Mitchell Johnson Won The Ashes

[hawkeye]

There was no one more responsible for Aus regaining the Ashes than Johnson. He was really the difference between the sides. Take him away and England would have put up a much better fight.

By means both brutal and crafty, the English batsmen were pressed into making poor decisions. Whether it was Cooks ill-advised hook shot to Johnsons third ball in the second innings at Adelaide, Pietersens much criticized needless dismissals that had an infuriated Geoffrey Boycott calling for his head, or Michael Carberrys painful 12 off 81 balls in Melbourne, batsmen seemed unsure of the best way to go about constructing their innings.

Johnson did it for Australia

 

[barmyarmy]

Brad Haddin.

 

[blockerdave]

i'd say both, maybe more johnson because he really did scramble the batsmen.

take either of them out and it would have been a different story. though i think without the sustained hostility and pace of johnson i am not sure england would have folded quite so meekly.

would hope he and harris stay fit and in form for the SA series. want to see the best get tested properly.

 

[barmyarmy]

Haddin was the reason Australia weren't posting similar scores to England. The fall of wickets 1-5 was about the same for both sides.
I think Australia could have still bowled out England with Harris, Siddle, Watson, Lyon and someone like Starc or Bird but without Haddin they were finished.

 

[blockerdave]

i'd think their tail would have handled our bowlers better even without haddin than ours would have with johnson bowling.

certainly i don't think they'd have got the commanding leads they got, allowing the second-innings slogging that bought their top 6 respectable averages. but i don't think they'd have had the major collapses we had where our tail was blown away. the easily-overlooked thing about most of Haddin's innings was that somebody in the tail stayed with him. Prior could have been in sublime form but he'd ended up 20* when the rest folded against Johnson.

not belittling haddin by any means, he was outstanding. but say if you take out Johnson and leave in Haddin, i think Aus still win but by smaller margin than if you take out Haddin and leave in Johnson.

 

[grkrama]

i would also suggest Mr.infamous warner, what i found was he attacked them in every second innings making sure the aussies run away with game and capitalize whatever advantage mitch or haddin garnered ..though not much as haddin or johnson but he also dealt some K.O blows.

 

[Dutch]

Brad Haddin.

Got to agree with Colin here. Haddin not only scored crucial runs and cemented partnerships but he gave others that abrasive arrogant "you cant knock us down attitude". They must have been thinking at 6 down for 140 odd here we go again........

It was psychological. If England had hammered the Aussies when they had the chance on day one of the very first test then it would have been more even. I am not saying that Australia didn't deserve to win or that England did not play horribly but no way is this Aussie team so vastly superior in quality to warrant 5-0.

 

[cricket_icon]

Haddin was exceptional, Harris and Siddle were great as back up but the main problem was a furious Johnson. Fire, pace and aggression, I've missed this type of fast bowling, not since the glory days of Waqar or Donald. Wrath and fury!

 

[sifter132]

Haddin did really well, but I agree with Johnson. It was his extra pace that made the English jumpy - particularly the tail. It's all well and good to have accuracy of Harris, Siddle, Watson etc. but Johnson's pace was the sledgehammer to knock England down. He was relentless too, every full speed ball was over 140kph, most closer to 150 than 140, and his accuracy was a lot better than previously. It was fantastic team bowling, not a lot of loose balls to get away. Compare the trio to the 2009 trio of Siddle, johnson and Hilfenhaus - back then Sids and Mitch just gave up too many loose balls (HIlfy too, just highlighting the difference). For that reason I feel this series was a lot like 2005, where England bowled a lot better than Aussies expected and didn't know how to play it/adjust to the new quality. It was the same this series where Aussie bowlers just bowled a lot better than England could handle/adjust to.

The other thing about Johnson, he made the series watchable for me. That first day in Brisbane I was pretty bored to be honest: same bowlers bowling at pretty much the same batsmen as we'd seen 3 months ago. I couldn't remember a day 2 of a Test I'd been less looking forward to. It just felt old. But Johnson shook it up, and created a new storyline, new matchups and new problems. He's a compelling bowler to watch, even if you're not a fan.

 

[higdawg]

Thing I liked about Haddin was he saved an innings every time the top order collapsed.
Like he was saving all his runs for when the team needed it. Not wasting any.