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

8s to 11s scoring tons

Saw an hour's version of his innings in the Foxy 2 hour highlights tonight. That was some knock. Clean striking of the highest order. Well done, him.

And I thought Nicholarse was gonna jizz in his pants.

tac wrote: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 . . .

He ought to be batting ahead of Haddin at the rate he's improving.
From what I've seen of him (on TV only), he has a good eye for the ball and picks it up early enough for him to align his chosen shot. But he does seem to be predominantly an on side player - and oppo bowlers will figure him out eventually.
But yeah, a serious threat in the next few months ... all we need now is a county to offer him a 2 month contract to sharpen him up to our conditions - job done!

To me the funny part s that the Aussie NSP has been looking to find/manufacture an all-rounder for donkey's years. Now they have fluked one.

peterg wrote: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.

Captaincy and fielding complicate things a bit too much. Compare Mike Brearley with Botham - Brearley was an immeasurably better captain, as good a fielder and a significantly better batsman, Botham was an immeasurably better bowler. This would suggest that if Botham is a great all rounder then Brearley is too!

Lindwall would be considered by most an all time great bowler and his test batting average is not far below Davidson's but he is rarely described as an all rounder let alone a great one. I think a great test all rounder must have an average in the upper 20s at least no matter how good a bowler he is (Hadlee just sneaks in, Tate doesn't).

This is also a bit of a problem regarding Sobers' bowling. I'm only happy calling him a great all rounder because he was a test quality bowler for a significant part of the 60s. His overall bowling average and wickets per match is not very impressive.

taipan wrote:To me the funny part s that the Aussie NSP has been looking to find/manufacture an all-rounder for donkey's years. Now they have fluked one.

Fair call, taips.

skully wrote:

taipan wrote:To me the funny part s that the Aussie NSP has been looking to find/manufacture an all-rounder for donkey's years. Now they have fluked one.

Fair call, taips.

It's a nonsense call . . . the only options are to either manufacture one or pray one comes along by chance . . .

taipan wrote:To me the funny part s that the Aussie NSP has been looking to find/manufacture an all-rounder for donkey's years. Now they have fluked one.

Does 'manufactured' mean that an average player keeps getting selected until they eventually become good?

The nearest all rounder I can think of in this category would be Flintoff.

ten years after wrote:

taipan wrote:To me the funny part s that the Aussie NSP has been looking to find/manufacture an all-rounder for donkey's years. Now they have fluked one.

Does 'manufactured' mean that an average player keeps getting selected until they eventually become good?

The nearest all rounder I can think of in this category would be Flintoff.

Well Watson never became good. Maybe he will now.

Phurt. Shane "Pollywaffle" Watson will never make a Test allrounder.

The pollywaffle . . . I like it . . .

If Midge ever bats at 6 I'll hand back my baggy green.

tac wrote:The pollywaffle . . . I like it . . .

Erm, it was yours, tweren't it?

Invader Zim wrote:If Midge ever bats at 6 I'll hand back my baggy green.

You forget how stoopid the NSP is.

skully wrote:

tac wrote:The pollywaffle . . . I like it . . .

Erm, it was yours, tweren't it?

Was it? I've been so busy, I honestly don't remember . . I like it regardless . . .

I think OP or Nath said he was marshmallow on the inside and kit kats on the outside, and I thought you then came in with "so he's basically a Pollywaffle?"

Laugh, I nearly PMS.

tya

Are you seriously suggesting Brearley was a better batsman than Botham?

It was , as you will recall, argued by Brearley that captaincy ability should be considered a separate discipline, akin to wicketkeeping.
Accordingly, he could be considered an all rounder, but his batting is a weak aspect of his claim.

peterg wrote:tya

Are you seriously suggesting Brearley was a better batsman than Botham?

It was , as you will recall, argued by Brearley that captaincy ability should be considered a separate discipline, akin to wicketkeeping.
Accordingly, he could be considered an all rounder, but his batting is a weak aspect of his claim.

Err no i suppose not, that is a definite flaw in my argument.

Substitute Davidson for Botham and it works better

skully wrote:I think OP or Nath said he was marshmallow on the inside and kit kats on the outside, and I thought you then came in with "so he's basically a Pollywaffle?"

Laugh, I nearly PMS.

Indeed . . . I remember now . . . thought it sounded familiar . . .

Have another sake.

ffs?

freddie fries sausages?

No. Think about your previous post.

PeterCS wrote:No. Think about your previous post.

This is a cricket forum, not a Mensa get-together.

FFS, indeed . . . . you can be a simple qunt at times, skull . . .