Mitchell Johnson vs. Dale Steyn

[Muloghonto]

No way is Davidson-Johnson comparison as poor as Afridi-Dravid one' date=' and with all respect Bruce Reid is nowhere close to Johnson as a cricketer.[/quote'] Just one question: have you even seen Bruce Reid ? There were days and sometimes, series, where Afridi would smash the beejezus out of ATG bowlers, scaring the daylights out of them- the sort of batting analogue to Johnson's bowling intimidation. Doesnt mean Afridi is anywhere near the ballpark as Dravid and neither is Johnson anywhere near Dale Steyn. Or Davidson for that matter. Johnson is a poor man's Bishop. The leftie thing helps him a bit on hard surfaces but Bishop was still more menacing on slow surfaces (where even the 'new Johnson is good but not terrifying) due to his sharp inswinger. They both have/had the ability to bowl fullish Bouncers ( by the way, nobody bowled a fullish meaner bouncer than Andy Roberts and nobody knew how to use it better than Roberts either) or what is more threatening than the bouncer, is the perfume ball- the mythic 'jackpot' of intimidation: a ball that rears up, follows the batsman and goes through anywhere between shoulder and forehead, close enough so the batsman can 'smell the leather'. But Bishop's was more menacing at slower tracks. Yes, Johnson is good right now but it remains to be seen how well he copes with teams who will adapt to his newfangled approach. There are few chinks in his armor but its only been six-seven tests and less than a year since his comeback 'Johnson ver. He may end up sustaining excellence for 3-4 more seasons and end up a modern day great (he will never be paper great. Johnson will not end up averaging under 25 for his career). or it could be a flash in the pan. PS: For those who mock the oldies of the 70s and 80s, this type of bowling that Johnson is doing, in the 70s and 80s would've been a grade B performance. A right handed bowler achieving same effect, with better intimidation factor would've been the peaks of Lillee, Roberts, Holding, Croft, Bishop and Clarke regularly- occasionally,when the mood got to them, Marshall, Ambrose, Thommo too. Bowling between 145 and 150 k consistently, making batsmen hop around or jarring them, drawing some blood, then dismissing them with contempt is impressive but hardly the real deal on its own but does have a 'ooh' factor today: such bowlers, who were dime-a-dozen when i was young have been absent from the top level for several years now. One who is as fast as Johnson & as intimidating, well they've been gone since the heydeys of the 90s.

[Ultimate_Game]

Just one question: have you even seen Bruce Reid ?

Yup I did. Seen that over where Lamb took him apart for 16 runs as well :winky:

[Muloghonto]

Yup I did. Seen that over where Lamb took him apart for 16 runs as well :winky:

Which means what exactly ? I can't think of a single bowler who's not been absolutely smashed or a single batsman who hasn't been made to look a fool in their careers. If you'd seen Reid, you'd know that at his fittest, Reid was just as quick, if not quicker and did more with the ball than Johnson does. That he did it, most of the time while being 80% fit, speaks volumes of his ability and having seen him at his terrifying best, I don't think there is much to pick and choose between the two at the moment but one would still be tempted to take the more injur-prone Reid over Johnson, simply because Reid rarely sunk as low and as erratic as Johnson has.

[Ultimate_Game]

Which means what exactly ? I can't think of a single bowler who's not been absolutely smashed or a single batsman who hasn't been made to look a fool in their careers. If you'd seen Reid, you'd know that at his fittest, Reid was just as quick, if not quicker and did more with the ball than Johnson does. That he did it, most of the time while being 80% fit, speaks volumes of his ability and having seen him at his terrifying best, I don't think there is much to pick and choose between the two at the moment but one would still be tempted to take the more injur-prone Reid over Johnson, simply because Reid rarely sunk as low and as erratic as Johnson has.

1. It wasn't as common to be hit around for 16-18 runs in an over in those days. 2. Reid wasn't as fast as Johnson. He was awkward to face coz of his height similar to Mohd Irfan. 3. He was hardly ever fit for long and was quite fragile. 4. He was a poor fielder and even a poorer batsman who batted at 11. Johnson as a cricketer would be ahead of Reid on bowling, batting and fielding front and you are free to pick Reid ahead of Johnson all you want, I won't do that and I suspect same would be the case with most of the other folks as well.

[maniac]

Which means what exactly ? I can't think of a single bowler who's not been absolutely smashed or a single batsman who hasn't been made to look a fool in their careers. If you'd seen Reid, you'd know that at his fittest, Reid was just as quick, if not quicker and did more with the ball than Johnson does. That he did it, most of the time while being 80% fit, speaks volumes of his ability and having seen him at his terrifying best, I don't think there is much to pick and choose between the two at the moment but one would still be tempted to take the more injur-prone Reid over Johnson, simply because Reid rarely sunk as low and as erratic as Johnson has.

Reid was never express, he could generate some unbelievable bounce on his best days and mind you these are the days when Aussie pitches were much quicker. Johnson is an out and out express bowler(in current form) as quick as Lee and Akthar. I know you are probably comparing bowling but you take into account Fielding and batting as well Johnson is a complete package where as Reid was your stereotypical No 11 and a below average fielder as far as I remember. Also Reid was a test specialist where as Johnson is an asset in 3 different formats

[Muloghonto]

1. It wasn't as common to be hit around for 16-18 runs in an over in those days.

So ? Every bowler has been hit around for 16-20 runs in an over in their career. That hardly means anything now, does it ?

2. Reid wasn't as fast as Johnson. He was awkward to face coz of his height similar to Mohd Irfan.

False, Reid was probably just a shade slower on average but just as fast on the top speed end of the spectrum.

3. He was hardly ever fit for long and was quite fragile. 4. He was a poor fielder and even a poorer batsman who batted at 11. Johnson as a cricketer would be ahead of Reid on bowling, batting and fielding front and you are free to pick Reid ahead of Johnson all you want, I won't do that and I suspect same would be the case with most of the other folks as well.

I don't care one toss about Johnson's batting over Reid's batting, its like saying you are picking Steve Waugh over Lara due to his bowling! Most other folks- well thats an interesting one. Most folks in most persuits, ie, the mainstream average, usually are accustomed to the average thinking too. I suspect most actual cricketers would hesitate before picking one of Reid and Johnson.

[Ultimate_Game]

So ? Every bowler has been hit around for 16-20 runs in an over in their career. That hardly means anything now, does it ? False, Reid was probably just a shade slower on average but just as fast on the top speed end of the spectrum. I don't care one toss about Johnson's batting over Reid's batting, its like saying you are picking Steve Waugh over Lara due to his bowling! Most other folks- well thats an interesting one. Most folks in most persuits, ie, the mainstream average, usually are accustomed to the average thinking too. I suspect most actual cricketers would hesitate before picking one of Reid and Johnson.

Fine, go ahead and pick Reid over Johnson.

[ravishingravi]

Never seen a fast bowler perform at such peak of his skills and destroy teams and careers like Mitch has.

[Muloghonto]

Reid was never express' date=' he could generate some unbelievable bounce on his best days and mind you these are the days when Aussie pitches were much quicker. [/quote'] False, Reid on his best days, was just as fast. Whopee. He may be fractionally faster on average than Reid, especially on the x-axis but that means very little to who is actually fast and who isn't. Fielding in the deep is the least important of fielding positions and again, its pretty stupid to talk about who is the better batsman between the two, given that neither one of them is likely to score more than 20 runs in 10 tries against an actual attack. That Johnson might bash the minnows a bit more with the bat, or score on average 4-5 runs more than Reid against a good one, is the stupidest criteria I've ever heard. The common rule of thumb in cricket is,between batting and bowling, the greater your success rate at your primary skill is, the lesser is the requirement for competency in your secondary skill I would have rather have a team with a greater ATG bat like Lara than a better 'cricketer' like Steve Waugh. To think otherwise exposes only one thing: a total lack of actual cricketing experience playing the game.

[Muloghonto]

Never seen a fast bowler perform at such peak of his skills and destroy teams and careers like Mitch has.

I have. Havn't seen such sustained demolition with sheer pace and intimidation for almost a decade now. Heydeys of Shoaib, that was the last of it. Lee was never quite intimidatory, because he pitched it much shorter on the bouncer stuff.

[Sajid_Rana]

Never seen a fast bowler perform at such peak of his skills and destroy teams and careers like Mitch has.

You haven't seen Waqar in his prime then.

[BlueBee]

And if you had the ability to read' date=' you would see that the question posed was Steyn vs Johnson[b'] on CURRENT form Batsmen walk out to face Steyn fearing they might lose their wicket.. Batsmen walk out to face Johnson fearing that may be put into a coma.

:agree: :two_thumbs_up:

[Ultimate_Game]

False, Reid on his best days, was just as fast. Whopee. He may be fractionally faster on average than Reid, especially on the x-axis but that means very little to who is actually fast and who isn't. Fielding in the deep is the least important of fielding positions and again, its pretty stupid to talk about who is the better batsman between the two, given that neither one of them is likely to score more than 20 runs in 10 tries against an actual attack. That Johnson might bash the minnows a bit more with the bat, or score on average 4-5 runs more than Reid against a good one, is the stupidest criteria I've ever heard. The common rule of thumb in cricket is,between batting and bowling, the greater your success rate at your primary skill is, the lesser is the requirement for competency in your secondary skill I would have rather have a team with a greater ATG bat like Lara than a better 'cricketer' like Steve Waugh. To think otherwise exposes only one thing: a total lack of actual cricketing experience playing the game.

Oh the irony! You are calling others stupid when you are arguing that a guy with batting average of 23 with 8 50s and a 100 is in the same boat as a player who averages 4 with the bat and a high score of 13 :haha: Maybe you need to stop smoking whatever good stuff you are smoking to figure out that a guy with 113 wkts @ 25 (batting average of 4) isn't as good as a bloke with 250+ wkts @ 27 (batting average of 23 plus a much better fielder). Calling people stupid doesn't change the fact that you are the one who's looking more of an idiot at the moment :giggle:

[Muloghonto]

Oh the irony! You are calling others stupid when you are arguing that a guy with batting average of 23 with 8 50s and a 100 is in the same boat as a player who averages 4 with the bat and a high score of 13 :haha:

It is the same boat. The boat of ' i may score a zero vs marshall and holding or Warne-McGrath but you will not score more than 10 either'. It is stupid to say you prefer a frontline bowler with worse figures than another frontline bowler, on the basis of their batting, a skill that is nowhere competent enough for both to bat in the top seven.

Maybe you need to stop smoking whatever good stuff you are smoking to figure out that a guy with 113 wkts @ 25 (batting average of 4) isn't as good as a bloke with 250+ wkts @ 27 (batting average of 23 plus a much better fielder). Calling people stupid doesn't change the fact that you are the one who's looking more of an idiot at the moment :giggle:

Sure, claim all you want that batting average of 23 vs batting average of 4 for two bowlers is the deal breaker. That is as stupid as they come, its like saying a bowling average of 40 is so much better than a bowling average of 55 that you'd rather have steve waugh than tendulkar in the team. i've heard such claims- they are made by people who grew up playing street cricket of 5-6 people each and never played the real thing competetively.

[Muloghonto]

You haven't seen Waqar in his prime then.

err to be quite honest, it was a different kind of intimidation. batsmen were worried about breaking their toes against waqar more than against anyone else. he's the only guy i can think of who didnt bowl much at heads and faces at a sustained rate but batsmen were scared of facing him aplenty.

[rkt.india]

I don't care how poor a strike rate someone has, a distinctly superior average ( 20+ change compared to 27+ change) is a distinct superiority. Period. His low ER tells us that his strike rate was poor because the batsmen never played attacking shots against him, which means much less opportunities to get caught behind decisions. Its much harder to get wickets when batsmen are playing low risk defensive shots all the time than when batsmen are attacking. Comparing Johnson to Davidson is like comparing Afridi to Dravid. Oh and I'd easily take Bruce Reid over Johnson too.

Low ER means cricket was slow those days not because they didn't play shots against and most top bowlers of those days had same ER. Johnson getting wickets not because they are playing shots against him but because he hasn't let them play shots.

[Ultimate_Game]

It is the same boat. The boat of ' i may score a zero vs marshall and holding or Warne-McGrath but you will not score more than 10 either'. It is stupid to say you prefer a frontline bowler with worse figures than another frontline bowler, on the basis of their batting, a skill that is nowhere competent enough for both to bat in the top seven. Sure, claim all you want that batting average of 23 vs batting average of 4 for two bowlers is the deal breaker. That is as stupid as they come, its like saying a bowling average of 40 is so much better than a bowling average of 55 that you'd rather have steve waugh than tendulkar in the team. i've heard such claims- they are made by people who grew up playing street cricket of 5-6 people each and never played the real thing competetively.

Player A: 250+ wkts @ 27 with batting average of 23 with 1 100 and 8 50s and a much better fielder Player B: 113 wkts @ 25 with batting average of 4 with a high score of 13 and a p*ss poor fielder to boot Yet you are the gift from gods who's an expert in picking Player B while I haven't played anything competitive coz I picked player A :haha: I only see one "stupid" here and I can say that person isn't the "street cricketer" :giggle: Any other great insights from your side? I so wish you could enlighten us "street cricket" playing mortals with your wisdom of ages.

[Muloghonto]

Player A: 250+ wkts @ 27 with batting average of 23 with 1 100 and 8 50s and a much better fielder Player B: 113 wkts @ 25 with batting average of 4 with a high score of 13 and a p*ss poor fielder to boot Yet you are the gift from gods who's an expert in picking Player B while I haven't played anything competitive coz I picked player A :haha: I only see one "stupid" here and I can say that person isn't the "street cricketer" :giggle: Any other great insights from your side? I so wish you could enlighten us "street cricket" playing mortals with your wisdom of ages.

if you are not yet another ego-centric ***** with idiocy masquerading as wisdom, do such playerA and playerB analysis with Tendy and Steve Waugh and come to such conclusions. yes, you havnt played any cricket, which is why you think batting superiority for bowlers or part time bowling superiority from batsmen matter when being picked for the prime role. Clearly, what is a bonus but unecessary skill and what is the uncompromising one requiring frugality of a scrooge McDuck for making a choice, is lost on you. a gadhaa like you will always stay a gadhaa until you actually learn that your copious amount of watching as a fan does not necessarily make you competent at understanding the game.

[ravishingravi]

You haven't seen Waqar in his prime then.

Yes I have never seen waqar destro the best team in the world on their home ground.

[rkt.india]

Its useless to argue Muloghonto for him every bowler bowled 150k in the 80s. Only if it was as easy as he think but he forgets that without protective gears even 135-140 will look express.