He bowls to the left and he bowls to the right, Mitchell Johnson, his bowling is… deserving of a Test recall? The Poms will be laughing themselves silly when the news reaches their shores.
Johnson is currently placed 10th in the Sheffield Shield with 17 wickets at 29.00 apiece. He has flattered the National Selection Panel (NSP) so much so that they’ve rewarded him with selection in the third Test squad.
Some will point to Johnson’s record at the WACA as cause for his inclusion. But a similar argument was used to justify his place when he was struggling ahead of going to South Africa last year.
He had a good record against the Safas away from home yet, when there, lacked any penetration. Many let off a huge sigh of relief when he was injured and forcefully prevented from playing any further part for the Test side.
Ironically, the NSP cited Shield form as the main prerequisite for a test call-up when Rob Quiney was picked for the first Test. Maybe after seeing how well his Test career turned out they’ve abandoned such an approach?
Pity that, because Tasmanian quick Jackson Bird has put forward the least ignorable case a Shield player has composed in years.
Form and/or proven consistent performances at this level must be the main focus when deciding which players deserve a spot in Australia’s Test side.
Bird’s 26 wickets this season have come at less than 20 runs apiece and he was the surprise leading wicket taker last season with 48 scalps at 15.75. On top of that, he was voted player-of-the-year for 2011/12 by his fellow players.
How is his exclusion being justified? Put simply, no justification has been put forward.
This is the perfect example of a player who has done everything he should need to. But the school girls at the NSP table are too busy playing favourites with Mitch because he might be tall, dark and handsome. They aren’t concerned by his form, temperament or record.
Most would agree quite rightfully that New South Welshman, Mitchell Starc, should be next cab off the rank. He has travelled with the side for the past 12-18 months and developed into a genuine international quality bowler.
Surely Bird should then slot in behind him in the pecking order. However Johnson, along with unproven young fast bowler Josh Hazelwood and Victorian medium pacer John Hastings (at least his statistics are good) seem to have jumped the queue.
It could easily be argued that Queensland spearhead Ben Cutting should be ahead of that lot too. His 17 wickets may parody the tally of Johnson, but have come at an average of just 18.11, not to mention 280 runs with the bat at 40.00.
Cutting was on the brink of earning his Baggy Green last summer, but injury struck and he’s been forgotten since. Cutting must also be thinking what it must take to get a game.
To select Johnson would be a massive step backwards for a side on the way up. Our strength lies in a battery of young, exciting fast bowlers. We already have the reliable old heads in Peter Siddle and, to a lesser extent, Ben Hilfenhaus.
If Johnson were to be asked at a press conference, “Do you believe you are the most deserving person of this place in the squad?” could he honestly say yes?
Apparently he’s back near his best. Johnson took 4-103 in the first innings of the current fixture between Tasmania and Western Australia, which was used as evidence that he deserves a recall.
But tellingly, in the same match, Jackson Bird took a casual 6-25 – his sixth five-wicket-haul in just 17 first class appearances.
Just over a year ago I was relieved, Johnson’s Test career seemed over, with a mutual approving chorus from supporters. It was agreed that he should never be allowed near the Australian Test side again.
How wrong we were, and how wrong are the NSP going to be proved if they select him in the final XI?
Johnson doesn’t deserve his fast-tracked return. He has not proven himself to be Test quality again. He hasn’t had the big hauls, he hasn’t torn though every batting line-up.
He’s essentially slotted into state cricket as a mediocre, run-of-the-mill bowler, who has done nothing to impress me or the wider Australian public.
There are plenty of other contenders for his place, many of whom are far more justified and, if common sense prevails, it should be them that are earning the call up.
But as the old proverb goes: common sense isn’t all that common.
Shahid
Guest
I agree if peter siddle is not available for 3rd test then Ben Cutting is a better option for playing. In this season he has proven himself a dangerous allrounder in first class cricket. Women like johnson and are main cause of johnson's inclusion. The selection panel should select any player on its performance not on beauty because Australia is most beautiful than everything and there is nothing like Australia. In Brisbane test and Adelaid test australian top order failed but iron man clarke accumulated a lot of runs and Australia dominated south africa. Ponting and Cowan will have to show performance in Perth test. If Cowan can't perform then Selection panel should select Philip Hughes against Sri Lanka instead of Edward Cowan. Hughes is better than Cowan according to statistics. He is dominating on runs list in this season.
Shahid
Guest
I agree if peter siddle is not available for 3rd test then Ben Cutting is a better option for playing. In this season he has proven himself a dangerous allrounder in first class cricket. Women like johnson and are main cause of johnson's inclusion. The selection panel should select any player on its performance not on beauty. In Brisbane test and Adelaid test australian top order failed but iron man clarke accumulated a lot of runs and Australia dominated south africa. Ponting and Cowan will have to show performance in Perth test. If Cowan can't perform then Selection panel should select Philip Hughes against Sri Lanka instead of Edward Cowan. Hughes is better than Cowan according to statistics. He is dominating on runs list in this season.
Carnivean
Guest
Johnson should have been given the same "Never to Return" stamp as Katich was given the first time around. That is to say that if he was blitzing the shield for a couple of years, then all would be forgiven, but unless he was outstanding, he would never return. Katich responded by blitzing the shield for a couple of years and got a recall. Johnson kind of bowled well and has been given a squad selection. Noone doubts that Johnson's best is good enough. It has always been the problem that you can't rely on his best being available, and that he destroys the pressure that other bowlers are building. Despite bowling well, those problems are still there. That being said, I can see why they have chosen Johnson and Hastings as backups. Both of them have been part of the Australian team in the last couple of years. They are familiar with what is required. A new bowler will probably be blooded in a different context. If they need a bowler for a single game (while Siddle recovers) then one of those 2 would be easier to prepare, as would Starc. I highly doubt that Johnson is considered the next best prospect. Hazlewood is a much better long term investment, but would be better to put in against Sri Lanka for his debut. South Africa in Perth is a fearsome prospect for a debut.
jameswm
Guest
I agree, he had to go back to Shield cricket and prove himself again. He's been given the saloon passage past Bird, Faulkner, Butterworth, Cutting etc.
Red Kev
Guest
I'm happy to give Al McDermott a couple more years to find an extra yard of pace before pushing him into test cricket. I think he can be a 140kph bowler, he just isn't that fast yet.
Deccas
Guest
Both starc and hazlewood are the same age as ali mcdermott and their first class figures aren't even close to stacking up to his. The selection panel have been dogging australian cricket for the ebst part of a decade
Max
Guest
Spot on. I'm sick of the NSP just trying to help players whom have succumbed to an injury because they feel they were "forced" out and should be brought back in. Put simply, the only people who care about Johnson is women, mainly because they don't know what "erratic" and "bowling" mean when put together in a sentence.
The Kebab Connoisseur
Guest
Didn't even realise Johnson was still playing. Has he actually been taking any wickets at Shield level? They should have bunged in Putland from SA. He was swinging it miles over the weekend for the Croweaters.
Matt F
Roar Guru
I agree, line and length (with a hint of movement) are more important than raw pace, though Copeland is more around 120kph. The general consensus seems to be that a fast bowler needs to be at least around 130kph. I think you're a little bit harsh on Cutting. I've never seen him leak that many runs, though admittedly it's difficult to be able to watch too much Shield cricket. He is a fraction more expensive than some other bowlers but he's a wicket taker and an economy rate of 3.40 isn't too bad. He's a quite poor one-day and T20 bowler. He's not the first player to be very good at only one format. Bird should definitely be ahead of him at this stage though
jameswm
Guest
No and he's had a string of games with no injury worries. Can't work out what he has to do to get picked. Maybe he's too old-fashioned a bowler.
jameswm
Guest
One thing has barely been touched on in the "will he won't he play?" debate on Johnson. That is, Mitchell Starc seems a certainty. Do we want two left-armers who move the ball the same way in the same attack? If Starc's in first, does that count Johnson out? Or is it vice versa? I think if Sids and Hilfy play, they will play Starc and probably one more quick. If you have Watson, you don't need Hastings. So that leaves it a choice between Hazlewood and Johnson. I'd have leaned towards this attack: Siddle Starc Bird prob Hilfy if OK, but I'm not convinced he's bowling that well.
Red Kev
Guest
See I can't understand that. Hilfenhaus doesn't have express pace, 130-135kph is all that is needed is you can bowl a good line and length and then either have bounce or movement off the seam or swing (or all three if you're Dale Steyn). Cutting's omission I can understand even as a Queenslander, he often leaks runs - and while Johnson does too, he also has express pace which Cutting doesn't. Bird's omission is the one I really can't get my head around.
Matt F
Roar Guru
Bird's 25 so I wouldn't think that age has too muck to do with it. Perhaps it's a bit like Trent Copeland in that they see Bird as missing something that's needed at test level (Copeland's was a lack of pace.) Copeland eventually forced his way into the side based on sheer weight of numbers but didn't last long
Rhys
Guest
Just a theory, but with both Pattinson and Cummins succumbing to long term injuries again this summer, maybe the NSP is a little gun shy about introducing another young quick (Bird), and have opted for what they see as a safer option. I don't agree with their reasoning if that's the case, but it's the best explanation I can come up with as why they've gone back to the Illustrated Man.
Denby
Roar Rookie
It seems like a wasted oppertunity. the Ashes are round the corner and we have a few young talented bowlers we can test against the worlds best. We already know what Johnson can do. He is excellent on his day but they are few and far between. If he is the best going around then by all means select him but at the moment it seems like short signtedness by the selectors. It is not like he is the past his prime senior leader who will shoulder some of the responsibility if Siddle is out, he is the loose bowling, inconsistent talent who never quite lived up to his potential.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
I wasn't, and am not, so much in the "never again" camp; but believe he had to go back to beong treated as though he was a new bowler on the scene. Some leeway can be given to proven players who hit a slump, if they show form they can be quickly reacalled and they don't necessarily need to be the best performed. Johnson had one good series four years ago, and two good Test matches in the intervening time (maybe four or five across all first class games). To be selected his proof of form should be as high as it is for an unproven player, as that is what he is. Clearly the selection panel have not gone down that path, one wonders if the captain and coach being selectors have led to this. He is clearly matey with Clarke, and Mickey Arthur was on the wrong end of Johnson's one good series.
saryl
Guest
Agree, Bird and Cutting definately should have been given a chance before going back to Johnson. However, everyone seems to remember Johnson at his worst, not at his best, and so whilst i don't necessarily agree with his selection, if he comes out and delivers one of his better bowling performances it will be a selection masterstroke.
rsingi
Roar Rookie
Great article. I agree with all of it. Should Johnson play I Think the Porteas will be happy as whilst he can take wickets he tends to leak runs and release pressure. I agree that Bird and Cutting should be ahead of him. Cutting offers some hard hitting in the lower order as well as wicket taking. If he plays it will be an astionishing selection.
Matt F
Roar Guru
While I did think that MJ was gone I wasn't one of those people who was saying never pick MJ again. If we was dominating Shield cricket then of course he would deserve a recall but I just can't see how his selection can be justified when you compare his numbers to those of Bird, Cutting, Butterworth etc. While it is clear that he's in better touch than he was 12+ months ago, his numbers aren't enough to get a test recall. They're decent but hardly outstanding, especially when compared to his rivals. I'd make the same arguement re Hazelwood's selection as well but all of the articles seem to be about MJ :)
Col
Guest
They have to pick the blokes they've invested the $$ in before considering anyone else, regardless of form. Selectors use stats when it suits them, always have always will.