Mitchell Johnson or James Anderson?

[usy]

no he won't be just because i said it for the sake of it.

 

[Themer]

Anderson by far. In the past two series and the current one hes really come of age. His bowling is alot more consistant that it use to be. Todays bowling performance was one of his best in terms of the bowling conditions and deserbed alot more than what he got. Whenever Ive seen Johnson bowl he seems wayward. In the series against the West Indies just past he didn't seem anything special though hes got time to learn and could improve.

 

[stereotype]

Johnson is still very raw but he is a faster bowler than Anderson and despite it being quite even atm Johnson will go a long long way past him in the next 5 years.

 

[mattfb]

I'm afraid you cant fight or debate on what might become in the future.

Anderson has got most of the votes although I dont think anyone has given any proper reason. Like Ben said, stats clearly indicate that Johnson > Anderson.

I've given the only reason. Johnson is a tail-ender bully and thats why he has better stats.

 

[aussie1st]

Anderson started off poorly, but in recent times he is easily one of the pick of the English bowlers each test. Hes consistently matching Sidebottom which is no easy feat. Johnson just isn't penetrating enough, he has been exposed in Test matches to be no more than a tail end bully. If he got some consistency and swing he could get somewhere but right now Anderson easily.

 

[smssia0112]

Johnson is a pretty useless test bowler, so it's a lame comparison.

 

[Cricketdude]

I would MUCH rather Anderson on the team than Johnson.

 

[Mad Snake]

Anderson hands down, could bowl better than johnson with his eyes shut

 

[karnog]

Lol should've used Mahmood instead of Anderson.

 

[Chetan0304]

James Anderson saw in recently played match v S Africa James was troubling all batsmen with his deliveries especially the bouncer

 

[Gilly Fan]

Anderson is much better. Has got a lot of talent and is a very good bowler.

Johnson has a lot of talent, but he's a dud at the moment.

 

[manee]

Tests: Anderson, hands down.

ODIs: Johnson, similarly comprehensive. Against quality opposition, Anderson has 108 wickets at 30.85 (economy rate of 5.16) whereas Johnson has 56 wickets at 24.64 (economy rate of 4.82). Neither has shown enough of an change since the start of their careers to disrepute these stats either - in fact, recent occurances back up these stats.

In 2008:
- Johnson has 19 wickets at 25.10 (economy rate of 4.19)
- Anderson has 9 wickets at 53.00 (economy rate of 6.11)

 

[Ayub 95]

so by stats

Johnson ODI
Anderson Test

 

[Punter_164]

hey everton fan, are u a pom. oh you must be because johnno is a far better bowler. he is accurate, quick and he swings the ball. he is very adaptable ( his five-for in india and the WI were both on batsman friendly pitches.

Punter_164 added 0 Minutes and 54 Seconds later...

johnno is a far better bat and fielder too.

 

[Gilly Fan]

hey everton fan, are u a pom. oh you must be because johnno is a far better bowler. he is accurate, quick and he swings the ball. he is very adaptable ( his five-for in india and the WI were both on batsman friendly pitches.

Punter_164 added 0 Minutes and 54 Seconds later...

johnno is a far better bat and fielder too.

Maybe in ODIs, but not in tests.

And Anderson is no mug with the bat. Just watch his last innings. It was great against the brilliant SA attack.