- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
As Mitchell Johnson turned in his man-of-the-match performance against Sri Lanka, I couldn’t help thinking it might be the worst possible result for the Australian team.
Not that I bear any ill-will to Johnson. He seems a decent chap and a likeable cricketer, all smiles on the field and unfailingly polite any time he crushes an unfortunate batsman’s fingers into cookie dough.
After some of his travails in Test matches, it was nice to see him back again, playing his carefree brand of cricket and playing it well.
Johnson took six wickets in the match at 13 runs apiece, and caused two injuries that were worth two wickets more. He opened the bowling in both innings, his dive onto the stumps caused the opening run-out in the second, and his one chance to bat saw him stranded just short of a century, after an innings of admirable control.
It was unquestionably a man-of-the-match performance. But the question remains as to whether it was in Australia’s interests for that to happen.
The problem is that his performance now makes Johnson difficult to drop for the next Test in Sydney. If he racks up impressive numbers there, he’ll be harder still to cull. But with tours of India and England as the next assignments, having Johnson in the team could be less blessing than curse.
Home form against Sri Lanka doesn’t mean much in the face of the two toughest tours in international cricket. With the exception of a couple of Indian visits, subcontinental teams touring Australia tend to struggle, especially the batsmen.
Yes, Johnson’s game was good, but the same result would probably have been achieved with any other bowler. Perhaps Australia’s first-innings lead would have been closer to 200 than 300, and perhaps Sri Lanka would have compiled a few more runs. But there’s nothing to say that Johnson was the catalyst for their defeat, rather than being in the right place at the right time to cash in.
So why wouldn’t Australia want such a dangerous player? Simply enough, the erratic nature of his talents make him as dangerous to his own side. Johnson may flourish against Sri Lanka, but that means nothing next time he steps onto the park.
Just as Marcus North would follow each reprieving century with a string of single-figure scores, Johnson’s long stint in Tests saw him become a specialist at doing just enough to stay in the team. His good days, when they came, were magnificent. In between times, his many bad days cost Australia games and series.
In Johnson’s place, we have selectable bowlers with much greater consistency. Jackson Bird, based on his Shield form and first Test, looks metronomic. Ben Hilfenhaus, James Pattinson, and Ryan Harris could well be fit to tour. Even the young Mitchell Starc has proved less scattergun than Johnson.
Some have argued that Johnson should accommodate five bowlers by batting at No. 7, and that he’s on the verge of becoming an all-rounder. But smashing a weak Sri Lankan attack in a home Test after a thorough demoralisation and the loss of their opening bowler isn’t necessarily indicative of batting greatness.
The same argument comes every time Johnson scores well. Yes, his best is wonderful, and his top three innings were all left high and dry – 123*, 96*, and 92*. Had he received a little more support, he would likely have more Test centuries than Shane Watson.
But the fact remains that only eight of Johnson’s 72 Test innings have passed 50, while 37 have resulted in single figures.
Nor is his past form – whether batting or bowling – encouraging for the challenges that lie ahead. Johnson’s batting drops to 14.22 for Tests in India compared to 24.25 for Tests outside it, while his bowling average jumps from 29.87 outside India to 37.23 while there.
As for England, his batting average is 17.46 against them as opposed to 24.20 against all other opposition. His bowling average is 34.42, against 29.84.
More important than figures is the fact that the English have no fear of Johnson. Barring his day out against them in Perth last tour, England’s batsmen have managed him with relative ease. On days when he has been dominated, his confidence has quickly dropped and his form has drained away. He has become expensive and unthreatening.
It’s worth considering the old mantra of doing what your opponents would least prefer. In Hobart, a Tasmanian-dwelling English couple sent the ABC commentary team a cake. “Looking forward to the Ashes,” the note ended. “PS: Please bring Phil Hughes and Mitchell Johnson.” The English batsmen would be just as happy to see an Australian team arriving with Johnson as its spearhead.
Australia cannot risk a repeat performance of his last Ashes tour. As charismatic and attractive a cricketer as Johnson is, he can’t be trusted. These home Tests should be going to bowlers like Starc and Bird, to better prepare them for the challenges that lie ahead.
Australia’s priority must be winning the Indian and Ashes series. It would be folly to resume believing that Mitchell Johnson is the man to help them do it.