Johnsons batting

[mighty_west]

Re: Johnsons batting

Is Mitch now regarded as a "true" all rounder?

96 not out against Sth Africa, whilst day 2 & 3 would be considered the best days for batting, he still had to get out there against the best bowling attack going around, not only take them on, but just blast them all over the park.

[GVGjr]

Re: Johnsons batting

Is Mitch now regarded as a "true" all rounder?

96 not out against Sth Africa, whilst day 2 & 3 would be considered the best days for batting, he still had to get out there against the best bowling attack going around, not only take them on, but just blast them all over the park.

True all-rounder I would think not mainly because he would need to do the same on day one of a test or in the first session of a test rather than in the 2nd day.

What it might mean for the Australian side is that their is no need to play a Watson or McDonald at number 8 for perceived batting depth.

[Bornadog]

Re: Johnsons batting

I watched the majority of his innings last night, certainly from when he had 36 runs on the board. He looked very comfortable and established in his support role and can certainly drive the ball straight. When the time came for him to start swinging, it was great to watch, especially the 6 that went out of the ground. However, I wouldn't be putting him in the all rounder class, but he is a very handy number 8/9.

[hujsh]

Re: Johnsons batting

Compare his average of 31.47 to Flintoff's average of 31.69 and you could argue he is an allrounder.

[GVGjr]

Re: Johnsons batting

Compare his average of 31.47 to Flintoff's average of 31.69 and you could argue he is an allrounder.

Flintoff bats at number 6 and 7 not 8 or 9 though so I don't think it would be a great argument. Flintoff's bowling is also superior and he is one of the hardest bowlers to score off.
Sometimes the averages don't necessarily tell the full story.

[hujsh]

Re: Johnsons batting

Flintoff bats at number 6 and 7 not 8 or 9 though so I don't think it would be a great argument. Flintoff's bowling is also superior and he is one of the hardest bowlers to score off.
Sometimes the averages don't necessarily tell the full story.

Of course the argument would be flawed but it's an interesting comparison

[westdog54]

Re: Johnsons batting

Flintoff bats at number 6 and 7 not 8 or 9 though so I don't think it would be a great argument. Flintoff's bowling is also superior and he is one of the hardest bowlers to score off.
Sometimes the averages don't necessarily tell the full story.

Having said that, the only reason he batted at 9 in this test is because we have two allrounders playing in North and McDonald. If, as you say, he can start to bat more consistently, you could almost send him up to 6 or 7, with Haddin taking the alternate spot.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Johnsons batting

Flintoff bats at number 6 and 7 not 8 or 9 though so I don't think it would be a great argument. Flintoff's bowling is also superior and he is one of the hardest bowlers to score off.
Sometimes the averages don't necessarily tell the full story.

Flintoff's average tells me he's not a number 6 either.

[Sedat]

Re: Johnsons batting

Having said that, the only reason he batted at 9 in this test is because we have two allrounders playing in North and McDonald. If, as you say, he can start to bat more consistently, you could almost send him up to 6 or 7, with Haddin taking the alternate spot.

McDonald out, McGain in and Johnson moved up to #8 looks much better on paper, and balances the bowling attack up.

[azabob]

Re: Johnsons batting

In Sunday's Age Peter Roebuck reckons the Aussies should just back Johnsons batting in, and drop an all rounder and play another bowler. Which is what most people have been saying most of the summer.
Forget Symonds, Forget Watson, Forget McDonald, play North and Either a fast bowler or spinner and bat Johnson up the order.

[mighty_west]

Re: Johnsons batting

In Sunday's Age Peter Roebuck reckons the Aussies should just back Johnsons batting in, and drop an all rounder and play another bowler. Which is what most people have been saying most of the summer.
Forget Symonds, Forget Watson, Forget McDonald, play North and Either a fast bowler or spinner and bat Johnson up the order.

Makes sence to me, we have Haddin as a very good bat, which is a bonus for any side having a keeper as an all-rounder, which was why Gilly was so valuable.

[GVGjr]

Re: Johnsons batting

In Sunday's Age Peter Roebuck reckons the Aussies should just back Johnsons batting in, and drop an all rounder and play another bowler. Which is what most people have been saying most of the summer.
Forget Symonds, Forget Watson, Forget McDonald, play North and Either a fast bowler or spinner and bat Johnson up the order.

Makes sence to me, we have Haddin as a very good bat, which is a bonus for any side having a keeper as an all-rounder, which was why Gilly was so valuable.

We tried the whole 3 strike bowlers with 2 batting all-rounders in India and it didn't work. Sure Watson bowled better than expected but having White at 8 did nothing for him adding a lot of runs fpr the side.

As MW said, with Haddin being a good bat at 7 we should have Johnson at 8 and 3 more strike bowlers following him.

[mighty_west]

Re: Johnsons batting

We tried the whole 3 strike bowlers with 2 batting all-rounders in India and it didn't work. Sure Watson bowled better than expected but having White at 8 did nothing for him adding a lot of runs fpr the side.

As MW said, with Haddin being a good bat at 7 we should have Johnson at 8 and 3 more strike bowlers following him.

Well people seem to forget that a batting wicket keeper IS an all rounder, plus Mitch would be classed as "just about" an all-rounder, he's more an all rounder than Brett Lee or Shane Warne IMO.