Mitchell Johnson or James Anderson?
- Thread starter aussie_ben91
- Start date
Jakester1288
School Cricketer
Where in the question does it state that batting has anything to do with it?
Jakester1288
School Cricketer
Ok, time for some stats related to the actual thread question. Leaving batting completely out of it, because there is nothing about batting in the original thread and poll question, I've compiled these stats.
Mitchell Johnson - 22 tests
99 wickets @ 27.91 - 2 5 wicket hauls
James Anderson - 38 tests
130 wickets @ 34.23 - 6 5 wicket hauls
On average Anderson takes 3.4 wickets per game, whilst he is becoming the spearhead, he has to contend with Flintoff and Harmison dominating proceedings whilst they are in the team.
Johnson on the other hand, is the spearhead now, with Lee injured, Siddle and Johnson will share the spearhead role in the future, but at the moment, it's Johnsons job. He takes 4.5 wickets per game, and averages much better too.
Lets take it back to another closer comparison, after 22 tests.
Mitchell Johnson - 22 tests
99 wickets @ 27.91 - 2 5 wicket hauls
James Anderson - 22 tests
70 wickets @ 38.77 - 4 5 wicket hauls
So Anderson has kicked on and improved as a bowler from his 22nd test to his 38th, not only is that my opinion but the statistics show this as well.
At the moment, Anderson has a strike rate of 59.2, not quite as good as Johnson's 56.3. Johnson also trumps Anderson with a better economy, Anderson's 3.46 doesn't compete with Johnson's 2.97.
So, I think we can safely say, that Johnson has performed better with the ball, and a better bowling average, more wickets per match, better strike rate, and a better economy rate. Whether he is the better bowler or not, is debatable, because both are fantastic bowlers when they swing the ball, but with Johnson isn't is a regularity. I look forward to having this discussion again when they end their career.
Mitchell Johnson - 22 tests
99 wickets @ 27.91 - 2 5 wicket hauls
James Anderson - 38 tests
130 wickets @ 34.23 - 6 5 wicket hauls
On average Anderson takes 3.4 wickets per game, whilst he is becoming the spearhead, he has to contend with Flintoff and Harmison dominating proceedings whilst they are in the team.
Johnson on the other hand, is the spearhead now, with Lee injured, Siddle and Johnson will share the spearhead role in the future, but at the moment, it's Johnsons job. He takes 4.5 wickets per game, and averages much better too.
Lets take it back to another closer comparison, after 22 tests.
Mitchell Johnson - 22 tests
99 wickets @ 27.91 - 2 5 wicket hauls
James Anderson - 22 tests
70 wickets @ 38.77 - 4 5 wicket hauls
So Anderson has kicked on and improved as a bowler from his 22nd test to his 38th, not only is that my opinion but the statistics show this as well.
At the moment, Anderson has a strike rate of 59.2, not quite as good as Johnson's 56.3. Johnson also trumps Anderson with a better economy, Anderson's 3.46 doesn't compete with Johnson's 2.97.
So, I think we can safely say, that Johnson has performed better with the ball, and a better bowling average, more wickets per match, better strike rate, and a better economy rate. Whether he is the better bowler or not, is debatable, because both are fantastic bowlers when they swing the ball, but with Johnson isn't is a regularity. I look forward to having this discussion again when they end their career.
That's a stupid way to judge two players. Anderson was a young bowler who was yet to turn 21 and if you ask most England fans they will say he was picked far to early. Heck ask anyone and they will say the same thing.
Johnson was picked to play his first test for Australia as a 26 year old, it's around this time fast bowlers are generally ready for international cricket. If Johnson was picked to play for Australia as a 20 year old how do you think his record would look.
I'm sorry but you just can't compare them like that
RoboRocks
Chairman of Selectors
Jimmy has had a much more difficult road to the top than Johnson. He had coaches constantly changing his action and lost the ability to swing the ball. He's now gone back to his original action now and is also much more consistent and has good control of swing both ways. What has also set him back is the injuries he had in 2005 and 2006, which took a long time to fully recover from and then after that he was still fast tracked back into the England side.
Yorkshire_No1
Club Cricketer
I say Anderson going off what I saw in the 1st test, Johnsons figures were a hell of a lot better than he performed spraying it around from time to time while Anderson was just helpless as was the other seamers. Expect something better in this test match.
^That's how Mitch normally bowls. It's kinda good sometimes because his bad balls are so bad the batsman can't hit them for 4 unlike say Broad or Siddle. His line bowling is improving, but so often Ponting sets a 7-2 field for him and he inevitably throws it wide as a result.
If the pitch is flat, and ball old: definitely Mitch. He can take wickets at any time on any surface - he doesn't need swing, although it helps. New ball on a seaming wicket, definitely Anderson, swinging it both ways will be hard to play this series if he can get it right.
If the pitch is flat, and ball old: definitely Mitch. He can take wickets at any time on any surface - he doesn't need swing, although it helps. New ball on a seaming wicket, definitely Anderson, swinging it both ways will be hard to play this series if he can get it right.
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
Anderson hands down on if Johnsons bowls like he has done today for much longer.
)
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
Anderson easily. Johnson's action is a mess and his seam position is a mess. Never have I seen a cricketer who's stats flatter him so greatly.
treva
ICC Chairman
Anderson by far. Johnson can barely bowl one straight ball per over let alone be threatening. Anderson always looks like taking a wicket and has excellent control.
Anderson > An 100 year old woman > Johnson
Anderson > An 100 year old woman > Johnson
P
pcfan123
Guest
Boycotts mum has a better seam position than MJ and she is dead!
