Have Clarke and Johnson proved the mockers wrong?

Brendon, The fact you do not know who the bowlers are is a failing of yours, not mine. I suggest you read more cricket history and not just devour statistics which, essentially, are unreliable without context. While Sobers never played an official Test against Lillee he did, of course, score the legendary 254 for the World XI against Australia, and Lillee, in Melbourne - the innings DGB described as the best he had seen. I think we can take that as evidence of his ability to handle Lillee when the mood took him. I agree Sobers' record against NZ is an abheration - but I have also offered an explanation in a previous post. And it does not alter the view of those who saw him play. It just reinforces the view that cricket is a funny game. As for Murali, I think you'll find it is not just the "in my day" crowd who have questioned Murali's record in relation to"weaker" opposition. I agree, however, that most of us who have been around for awhile are a little surprised that Murali remained on the scene so long when guys like Meckiff and Griffin were forced out of the game. Changing the rules to make him legal grates a little when every other chucker had to alter their action or leave the game. The fact is that no bowler has yet been able to bowl the doosra without chucking it. And your notion that you approach history in an unbiased way, and I don't, is not supported by the basic argument. You're the one attempting to change history in regards to Sobers. All I ever did was suggest Mitchell Johnson bowls too much rubbish to be considered top class. This seemed to upset you but I'd suggest I could find any number of cricket followers of your vintage who would agree with me. They may not agree with your view of Sobers. You also seem to forget that Waugh, Lara, Ponting et al are also from my generation of cricket watchers. This is the essential point of our numerous exchanges. I have seen everyone you have seen and a truck load more besides. You, however, have not. Consequently, as I have previously said, I can compare and you cannot. You can look at statistics, as can I, but I also have the benefit of context which you cannot possibly have because you were not there to see it. I have merely said what those who know are already fully aware of - Johnson is inconsistent and very erratic, Sobers is a great. They do not compare. You have stated, categorically, that Sewag would destroy Sobers the bowler and that Sobers the batsman would struggle against modern bowling. I simply disagree!

Brendon, I rubbish Mitchell Johnson because he seems to have trouble landing the ball in the same suburb as the batsman. Not because he is a modern player. I can think of no other Australian Test bowler of Johnson's apparent standing who has had a similar problem - ever! As for your putting up Sobers as an example of "less than perfect" I merely advise you to be careful. Sobers is generally accepted, by virtually everyone who knows, to be the best ever all-round cricketer. Those of us who saw Sobers know how good he really was. You clearly do not. Consequently, you are on dangerous ground suggesting he was over-rated. I'm guessing some of those who disagree may possibly know more about the subject than you. Tendulkar's record, compared to Sobers is meaningless. Tendulkar has played many more international games than Sobers and only ever had to bat (no, I don't really rate his bowling). Sobers had to do a lot of bowling, and captain the team, as well as scoring a fair proportion of the runs if his team was to do well. And Sobers Test average still exceeds the great Indian. I agree with you, by the way, on the greatness of Border and the quality of the bowling he faced. Especially considering nobody else in the Australian team during Border's time provided consistent support. He carried the team for much of his career. Having said that, Border was not in the same class as Sobers. He was gutsy, determined and as stubborn as a mule but he lacked the finesse and sheer artistry of Sobers - and the range of shots. Imagine Viv Richards power with David Gower's grace and that was Sobers. And, yes, like Gower he could sometimes be knocked over early but if you didn't get him early, look out. By the way, Bradman made a duck in ten percent of his Test innings so it can happen to the best. One other thing to consider when comparing Sobers and Border is that AB was not really a shot-maker - he was a survivor. A grafter who "dug in" and stayed put. Sobers would never allow a bowler to dictate to him. He would go after them and force them to think about what they were doing. Incidentally, Sobers was never hit by a bowler during his entire career (on the pads but not on the body). It is a credit to his eye, his footwork and technique. He never wore a helmet or a chest protector and he was, like Border, targetted every time because he was invariably the Windies key player. And please, forget the WG Grace rubbish. He played at a time when hitting the ball to leg was considered "bad form". Grace, of course, ignored such unwritten rules and revolutionised batting in the process. He also was a blatant cheat. He deserves his place in the history of the game but I doubt he was a better player than Sobers, or Border, or Tendulkar. It was a different world then and you cannot compare. So kindly don't make any silly attempts to suggest what I might think on any issue. Because you simply don't know.

I was trying to illustrate the double standards that you "in my day" people have. You rubbish M. Johnson's, and modern players achievements whilst not applying the same standard of analysis to the guys who played during your era. I used Sobers as an example because he is held up as this perfect, immaculate player but when you look at his record it doesn't stand up to the same, ultra-critical and negative analysis that modern players get. Like modern players he had his flaws and failures but they get swept under the carpet by you "in my day" crowd. His bowling strike was only 91, he never took 10 wickets in a test match and he had an average of 34 when guys like Trueman, Davidson and Lindwall were averaging in the low 20's. Keith Miller's bowling record was far superior to Sobers' so why can't I (I do anyway) view Miller as at least Sobers equal as an all rounder? Try this on for size. Tendulkar has scored more runs in international cricket than Sobers scored in First class + List A combined. I contrasted the list of bowlers Border had to face to get his success to the bowlers Sobers faced to get his average of 57. I dont think any sane person would even remotely suggest that Sobers faced anywhere near the quality of bowling Border did. Just like in the late 70's to the late 90's bowling dominated the game in the last 10 years the bat has dominated the ball and you have to take that into account. Too bad theres no one alive that saw W.G. Grace bat. Then he could lecture you on how in his day how much better players like Grace were than Sobers, Harvey and Barrington.

Ashley Mallet??? Tony Greig??? Who the hell is MacGibbon? Bailey? Blair??? Hawke? Gleeson? Do you mean Jackie Gleeson? Max Walker? Oh, my god. Cave? Reid? Massie? Bob Massie? Seriously? Sobers NEVER faced Lillee in a test match and he only played 1 ODI and I cant be bothered to look up against who. I ONLY named ALL TIME GREATS. Legends of the game. Thats why I held back on Roberts and Croft. All of the bowlers I named averaged under 25 except Botham and Kapil Dev.Willis and Underwood's averages were just over 25. Bob Willis only played against Sobers when he was starting off. Unlike you I put aside guys like Waqar Younis, who Border only faced in a 3 test series when Younis was young. Same with Donald, though Donald was a bit older but still new to international cricket due to South Africa coming back in. I only listed players that are GREATS and Border played OFTEN. I also separated Walsh because even though Border would have played against Walsh many times it wasn't until after Border retired that Walsh rose to the top. I think the fact that you think the list you gave, of which only Trueman, Laker, Lindwall, Davison are all time greats as purely bowlers, says everything about your attitude and disposition. (Keith Miller was definitely a great all around all-rounder.) Sobers also failed against New Zealand teams at home in 5 tests. He also only averaged 38 against Australia at home. only batsman to heave a complete record is Bradman. Sobers is no different to guys like Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting in that hey have their bogey team. Yet when players today, like Murali, have success against weaker teams the "in my day" brigade rubbish their achievements by claiming they played against "weak opposition" ignoring that many of the players considered great from their era did the same. Difference between you and I is that I approach the history of the game from an unbiased and objective position. You've already made up your mind that players from your era are automatically better than today's generation. I'm sure people from my generation will be sitting back talking about how great Steve Waugh, Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting were and how much better than they are than the current players in the future. As you get older the rose coloured glasses get bigger (for most people)

Brendon, Nobody is disputing the greatness of Border, never have, but I fail to see the relevance in a discussion of Sobers. More so since you clearly never saw Sobers play and never saw the bowlers against whom he batted, with the possible exception of a couple near the end of his career. Given he also played County cricket for years he was very much the full time, professional cricketer who just happened to stick Malcolm Nash over the fence for every ball of an over, a la Sehwag style. Little wonder he got tired and stale occasionally but simply the greatest all-round cricketer ever. End of story!

Brendon, You got me there..... Sobers only had to worry about Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Benaud, Davidson, Meckiff, McKenzie, Hawke, Gleeson, Mallett, Lillee, Massie, Walker, Trueman, Statham, Bailey, Laker, Lock, Illingworth, Titmus, Snow, Willis, Greig, Gupte, Prasanna, Chandrasekhar, Venkataraghavan, Bedi and of course, from New Zealand, Reid, Blair, Cave and MacGibbon. Those Kiwis, incidentally, were pretty good bowlers, especially on their home tracks where the pitches tended to be a bit ordinary - a bit damp and slow. They weren't bad bowlers in England either.

Brendon, 1/ "Well, Ritchie was fat and didnt train much so I’m sure Bayman will think hes a great." 2/ "I dont care if Sobers bowled on his head doing handstands – he wouldnt cut it in todays professional game as an all-rounder. Guys like Sehwag would destroy him." 3/ "He was a handy bowler in his day but you could name 20+ bowlers during his era that were better than Sobers." 4/ "And as for Bradman’s opinion I care not. Theres a reason guys like Keith Miller, Bill O’Reilly, Ian Chappel didn’t along with him. He was a pr–k. Genius on the field, a—-hole off it." 5/ "(how many of you knew that Sobers only averaged 23 against NZ in 12 tests and only 43 against Aus?)" Thank you, Brendon, you have just delivered a handfull of all-time top ten comments. I won't tell you the category in case you get embarrassed. The responses are as follows; 1/ You were the one calling former players "fat and unfit", I refuted it. As for Ritchie he wasted his talent. Perhaps the Mark Cosgrove of his day - sorry, Cossie's a modern professional, my mistake! 2/ To quote John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious" 3/ Have a crack at that one. There may have been 20 just as good but then he played for 20 years - and he made 8000 plus runs at 57. I'm not sure many of those "20+ bowlers got close to that - most just had to bowl. 4/ Can we then assume that being a prick invalidates an opinion? 5/ We knew - we just didn't care. And the reason is Brendon because we actually saw him play on several occasions. Batting and bowling. The first man to score 1000 runs and take 50 wickets in an Australian domestic season - and he did it twice in three years! Now, Brendon, I give you all this, not as criticism but as education. Here's a clue, mate, it's comment 2/ which really highlights your ignorance. I'd pull back a bit on that one if I were you. There may not be too many agree with you - especially if they had seen him play.

Brendon,you don't have to get along with someone to appreciate their abilities.Chappell and Miller did not have a problem with Bradman's cricketing abilities. That is all we are discussing here. I have seen all the players you mention and neither Ritchie or Blewett would class themselves as great. I also saw Harvey play and he was up there with his footwork. You may not like him but thats is inconsequential. There are certainly many modern day greats and most of those you mention have merit. I interviewed Sehwag at length for Inside Cricket and you may want to get the march Issue to have a read. It is difficult to rate players you have not seen,Brendon. Players that are currently playing,like Ponting,Dravid,Sehwag and Tendulkar are all astute enough to know . I will give more credence to their opinion than yours. Having said that I respect your right to your opinion. Someone once asked Bradman how he would go in the modern game and he said: "Not very well,but you must understand I am 80 now."

Brendon, Actually, it's Mitchell Johnson "sucks" because I say so. I might ask, "Do you have the faintest notion of what YOU are talking about?" You seem to equate "digging in" with strike rate. Say what? I make it easy for you - think of Cook's 700 plus runs in seven innings. Think of 3-1 to England and those three wins by an innings. Strike rate - spare me! At the most basic level, England didn't win because they scored faster, they won because they scored more. It's not difficult. If that's what you know of cricket then it's no wonder you seem impossible to educate. As for checking facts junior, I'll happily stick with mine compared to yours - but thanks for your contribution.

I agree Johnson can bowl brilliantly. At his best only Steyn is better (assuming Steyn is near his best) I agree with people who say Johnson can bowl rubbish. But he is the only match winner we have. Johnson is frustrating no doubt. Inconsistent - yes. But rubbish - no. He has talent. Your last sentence could be right. Though its hard to tell when you're not close to the players.

Seriously, I'm not going to read all that. There is a word in the English language called succinct. Firstly crap about England improving in talent. If by getting a bunch of South African you mean improving in talent then maybe. County cricket is more competitive than it used to be. But the real tell is by the way England fielded and their temperament. The English team is built on teamwork and solidarity - not individual players. The English players even say so themselves. Look at their players - no batsman averages over 50. Pietersen did for awhile. Swann averages about 26/27 but it was in the high 20's until the series against Pakistan. There are no "greats" in this current English team. Very good players that play well as a team.England is like the anti-India. Alaistar Cook and Trott "dug in"? Rubbish. Cook has a strike/rate of 53 for the Ashes and even Trott had a strike rate of 50. Clarke had a strike/rate of 44. In every match England won they had a faster scoring rate. Seriously, do you even check your "facts" before posting such long-winded drivel? From watching the recent Ashes, including being at the MCG on Boxing day, everytime one of the Australian batsman tried to "dig in" it was like waving a red flag to a bull or booze and cocaine to Charlie Sheen. The English bowlers loved it. They knew they could attack with impunity. The more the Australian batsmen tried to "dig in" the better the English bowlers got and thats how the modern game works. Do you think India have had the success they've had recently because Sehwag blocks every damn ball? I'm not going to waste my time responding to a pile of inaccurate and biased rant that can easily be summed up in "Mitchell Johnson sux because I say so". Brendon please remain respectful in your debate. Just because you don't agree doesn't give you license to attack someone. Thanks, Roar Mods.

Allan Border averaged 50 in a career where he had to face Michael Holding,Joel Garner, Malcolm Marshall, Curtly Ambrose, Bob Willis, Ian Botham, Derek Underwood, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee. He faced Allan Donald at the end of his career and even played 3 tests against Waqar Younis. I'm also leaving out players like Andy Roberts, Colin Croft and Courtney Walsh. Compare that to who Sobers faced during his day.

Sobers averaged 70 in drawn tests. 27 in losing games. Did you see those 12 matches where Sobers averaged 23 against the weakest team in test cricket at the time, New Zealand? I saw Greg Ritchie play some damn fine innings. Same with Greg Blewett. Lets put them in the greats category. Well, Ritchie was fat and didnt train much so I'm sure Bayman will think hes a great. Though Ritchie didn't play back in the 17th century so maybe not. I dont care if Sobers bowled on his head doing handstands - he wouldnt cut it in todays professional game as an all-rounder. Guys like Sehwag would destroy him. The game is much less forgiving today than it was back in Sobers day thanks to the shorter formats. Bowling pace and spin in the same match doesnt make much of a difference if you're not particularly good at either. He was a handy bowler in his day but you could name 20+ bowlers during his era that were better than Sobers. And as for Bradman's opinion I care not. Theres a reason guys like Keith Miller, Bill O'Reilly, Ian Chappel didn't along with him. He was a pr--k. Genius on the field, a----hole off it. He was the best batsmen ever but thats it. Henry Ford was one of the most important and influential people of the 20th century. Doesnt mean I have to automatically agree with his opinions. I'm sure Benaud would agree with you. Though I have warmed a lot to Richie in recent years - ever since he cut down on the "in my day" crap he used to go on with. When he wasn't crapping on about Neil Harvey he was crapping on about Sobers. Its the hypocritical and double standard "analysis" that permeates sport, and especially cricket. Failures and inadequacies of players gone by get overlooked (how many of you knew that Sobers only averaged 23 against NZ in 12 tests and only 43 against Aus?) Yes, Sobers had a very good average against England. Then again, Johnson has a very good bowling, and batting, averages against South Africa. But every flaw and failure of the modern player are held up to intense scrutiny. Reminds me of the eulogy song done by the Chasers a few years back. People forget flaws and failures of the gone and romanticise the past.

Bloody hell, that went longer than I thought. Time for me to hit the old armchair and have a sleep!

Brendon, I may be an "armchair idiot" but at least I have an armchair. I presume you just spend all your time standing! Cricket in England has been a professional sport for over a century and despite the fact that May and Cowdrey were amateurs I have a pretty good idea how they would have gone against Johnson. And they would have been comfortable. Cowdrey, after all, was dragged out of his winter fireside armchair to face the might of Lillee and Thomson during the 1974/75 Ashes series and all this at the age of 42. I don't think Cowdrey in his prime years would have been too concerned about Johnson, especially given he'd only have to play one ball in six. As for England improving, it's more to do with the respective talent currently available to both sides. In other words, right now, they have better credentialled Test players than we do. Certainly Andy Flower is a better coach, it would seem, than previous English coaches and he's clearly a better coach than Tim Neilsen. Basically, however, it's the players who make the difference. We used to have the really good ones and now they have better than us. Anyone who saw the recent Test series saw England playing Test cricket and Australia playing one-day/T20 cricket. You criticise "digging in" as old-fashioned but perhaps you might like to explain Alastair Cook. Or Jonathan Trott. Those old-fashioned buggers put us to the sword precisely because they didn't play modern, swash-buckling innings at every opportunity. Watching the Tests was like watching the difference between men and boys. You also are seemingly scathing of the idea of blooding youngsters. I presume then you had absolutely no problem watching Australia's old men in the top order proving every Test they weren't good enough? While I admit Hussey did well it's also true to say he had to because he was seriously under the pump. He was also lucky not to be given plumb lbw in Brisbane and certainly would have been if England had another challenge up their sleeve. A career saving hundred nipped in the bud may well have changed his summer completely. But we'll never know. Over the years Australia has been well served by blooding youngsters. Names like Bradman, Jackson, McCabe, Harvey, the Chappells, Walters, Lawry, Simpson etc. all were picked at an age that today is virtually impossible. One of the reasonsfor that, Brendon, is no doubt CA's desire to play as much short form of the game as is possible so that the contracted players are precluded from the Sheffield Shield. In days gone by, those youngsters I mentioned got blooded against the current Test players so that when they were picked for Australia they knew what had to be done and how to do it. A bit of "digging in" you might say. Today's youngsters, like Hughes for example, get thrust into the highest level having made his runs against, essentially, second string attacks. The talent, and the novelty, can work for awhile but very soon the lack of technique gets exploited by bowlers who are a step up from anything he's seen before. For this we can definitely blame Cricket Australia. As for the "coaches and conditioning staff" at CA, yes, I have a problem. What do they actually do? So far these professional coaches and conditioners have managed to put a half dozen NSW fast bowlers off the park. Harris (Qld), Pattinson (Vic) and Tait (SA) have spent months on the sidelines. By God, though, they've been professional. A raft of your "fat, unfit" fast bowlers of the 1950s, 60s and 70s just kept on bowling and playing. Lillee missed 18 months with a serious stress fracture but came back healthy and never broke down again. Bracken has just had to retire because the injuries have proved too difficult to overcome. Some of the problems with Bracken, and Hazelwood for that matter, have occurred because the original problem was mis-diagnosed. So much for the much vaunted "professional" era. If you are going to have a tribe of hangers-on it helps if they can get it right. Still, they all get paid so they must be professional. It may also interest you to know that, in my memory, very few of the "fat and unfit" actually mucked around in the nets like a bunch of under 12s. They also batted in the nets against bowlers and bowling. They didn't get some untrained rabbit to give them throw downs from 15 metres like they do today. Throw downs will never correct batting flaws. Those same "fat and unfit" also had better batting techniques than today's players. The technical deficiencies of Ponting and Clarke et al are there for all to see. At least, for those who can recognise the difference. Plant the front foot, anchor yourself, nick it to the close in field, play it on or get bowled through the gate. Watch the current players, particularly early in their innings and see how many times they get knocked over in this way. No "fat and unfit" would get out first ball as many times as Ponting has in the last couple of years. They just might "dig in" a bit until they were sure of the pace and bounce of the wicket. Not so today's heroes who are arrogant enough to think they can intimidate bowlers from the first ball. Ponting's litany of first-ballers would suggest he's a bit over-confident (not forgetting his Hobart 209 last year was on the back of getting dropped first ball). Technique, or attitude, it doesn't really matter. A bit of old-fashioned care would not be out of place - as Cook and Trott have shown us this summer. Yes, you could say that Davidson would get smashed around the park these days - and you'd be wrong. Sure, the batsmen would have their good days but, let's face it, these guys have never really faced good swing bowling very much. Maybe Sachin in his early days when Wasim and his mates were still playing but not for a long time. Unlike Johnson, Davidson could swing the nut at will and put it where he intended - every time. Johnson is not fit to tie Davidson's bootlaces. We applaud Anderson today, and he deserves it, but Davidson was simply a better bowler and absolutely a better batsman. And, like Anderson, a great fieldsman. As for Sobers then I can only say you have no idea. It's like modern fans trying to understand what made Miller great. These two are the greatest all-rounders of all time, in my opinion. Both had a tendency to apply themselves only when it counted and to rest a bit against opposition where there own contribution was not needed as much. Consequently, for these two, figures can lie. Despite that, Sobers still averaged 57.78 in Test cricket. Sobers, in the 1960/61 series, hit two of the great Test centuries against Australia. 132 in the Brisbane tied Test and 168 in Sydney when the Windies won. He also hit the 254 in Melbourne during the Rest of the World series in 1971/72 which Bradman described as the greatest innings he had seen. Of course, I don't think Bradman took into account Sobers form against the Kiwis. Many years ago, the Victorian wicketkeeper, Ray Jordon, expressed a similar view to yours regarding Sobers. He told the South Australians, at least some of them, he thought "Sobey was over-rated". The SA boys couldn't tell Sobers fast enough. The result was a century and nine wickets for the match. Sometimes Sobers, like Miller, just needed a bit of incentive. As for Sobers strike rate I wouldn't know and don't care. Don't forget he bowled in an era when "digging in" was common place and batsmen didn't just throw their wickets away. They had to be got out. Good luck to Johnson in that era, by the way. Sobers took 235 wickets in 93 Tests and he was only ever a first change or later bowler. He bowled quick, and very quick when he wanted to. He could swing it and his bouncer was well aimed. He also bowled various forms of spin when the shine left the ball. Having done all that he scored 8032 Test runs with 26 Test centuries and some even against teams other than Pakistan and India. Don't forget that India also had three or four of the best spinners of all time when Sobers played against them. He also, for quite a while, held the Test record score (365no) and took 109 Test catches. In short, he was a one man team. So if he didn't quite bowl to your lofty standard perhaps he was just a bit tired from all the work. On any level, compared to Sobers, Johnson is a minnow. Further proof of the old saying, "Talent (Johnson) does what it can, genius (Sobers) does what it must!". Sobers, incidentally, spread his Test career over 20 years - good luck chasing that, Johnno. Which brings us to Johnson. In 42 Tests he's scored 1152 runs at 22.15 with one century and six fifties. Now for a number 8 or 9 it's certainly very acceptable. The problem is, that Johnson is capable of more based on his talent but not, it seems, based on his temperament. The recent series showed the problem. Two fifties but only a total of 122 runs for the series (three ducks). If it was a school report it might say, "Could do better". By the way, Brendon, before you say "But he's a bowler and he's tired" I simply refer you to Sobers. Johnson has bowled 9689 in his 42 Tests. Sobers bowled 21599 in his 93 (and still made 8000 runs). On the bowling front Johnson has 181 Test wickets. It is, by any level, a remarkable number of wickets given that he bowls so much unadulterated rubbish. I venture to say, and make no apology for it, that many of his wickets are the result of the modern, professional batting styles which incorporate a sense of adventure with poor technique. I'm also sure that roped in boundaries and elephant gun bats encourage the modern player to swing at cherries they would be well advised to leave alone (for example, refer to Australia's batting this past Ashes series). This more attacking approach also leads to more mistakes so Johnno gets plenty of wickets he would never have got twenty or thirty years ago (with toothpick bats and full size grounds). Many batsmen today average 50 when the "fat and unfit" could only average in the 40s. It is not, however, a reflection of increased ability in the modern batsman. It may suggest today's bowlers are not as good but it may also be a reflection of the weaponry available to the batsman. This, coupled with flatter tracks on the smaller grounds and bowlers, like Johnson, who cannot apply pressure for more than five minutes. Johnson's bowling average is 29.71 which is reasonable by modern standards. Davidson, however, averaged 20.53 for his 186 wickets in 44 Tests (he also scored 1328 runs at 24.59). So Johnson falls a long way behind Davidson given their Test careers (currently) are very similar in games played. Davidson, of course, also bowled in an era when batsmen did not consider it mandatory to commit suicide. Now, I grant you that modern Test cricket can be entertaining even if, compared to days gone by, the standard has dropped. England crushed us recently precisely because they adopted the cricket philosophy of the "fat and unfit". They dug in, they made us bowl to them and they didn't chase rubbish playing "get out" shots. Australia, on the other hand, played your superior "professional" brand of Test cricket and got belted like they've never been belted before. I'm guessing, Brendon, but I think the two approaches led directly to the result. Soooo, is it the players - or the coaches? Certainly our players, after years of domination and treating bowlers with scant respect, now find themselves playing the same way without the pre-requisite ability. A licence to fail and fail they did. What then, were the coaches doing while all this was going on. Apparently, sweet FA. Our batsmen never, with the exception of Hussey, treated the batting as if it were a Test match. Our bowlers still bowled too short, no doubt under the impression they were being intimidating. Siddle took two six fors and 14 wickets in total. It is incomprehensible. Johnson bowled well for half an hour in Perth and got 4/7 in a six wicket haul. Nine for the match, 15 for the series. How so? Outside of Perth he could land the ball in the same suburb as the batsmen. That's not, with the best will in the world, Test match bowling. It is a strange quirk of cricketing nature, I believe, that Johnson get many wickets precisely because the batsmen do not fear him and do not rate him. When he gets them out it is almost always their own fault and their own mistake. Very occasionally, Johnson bowls well for reasons which escape us and absolutely escape him. No matter how well he bowls - and he did for a short spell in Perth - he cannot replicate it on command. The difference, incidentally, between Johnson and Davidson, or Sobers, or indeed, any bowler with claims to Test match status. It is this failure to repeat a good bowling spell which invites criticism for Johnson. In case you are thinking it's just me, I was talking last year to a former Australian captain and I said, "The thing which surprises me about Johnson is that he takes so many wickets and bowls...." "So much crap!" said the ex-skipper, finishing my sentence for me. So who's right, Brendon? Not that it matters. Opinions are entitled to be held by anyone on any topic - at least in this country. Anyone who had only seen that half hour in Perth would think Johnson is simply fantastic. Those who saw Cardiff in 2009 would think he's rubbish. The truth, as is usually the case, is somewhere in between. Is he capable of great things? The answer to that, I think, is "Yes". Does he produce often enough, given his pre-eminent role in the Australian team? The answer to that is "Definitely not!" Really, how Johnson is perceived at the end of his career is up to Johnson. He talks in that advertisement of bowling God knows how many balls in 40 degree heat every day. If it were so, you'd think he'd land them somewhere near the danger zone. He clearly has technique issues wih his ball release and the modern, professional coaches are clearly unable to fix it. Davo and Sobers never had that problem and they never had a coach. They just listened and learned and practised. Personally, I'd be delighted if Johnson suddenly discovered radar and began to threaten all of the time rather than for half an hour every three seasons. I'd also be happy to give him the credit he would deserve in that case. I'd be happy beyond measure if he could bat most (doesn't have to be all) of the time like his ability warrants. Right now, though, he hasn't and he doesn't. Being the key man in the team seems to intimidate Johnson. Sobers thrived on it because he had pride. Johnson has moods! So, Brendon, mate, you may never have seen Sobers play but it would be a mistake to form an opinion on his statistics against New Zealand (and, yes, I agree it does seem an aberration). I did see him play, many times, as I was growing up in Adelaide and he played three seasons for South Australia. I also saw him in two Test series in Australia. I was also fortunate enough to be coached by him on one memorable occasion. Brendon, you are just going to have to take my word for it but, trust me, Sobers could play. If you don't trust my opinion at least read what Bradman had to say about him - although, I warn you DGB was one of the "fat and unfit" so I'm not sure if he's a good reference.

part of the reason why Clarke is too slow is that he has White and DHussey after him - they are all slow. We need freer scorers around him. He was quite positive and consistent the other night, but we cannot afford to have Cam White some in and plod 5 off 22 then get out. It's beyond a joke. As for Johnson - I strongly disagree with the author's comments in the 6th paragraph (!!). If there's one thing Johnson can do, it's bowl brilliant deliveries. When he's on (and has that late in-swing going then the reverse), he's probably the best quick in the world. It's just that he's only on one spell every 5-7 tests. I think maybe he has been overcoached and can't work things out for himself. Maybe he's not that bright. Who knows.

Nice post Vinay. No need to justify the respect for Sobers. I think we all (well most...) acknowledge his place in the game. I think your piece is the way to respond to such a gee up. You actually saw him play!!

Johnson looks far worse as a bowler than he actually is. His overall record batting and bowling is pretty good in all formats. His biggest problem has always been that the bowler he replaced in the Aus 11 was the incredible Glenn McGrath who had a temperament of iron on top of a wonderful action and talent to burn. Johnson can't match him for any of those things. (Though I believe that his biggest problem is his temperament. It's so easy to knock him off form.) But neither can any of the bowlers we've had since. Certainly not Tait, Hilfy, Bolly, Harris, Siddle, George, McKay... It's like comparing that idiotchild, Haddin, with Gilchrist. Only ever going to be one winner there. I'm coming round to Clarke more than I ever have before. Watching the replacements over the sumer for Hussey in the one day team has softened my attitude to Clarke. There does not appear to be much coming through the ranks at present that is of real test match quality and he at least is when he has his shyte together. And he really is a better captain than Punter.

Whiteline,I saw Sobers live in Kolkata in 58-59 and '67. And then in Australia in 1971. His 254 was described by Don Bradman as the greatest innings he had seen. Sobers in his time played against one of the greatest leg spinners in Subhash Gupte....Gupte took 9 for 102 in Kanpur in a match the West Indies won. Sobers got a ton in the second innings.Sobers also played aginst Trueman and Statham. He was a tremendous player of both spin and pace. His footwork was immaculate to the slow men. He played off the front and backfoot. His fielding was electric..in slips or the covers. he had a rocket arm. He bowled fast-medium,left arm orthodox and wrist. I also saw him keep wicket in a Test. A cricketer for the ages.and indiputably the greatest cricketer to have played the game. This is not my personal opinion. A man I respect immensely, Richie Benaud,would endorse this. It is not necessary to get fired up about this. In fact,I am quite calm about it.

That will surely fire up the Sobers fans - look forward to it!