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.
Dan Ced
Guest
Before the South Africa Test series here I wanted Warner and Wade out of the Test arena, I was very sure they were both purely suited to short form and were a liability in the 5 day format. Warner has changed my mind in the last 2 series. His job is the blast the sugar out of the new ball and get out for 50 odd and he has been doing that. Johnson is an older looser version of Starc, they are both strike bowlers that take a bit of a hiding but get wickets. I do see logic in having Johnson as a backup for Starc but playing them in the same game (after the Johnson allrounder experiment failed this test) from now on would be RIDICULOUS. The fact Johnson is in the ODI team is painful, but again he is the "Starc backup" as the Pattinsons/Cummins etc are injured. It's tricky. I really dislike him as a player but it's slim pickings in the fit strike bowler area.
nick
Guest
probably the first three lines of the chant are the reasons not to pick him. He'll slip back into his old ways again, theres no doubt about that. Theres too many young players that haven't had a chance to be appalling at international level yet, at least give them a go before picking a fella who, at best, is mercurial, and at worst is downright dangerous to your chances of winning a test.
Westman
Guest
What a load of calculated cobblers. Lemon, good choice of name, suggests that Johnston's going well is not in Australia's best interest. I fail to see any logic or sound reasoning to support this crazy theory.
langou
Roar Guru
In fairness there is nothing cheap about taking wickets against Sri Lanka Scoring runs, maybe as their bowling in not great but coming into the series they had and still have a decent batting line up
Justin2
Guest
The point is we dont see his best often enough.
Bakkies
Guest
Brett, pace bowlers rely on speed or accuracy. When they get older if they don't have the speed their career has to either go or redefine itself. Walsh, McGrath, Akram could rely on accuracy or skill as they didn't need to blast out batsmen when they were younger. Blokes like Waqar, Lee, Gillespie, Tait, Johnson were all speedsters in their youth rather then swing, line and length bowlers who had perfect pitch maps. Sure Lee and Waqar could reverse swing at extreme pace in their youth but became predictable when they lost pace. Whereas with batsmen it's a concentration and form thing, bowlers it's to do with skill levels and the body. Johnson reminds me of Steve Harmison (probably the only thing that Johnson has over Harmison is his passion for the game) deadly when pitching up and swinging it at pace or scatter gun when not focussed or at the races. Johnson would have done well under McDermott's theory of pitching it up and swinging it which he did at Perth against England. When he was spraying it he banged it in short of a length off line. What impressed me from the highlights from Melbourne was that the Aussie bowlers were back bowling the right lengths to make the batsmen play. Bird got several edges by making the batsmen play. A McGrath like bowler is crucial to a spinner or a Johnson type bowler as they tie down the runs.
Brendon
Guest
I was saying last test match how a big bushy moustache would look great on MJ, not to mention the wonders it would do for his form and consistency, betchya the Aussie public wouldn't be so down on him then, he's be a cult hero.
Brendon
Guest
Bit rough, it's Geoff's opinion and one many share, so rant away guru, but people are allowed to express their views. I agree Geoff, we don't wish to see him fail, but we are scared that he's had a couple of decent tests and that's him back in the team on a permanent basis again. Perhaps it's not MJ that worries us but the NSP's determination to slot him back into the team and reluctance to drop him, it's not like it hasn't happened before
Brendon
Guest
Please clarify "earnt his spot"....how?
lou
Guest
If Watson was there to cover for Johnson, which made Hughes the fall guy, how come Watson hardly bowled in the Ashes 2009? Hughes was dropped as they wanted Watson in period. Johnson was peripheral to this. I mean seriously, how often is a batsman dropped due to a bowler having difficulties? First time I've ever heard of it happening. Bowlers get blamed/ dumped all the time if the team is failing because of batsmen but it just doesn't happen the other way round.
Johnno
Guest
Is Mitchell Johnson's, Australia's version of Devon Malcom and Patrick Patterson, guys who could rip through a team at anytime, but also cost a game at the same time.
Junior
Roar Guru
Geoff Using your same line of argument, Pulitzer Cowan should be the first one out. He promises a bit, talks about himself a lot and delivers very little. Him being in the team at the expense of a younger and better batsmen is going to cost us in India and England. How many times does he have to score 34 before the selectors work out the team's better off without him? And now there's talk of making him captain if Pup misses Sydney. That's all we need. A very average player getting even more entrenched in the Test team.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Except that Matt Hayden was reselected at 29 and a batsman, plus there was never a suggestion of mental fragility, just poor form. Johnson's problem is that he appeared to break down mentally, as opposed to simply losing form and therefore it assumed to be a lifetime weakness that can't be overcome. The other thing is it is rare for a person to be regular pick for four straight years, then be dropped and make a good stint of it again. Guys like Hayden, Marto and Langer had a few goes for small stages in their 20s before making the most of a long run in their 30s, different to Johnson getting a long consistent run from 26 to 30.
Will
Guest
I share Geoff's concerns about Johnson, but I think the main problem with his last failures is that the selectors persisted in choosing him every match anyway, in the hope that he would finally snap out of it and produce the match winning performance we know he is capable of. Of course it's now clear that when Johnson loses it and goes from unplayable to awful, he needs to be out of the team immediately. It might turn out that the new paradigm of the rotation policy, combined with a squad of 4 or 5 genuinely selectable Australian quicks means that we can play Johnson and drop him as soon as he has a bad test, confident that his replacement can come in and do the job.
Disco
Roar Guru
Well, he basically finds himself in the Australian side whenever he's fit, regardless of form or past horrors at Test level. Many people scoffed when I said at the start of the summer that Johnson would be recalled, but it was inevitable.
Rhys
Guest
Sheek, I recall Geoff Dymock playing around the time I started watching Test cricket in the late 70s. There were a few more in the bearded brigade back then - Dymock, Tom Hogan, and Mick Malone to name a few, and G. Chappell was sporting one for a while. Not to mention the moustacheod players, who more or less made up the balance of both World Series and establishment teams. Maybe Mitch needs to put away the Remington for a few months.
sheek
Roar Guru
Of course, I'm fascinated with how the rotation policy will work. None of the Aussie bowlers were extended in Melbourne, so will someone make way purely for the justification of the exercise? I think the selectors have backed themselves into a corner. They would most probably like to play Starc, but who do they justify in "resting?"
sheek
Roar Guru
I do recall the case of Geoff Dymock, a more than useful leftarm swing bowler who played on & off for Australia between 1973 & 1980 in 21 tests. As WSC was winding down its last days in 1979, Dymock starred for Australia in India, taking 24 wickets in five tests. At the age of 34 & with the WSC stars returning, Dymock wasn't expected to play a major role in the domestic tests against Windies & England. He was duly omitted from the opening test side to no-one's surprise, probably not even his own. But lo & behold, an injury to Thomson saw him recalled & he even out bowled Lillee to finish with 28 wickets in 5 home tests. I guess the moral to the story is that there are always exceptions to the rule. Whether Mitchell Johnson can find the consistency at age 31 that has so far eluded him, remains to be seen.
BennO
Guest
Brett McKay seems to be one of the few who can think rationally about this. I dips me lid to you sir. Johnson played bloody well and deserves his spot. He's one of the few bowlers we have who can strike a bit of fear into a batsman. If he's playing well against the opposition, and he can only bowl to the team he's playing, then he deserves the benefit of the doubt. The alternative logic would have meant we'd never have seen Matt hayden return, or for that matter Michael Clarke.
Abby
Guest
It took the selectors way too long to drop him last time despite his poor form. It cost us games, simple. I fear the same will happen again this time if he loses form because of his flashes of brilliance that are all too few and far between. Give me a consistent player any day.