Mitchell Johnson v Jimmy Anderson

[StinkyBoHoon]

Another comparison thread, just as you thought they were tailing off.

BUT, I defy you to pull these two apart. Jimmy's figures are worse because he bowled young. I think Jimmy is a lot better with the new ball but unlike Mitch can get stuck in a rut when not much is happening. Mitch always seems to make break throughs even when batsmen are cruising.

 

[piriyanth]

Anderson is pretty much useless when there is no swing, so I'll go with Johnson who's a absolute gun when he's in form.

Another plus point for Johnson is that he can take wickets even from bad balls, that's he ended up with so many wickets last year.

 

[mattfb]

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/cricket-discussion/mitchell-johnson-james-anderson-45329.html

I remember that one. The poll proves how close it is.

 

[Gaurav_7]

I'll go with Mitch anyday.Give him the ball anytime and he gets you wickets,plus his batting shows the signs of him being a genuine all-rounder.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Jimmy A for me. Best swing bowler in the world at the moment, second maybe only to Zaheer.

 

[aussie1st]

Anderson is brilliant in the swinging conditions but when it stops swinging he does struggle and hence his stats aren't what you would expect. Somehow Johnson can bowl crap and still end up as the leading wicket taker and have a decent average. When he actually gets it right, he is one of the most deadly bowlers going around currently. Swinging conditions you would take Anderson although Johnson isn't that far behind if he gets his swing going, in all other conditions I would take Johnson.

 

[BackwardPoint]

No body in the world better than Anderson is there is swing around. Also he bowls jaffas, not like Johnson who just bowls pies and gets lucky 70% of the time.

 

[Robelinda]

Jimmy has played enough now, you cant use the excuse he started early forever, even when Flintoff was close to the end people still kept saying his figures were worse because he was bad early, Well after 70 tests you its pretty clear cut. Anderson averages 34 with the ball. Useless when it doesnt swing.

 

[barmyarmy]

For his tweeting alone it has to be Jimmy.

 

[Dutch]

Throw in Mitchells pretty decent batting and destructiveness as a lower order batsman then I would go with him.

 

[sifter132]

In Australia, West Indies or subcontinent - Flat pitches: Mitch
Mitch in Aus/WI/Asia: 23 Tests, 103 wickets @ 27.23
Jimmy in Aus/WI/Asia: 12 Tests, 26 wickets @ 50.00
Jimmy after 06/07 Ashes: 7 Tests, 15 wickets @ 48.20

In England/SA/NZ - the seaming, swinging conditions: probably Jimmy, unless Mitch gets some swing like in SA
Mitch in Eng/SA/NZ: 8 Tests, 36 wickets @ 29.19
Jimmy in Eng/SA/NZ: 33 Tests, 127 wickets @ 30.88
Jimmy after 06/07 Ashes: 22 Tests, 92 wickets @ 29.71

 

[TumTum]

No body in the world better than Anderson is there is swing around. Also he bowls jaffas, not like Johnson who just bowls pies and gets lucky 70% of the time.

It's not luck , its skill.

 

[blake]

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

 

[aussie1st]

As I mentioned, Johnson isn't that far away from Anderson in the swinging conditions because he can get his wickets through other means and if he swings it like SA then look out.

 

[Cricketdude]

In Australia, West Indies or subcontinent - Flat pitches: Mitch
Mitch in Aus/WI/Asia: 23 Tests, 103 wickets @ 27.23
Jimmy in Aus/WI/Asia: 12 Tests, 26 wickets @ 50.00
Jimmy after 06/07 Ashes: 7 Tests, 15 wickets @ 48.20

In England/SA/NZ - the seaming, swinging conditions: probably Jimmy, unless Mitch gets some swing like in SA
Mitch in Eng/SA/NZ: 8 Tests, 36 wickets @ 29.19
Jimmy in Eng/SA/NZ: 33 Tests, 127 wickets @ 30.88
Jimmy after 06/07 Ashes: 22 Tests, 92 wickets @ 29.71

No way. Mitch was awesome in South africa.