Mitchell Johnson to be the next I.T. Botham?

Maybe my almost an all-rounder call is not looking so silly now.

Some in today's press were suggesting he can hold down the #6 position.

Ex-players are very much enamoured of his recent performances with the bat.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25121977-23212,00.html?from=public_rss

Number 6 for the Ashes please...

Mark Waugh having a w@nk.

skully wrote:Mark Waugh having a [url=mailto://w@nk.

w@nk.[/quote[/url]]

Agree, the problem with Johnson coming in as high as #6 is that he might suddenly take a different mindset in. At #9 (which is admittedly too low in the order), he can swing with impunity knowing that in most cases runs he scores can be a bonus or icing on the cake. Sometimes he might have to dig in. As a 'specialist' batsman he bears a lot of responsbility for shaping the score.

FFS

6-1-4, and if the 6 can bowl a bit, the 1 can bat a bit, and the 4 can bat a bit that farking brilliant but please FORGET THE ****** ALLROUNDER BULLSHIT

Agree with Zimmy . . . the magic numbers are 6, 1 and 4 . . . dump Ronnie and get a 4th specialist bowler in there . . .

I third the motion.

It's a long time since Australia has had a genuine all roundr, whereas other countries contined to produce them if not often, at least sometimes.

Since Benaud and Davidson some 50 odd years ago, the only Australians to achieve the Test double of 1000 runs/100 wickets have been bowlers who lasted long enough to make enough runs.

The greatest prospect was Gilmour, but he faded quickly with poor fitness and motivation. Watson has made Gilmour look resilient.

I doubt whether Johnson will ever be, or should ever be expected to be, an all rounder.
He is doing well as things stand. Let him develop an in-swinger as the first priority.

I echo the condemnation of choosing bits and pieces players under the illusion they are all rounders.

Amazing how quick the Aussies are to jerk off over their own players.

Says Captain Jerk Off.

peterg wrote:It's a long time since Australia has had a genuine all roundr, whereas other countries contined to produce them if not often, at least sometimes.

Since Benaud and Davidson some 50 odd years ago, the only Australians to achieve the Test double of 1000 runs/100 wickets have been bowlers who lasted long enough to make enough runs.

The greatest prospect was Gilmour, but he faded quickly with poor fitness and motivation. Watson has made Gilmour look resilient.

I doubt whether Johnson will ever be, or should ever be expected to be, an all rounder.
He is doing well as things stand. Let him develop an in-swinger as the first priority.

I echo the condemnation of choosing bits and pieces players under the illusion they are all rounders.

Very true. Steve Waugh was probably the closest thing we've had to a genuine all-rounder since the 60's. He was very effective with the ball in his younger days and would have passed 100 wickets easily had it not been for his groin injury. But even at his bowling peak he was never a frontline test bowler. Genuine all-rounders are very rare indeed.

Pathan's probably a (much) better bat than Mitch, and I'd hate it if he batted even at 7 for India. So, yeah please play him at the no. 6 position.

I seem to remember a few years back some Aussies were suggesting that Brett Lee could bat at six. And before that, it was Paul Reiffel.

Johnson should be batting at 8 but 9,10, 11 should learn how to leave a ball outside off stump when the guy down the other end has hit 38 off the previous two overs.

He should be batting at 8. Handy there, but no higher.

In time Johnson could move up to seven. His batting seeks to be improving hand-in-hand with his bowling.

He wouldn't be the worst No 7 going around but at 8 he could be an absolute gem.

JGK wrote:He wouldn't be the worst No 7 going around but at 8 he could be an absolute gem.

Bit like Stuart Broad in that respect.

At 8 he'll end up with more red ink than Tugga.

Piss that imposter Ronnie McDonnie off and move Midge to 7 and bring in either a specialist spinner or another seamer.

Henry wrote:I seem to remember a few years back some Aussies were suggesting that Brett Lee could bat at six.

Ah, yes, 'some Aussies'. Of course 'some Aussies' suggested that. Sure they did.

Sorry, I meant "Some arses"......Tomayto, tomaato....

Does MJ bat above Blee when he returns.

It's a matter of when and not if Bung returns.

I always thought Mitchell looked like an ordinary bowler when he first came into the Australia team. He didn't really seem to do much with the ball, he still doesn't in fact. However, the left-arm angle at pace seems to cause all sorts of problems and he's a tough, canny bowler. His batting is in excellent shape too, so I don't have any problem with calling him a bowling all-rounder.

I've actually started to wonder if he's the best pacer in the world at the moment though, just sticking to talking about his bowling. He has done very, very well.

It's a matter of when and not if Bung returns.

I dunno...he surely can't play in the Ashes. He won't have played a FC match in something like 6 months. And if Siddle and Hilfy make the most of this tour (and get a go on the Ashes tour) then it's hard to find room for him next summer...