Mitchell Johnson v Jimmy Anderson

[drainpipe32]

Meh comparison, Mitch pwns.

 

[sami ullah khan]

Mitchjell Johnson. He needs to learn the art of swinging a little better and he will be unplayable.

 

[King Pietersen]

Fairly sure Sifter settled it with his argument there, the stats don't lie do they?

I think they do. James Anderson's generally been pretty excellent in since 07. His stats in the West Indies for example were extremely harsh given how well he bowled. He was swinging the ball both ways with the new ball and then getting some serious reverse swing late in the innings. He bowled beautifully on some of the flattest pitches I've seen for a long time; yet it was Broad that picked up more wickets at a better average.

I rate James Anderson very highly, and he is the best swing bowler in the world. When James Anderson is bowling at his best in decent conditions there aren't many better bowlers in world cricket. His problem has always been his performances on flat wickets. I think he is showing improvement though, he's started reverse swinging it far more consistently, which is a vitally important skill in the Subcontinent and in Australia.

As for Johnson, I don't know how he does it. He tends to bowl quite a few pies but they seem to get him wickets. I thought that once people worked out that he basically only moves it across the right hander, batsmen would stop trying to play big drives through the off-side, but it hasn't happened. He's still taking heaps of wickets at a good average, is genuinely quick and is developing into an all-rounder. Very hard to split them, Johnson is likely to be a more consistent wicket-taking threat though.

 

[srikarr12]

Mitchjell Johnson. He needs to learn the art of swinging a little better and he will be unplayable.

imo He will never be able to swing the ball. He bowls(throws) the ball like spear straight into the ground with minimal shape in the delivery. Thats one advantage he gets for sacrifice of swing.

 

[TumTum]

Well Johnson doesn't exactly bowl "pies". If he did that, batsmen at international level would destroy him. Infact most of Johnson's wickets are superb.

The wicket of Bopara he got in the Ashes was a clever slower ball, and the half volleys he pitches are NEEDED to be played with the proper technique, and not flayed at like most WI batsmen have done. And when he angles across the right handers, it's not an easy thing to do.

Jimmy on the other hand is way too inconsistent, more so than Mitch I might add. When it's not his day, not only does he go for a lot of runs but also doesn't pick up any wickets. He just needs to learn to bowl on a good length when the ball is not swinging.

And despite some people thinking Mitch is good against left-handers, that's absolute bull, every delivery is a short-wide one followed by a half-volley on leg stump :laugh

 

[sifter132]

The stats are a little misleading I think as KP points out. Jimmy Anderson LOOKS a much better bowler than his stats and Mitch LOOKS a lot worse than his stats. I mean during the first 2 Ashes Tests everyone was pointing out how bad Mitch was bowling, but he was still either leading or one wicket behind being the highest wicket taker in the series. The man just knows how to get wickets. You can argue til the cows come home about whether he deserves them, but you can't argue with his record.

There's probably a number of reasons why Johnson's successful. Good pace for a start, gets the ball to deck away from rightys off the pitch and he has a unique release point, right in front of the umpire a la Malinga that probably sucks the batsman in a lot more than a traditional bowler. That's why he gets so many caught in the slips I feel.

 

[Howsie]

Mitchell Johnson for mine. South Africa's second innings last night is one of the reasons I wouldn't want Anderson near my team, when conditions don't suit he's mud.

 

[stefan]

Johnson by a long way. Average of 35 as the sides main strike bowler is poor. Johnson average is ok at 28.

 

[drainpipe32]

Actually, his Ashes stats are quite good.

 

[stefan]

Actually, his Ashes stats are quite good.

If you are referring to anderson his record against australia is pretty bad. 8 matches 17 wickets @ 56.17.

Johnson is down on his career average, averaging 32.55 for his 20 wickets.

 

[aussie1st]

Given the crap he bowled, just imagine what he could have done if he was on song and not worrying about his mummy! Didn't think Anderson was that bad during the Ashes, that just shows his lack of penetration when the pitch isn't swinging.

 

[Collingwood50]

I hate comparison threads. Always have. They should be in a seperate forum where people who's who wish to boost their post count with theese hideously unimaginative topics can do. Worse still, with a simple search you can see this has been done before!

Of course It's Johnson. He's a better batsman and bowler in the sense that he's not useless when its not swinging because he has roar pace.
None the less, barmyarym is right, Jimmy's a better tweeter and Im sure a much nicer guy.

 

[drainpipe32]

Johnson is down on his career average, averaging 32.55 for his 20 wickets.

I was talking about Johnson. That's not such a bad performance.....

Gazza_11 added 0 Minutes and 28 Seconds later...

His strike rate was incredible. His economy a bit worrying though, but if that's when he's out of form....

 

[rahuldravidfan]

In a pure bowling sense, James Anderson.... by a mile.

 

[TumTum]

In a pure bowling sense, James Anderson.... by a mile.

You could at least put: "...because I am biased " like most users do these days :sarcasm