keeper batsman at 7 (as per Healy, Gilly, Haddin) Johnson at 8, then the rest, but even guys such as Siddle and Hauritz have been getting 30's and 40's, as has the RSA tail, seems to me that most sides these days bat down to 10.

Be interesting to see what score Aust could get if Hayden and Hussey were in form and not scratching around for there 10-30's

[Sorry Dude]

still got plenty of work to do on his bowling IMO to be a regular at this level

he was the main wicket taker at the WACA by the length of the Flemington Straight.
He's no McGrath, or Sturt Clark, but he is a Test-standard bowler.

IMO I think he still has a bit more to go with his consitency. albeit he did get a 7 for in a test match but he didnt exactly do enough to make you go wow here is australias next leading wicket taker. but i hope he does do well because we could do with the pace and the wag at the end of the innings to frustrate the opposition at the end of around 100 overs.

[wycbloods]

still got plenty of work to do on his bowling IMO to be a regular at this level

he was the main wicket taker at the WACA by the length of the Flemington Straight.
He's no McGrath, or Sturt Clark, but he is a Test-standard bowler.

IMO I think he still has a bit more to go with his consitency. albeit he did get a 7 for in a test match but he didnt exactly do enough to make you go wow here is australias next leading wicket taker. but i hope he does do well because we could do with the pace and the wag at the end of the innings to frustrate the opposition at the end of around 100 overs.

I think it was an 8 fa HH.

[Sorry Dude]

still got plenty of work to do on his bowling IMO to be a regular at this level

he was the main wicket taker at the WACA by the length of the Flemington Straight.
He's no McGrath, or Sturt Clark, but he is a Test-standard bowler.

IMO I think he still has a bit more to go with his consitency. albeit he did get a 7 for in a test match but he didnt exactly do enough to make you go wow here is australias next leading wicket taker. but i hope he does do well because we could do with the pace and the wag at the end of the innings to frustrate the opposition at the end of around 100 overs.

I think it was an 8 fa HH.

yeah i didnt know exactly it was an 11 overall. what is your opinion??

[wycbloods]

I think he will be playing test cricket for the next 7 years barring injury. He has the potential to a very good test cricketer. His bowling will be very useful as the first change bowler, which is where i think he should be used, and his batting has the capabilities to average 30odd and he is a tremendous athlete and good in the field. He certainly belongs at the test level he just needs to do more with his main craft, bowling, more often.

[Punk Rooster]

still got plenty of work to do on his bowling IMO to be a regular at this level

he was the main wicket taker at the WACA by the length of the Flemington Straight.
He's no McGrath, or Sturt Clark, but he is a Test-standard bowler.

IMO I think he still has a bit more to go with his consitency. albeit he did get a 7 for in a test match but he didnt exactly do enough to make you go wow here is australias next leading wicket taker.

did Glen McGrath inspire that thought in you early on in his career? or Shane Warne?

[rod_rooster]

still got plenty of work to do on his bowling IMO to be a regular at this level

he was the main wicket taker at the WACA by the length of the Flemington Straight.
He's no McGrath, or Sturt Clark, but he is a Test-standard bowler.

IMO I think he still has a bit more to go with his consitency. albeit he did get a 7 for in a test match but he didnt exactly do enough to make you go wow here is australias next leading wicket taker.

did Glen McGrath inspire that thought in you early on in his career? or Shane Warne?

1993 in England just a year into his Test career Warne went alright. 1995 in the West Indies a young Glen McGrath also did okay leading the attack after McDermott was sent home injured.