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

by JGK Mon 23 Mar 2009, 00:34

Aye - he's a gem at 8. Leave him there. Haddin at 6 and Wade at 7 might work.

Ideally there would be a Dizzy-like stayer at 9 to let Midge "express himself".

by Henry Mon 23 Mar 2009, 00:37

Haddin at 6 and Wade at 7 might work.

2 keepers in the one side?

by JGK Mon 23 Mar 2009, 00:38

Haddin as a bastman.

by horace Mon 23 Mar 2009, 00:40

haddin is not a good enough bat to hold a specialist spot and as we know he couldn't hold a catch

by Ross Mon 23 Mar 2009, 00:41

We're not that bad off yet that Haddin is even near the best six batsmen in the country.

by JGK Mon 23 Mar 2009, 00:42

North isn't an obviously better batting option at 6 than Haddin.

by horace Mon 23 Mar 2009, 00:44

JGK wrote:North isn't an obviously better batting option at 6 than Haddin.

north can bat, has scored against a top team, can bowl and can field neatly...puts him ahead of haddin

by Ross Mon 23 Mar 2009, 00:49

I'd take North, Little Slut, Rogers, HODGE, YT, Token, Watson and Sniffy over Haddin as a specialist batsman. In a couple of years I might be able to add Pombasher and Khawajajaja to that list.

by lardbucket Mon 23 Mar 2009, 06:24

H-O-D-G-E ??

Bwahahakhawajaja!

by lardbucket Mon 23 Mar 2009, 06:25

Anyway, Johnson's not even The New Flintoff yet.

And most Australian fans approved of Flintoff batting at 6 ONLY because it weakened the English line-up.

Both are ideal at number 8, and wasted higher.

by JGK Mon 23 Mar 2009, 06:34

I posted this on the match thread but in this series, Midge became the first person to take 15+ wickets and score 250+ runs in a 3 test series.

by tac Mon 23 Mar 2009, 06:34

Yeah, and only slightly crazed poms are suggesting otherwise, lardy . . .

by ten years after Mon 23 Mar 2009, 07:29

peterg wrote:Until the 1950's Australia produced a great all rounder at least once in every cricketing generation. Giffen, Noble, Armstrong, Gregory, Miller, Benaud, Davidson.

What went wrong with the conveyor belt?

Much less common also have been good batsmen who could bowl decently.
Benaud's team had Mackay, Simpson, O'Neill.
Chappell had himself and his brother, plus Walters.

Sorry peterg but i reckon that in the late 50s and early 60s you had to average a lot better than 24 with the bat to qualify as a great all rounder at test level. Giffen's similar average in the 19th century was more acceptable in that era but still on the low side.

by taipan Mon 23 Mar 2009, 07:31

Why would people want Johnson to become a pom?

by peterg Mon 23 Mar 2009, 07:54

tya,

In gneral I agree with your point concerning batting average qualification for great all round status.

In the case of Davidson, although not Benaud, you can offset the deficiency because he can be classified as an all time great bowler. He could more than bat a bit, and fielded superbly. I think he qualifies.

In Benaud's case, whilst a less fine bowler than Davidson, he had his exceptional captaincy and excellent fielding to bulk out the CV. I think he qualifies, too.

by peterg Mon 23 Mar 2009, 07:57

When was the last front line Australian bowler to score a Test century against a strong nation? [which leaves out the admirable Dizzy]

I can only think of Greg Matthews around 1990 and Gilmour about 15 years earlier. In the former case, I know it's being generous to classify him as a front line bowler, but he could bat.

by lardbucket Mon 23 Mar 2009, 08:02

Matthews averaged over 40 with the bat, and probably with the ball. In the end, he was a batsman who could bowl a bit. Like Carl Hooper.

Warnie went horribly close with a 99. Peter Sleep made a 90. Just about all the other long-term bowlers made at least one 70 ...

the answer ... Tony Mann.

by JGK Mon 23 Mar 2009, 08:13

Pistol got pretty close too IIRC.

by lardbucket Mon 23 Mar 2009, 08:15

78 not out, and another 70

O'Keeffe made an 85

Merv made a couple of 80's

by tac Mon 23 Mar 2009, 08:15

Yeah a few close calls . . . I guess what sets Midge apart is that he should have another in the first test if SIDS and Hilfy didn't leave him stranded . . .

by lardbucket Mon 23 Mar 2009, 08:18

He's the first specialist bowler since Reiffel and Warnie to really look like he might make a hundred, or in his case, several hundreds.

Gillespie's monumental effort was a surprise, like Taylor's recent effort for the Windies, or Saqlain's, or Symcox's.

by tac Mon 23 Mar 2009, 08:21

The other thing I like about Midge is his six hitting ability . . . it seems quite effortless . . . he could give Gillie's record a nudge in years to come . . .

by taipan Mon 23 Mar 2009, 08:22

lardbucket wrote:He's the first specialist bowler since Reiffel and Warnie to really look like he might make a hundred, or in his case, several hundreds.

Gillespie's monumental effort was a surprise, like Taylor's recent effort for the Windies, or Saqlain's, or Symcox's.

Disagree about Symmo. he could bat a bit.

by lardbucket Mon 23 Mar 2009, 08:24

He wasn't a bunny, I didn't mean that at all ... but the century was still a surprise.

by embee Mon 23 Mar 2009, 08:25

Aussies 8 to 11 scoring tons

by Sponsored content