Let’s get something straight. The Australian cricket team has not won six of its past seven Test matches, Mitchell Johnson has.
As we know, since his recall for the first Ashes Test at the Gabba, Mitch Johnson has been a one-man wrecking ball of the likes rarely seen at Test level, if ever.
While his complete dominance has been lauded by all as a key factor in the Australian revival, we must now accept it has almost been the sole reason.
Obviously other players have contributed along the way, importantly so at times, but even they have only been afforded the luxury of doing so with their side at an advantage.
Brad Haddin is the only player about whom this would be doing a disservice, as his batting in dire situations has been truly masterful.
At Port Elizabeth last week, for the first time since his return, Mitch was subdued, and unable to have the impact of his previous six Test matches.
Let’s not forget, Mitch was nowhere to be seen during the 3-0 series loss in England, and was only part of one match during the 4-0 drubbing in India, and was completely ineffectual at that.
In the current set-up, when playing against what should be comparable opposition, the equation is simple – no impact from Mitch equals no Test victory for Australia.
Ironically enough, Johnson kick-started his sterling summer with the bat in Brisbane, his 64 runs in a partnership of 114 with Haddin turning the match from England’s way to Australia’s.
He was then able to follow up with the ball, either roughing up the opposition batsmen or getting them out, often both.
It wasn’t the Australian side that sent Jonathan Trottback to England, a slave to mental anguish and tormented by inner demons, it was Mitch Johnson.
Trott was obviously not in ‘a good head space’ going into the series, but the physical assault from Mitch, followed by the mental assault from the Aussie fieldsmen, emboldened by Johnson’s ferocity and match-winning exploits, was too much for him to bear.
Australia might still have won the first Test without Mitch Johnson, but it’s hard to imagine the psychological damage would have been seared into the England line-up the way it was.
What may have been festering sores became gaping wounds once he destroyed them with 7/40 in the first innings in Adelaide, on his way to collecting a second consecutive man of the match award.
Next up was Perth, where Johnson was bringing an imposing record to the venue, having taken 36 opposition wickets at a tick under 20, and terrorised many more of them besides.
By now the die was cast, and there wasn’t a cricket follower in the world who thought England could win that match or salvage the series.
So it was in theory and so it was in fact, albeit with the entire bowling team sharing the load, allowed to enjoy the spoils of the now Mitchified batting order.
Melbourne was next, accompanied by another man of the match award, and by Sydney, my wife and I could have bowled England out such was the rabble they were.
The series win was sparked by Mitch, shaped by Mitch, and dominated by Mitch. He set the tone of terror, continued the calamity, and fractured the England psyche to fragility.
The first Test in South Africa was more of the same.
Yes, Shaun Marsh was able to pull out the innings of his life, which he seems to do once every few years in between his many failures. But batsmen don’t win you games, bowlers do, and Johnson once again produced the most thrilling display imaginable in tearing the game apart.
South Africa are made of sterner stuff than England though, and were able to subdue the influence of Mitch.
After 49 wickets through the first six Tests of the summer, he was held to a mere three at Port Elizabeth, half of his worst result prior. Under no circumstances a coincidence, Australia were pummelled.
Cricket is a team game, but one of the most individual there is. Of course it is 11 on 11 overall, but at the moment of truth it is very much a one-on-one game.
I understand that saying Mitch Johnson has been the sole reason for Australia’s dominance is somewhat hyperbolic, but the overall point is sound.
Of course, Chris Rogers, Steve Smith and others have made valuable runs from time to time, but the overall frailties of the Australian batting line-up have been obfuscated by Mitch’s powerhouse performances.
Only two batsmen in any given innings tend to perform above average and score significantly. Seldom have they gelled as a unit.
Ryan Harris is a world class bowler as tough as they come and Peter Siddle is a canny and tireless workhorse that has struggled for bags of wickets throughout the summer, but has often provided the important breakthrough. At times, both have appeared to lack a little rhythm when bowling in Johnson’s shadow.
Nathan Lyon is the perfect off-spin bowler for a dominant fast men attack. Sure, he’ll take 5/130 from time to time when no-one else can get wickets, and is capable of control enough to capitalise on batsmen who target him as the weak link, but there is a reason he’s struggled to win matches on the last day or take second innings wickets.
The current Australian cricket team, for all of the positives gained over the last six months, is yet to prove it can win when unable to rely on Mitch the Magnificent and the fall-out that ensues from his brilliance.
The third and deciding Test against South Africa starts on Saturday. If Johnson doesn’t fire, it’s highly doubtful Australia can win. If he does, they will.
That’s what is in front of us.
Mitch Moore
Roar Rookie
Australia are capable of winning a game without him. Australia have great depth in there quicks and at times there batting is ok. Australia have always struggled with batting. For a test series there is always an opener who doesn't perform quite well and its always Haddin or Clarker, or even Smith saving the Aussie's by posting a big score. Johnson comes into the frame by bowling excellently and getting quick wickets. This obviously only lowers the run chase for the opening batsmen. Australia can't rely on Johnson to fire otherwise there run chase is going to be a difficult one. Saying that other bowlers have come into test matches with momentum that has won Australia games. Peter Siddle was amazing 2 or 3 years ago for the Aussie's. There is a variety of young talent coming through that Australia need to bring to there test match side if they want to build there team so it doesnt crumble because to many cricketers retire at once.
Old timer
Guest
Gee Cameron I think you maybe getting a little carried away there, the Australian cricket team can win with or without Johnson. As far as batsmen can't win games is concerned I don't know what your on but, if any bowler gets 10 wickets for 90 and the batsmen only get 85 trust me you loose the game. The game is based on the proposition of scoring the most runs, not the most wickets you can only get 10 wickets what matters is how many runs are scored while you are getting those wickets. While I do agree with you, Johnson is in a purple patch and probably was the difference against the poms, but I wonder if his record would have been the same if their batsmen would have been in form, where was he in 2013, 2012 etc. The other thing that irritates me is the stupid bloody commentators waffling on about Johnson's blinding speed, he bowls at 143 - 146 tops, there are other bowlers past & present that can equal or exceed that speed. I think we should all settle down and see what happens against batsmen that are in form, that can play fast bowling, just as an aside how is Mitchel going in the domestic comp is he getting the same figures?
abigail
Guest
It will be interesting to see if Morkel can reproduce the form he found in the second test. A bit like the Mitch Johnson of old, he has always had the talent, pace and bounce to worry opposition sides but has rarely had the consistancy. We've certainly been treated to a wonderful exhibition of fast bowling skills in the first two tests, looking forward to more of the same on display in the third test.
RPollock
Guest
Bit off topic but from memory Johnson has got Graeme Smith in all 4 innings for single digits. Seems once he scuttles Smith takes the foot off the pedal.
AlanKC
Guest
I though we'd have learned the lesson from Dean Jones winding up Curtley Ambrose all those years ago - let sleeping dogs lie.
South Africa were very poor at Centurion, they were poor in the first test against Pakistan last year and poor against India in the first test in December, there must be a reason for it. It needs fixing
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Wasn't that depressing to hear, though not at all suprising. I suspect Clarke is the same. It's kill or be killed.
jason8
Guest
No its just that Newlands is a bit two faced... you never quite know whos side its on ! Day one can be zippy and get movement and by day 4 you might as well be on the subcontinent... something for everyone.
jason8
Guest
I think the real difference is now SA is applying themselves whereas they were complacent in Centurion... They now know that they will have to wear a few to face johnson effectively and generally let his short spells go by as he does not bowl lengthy doses. SA bowlers are also applying themselves too... i expect Philander to be particularly tricky on day one at Newlands and lord help anyone who has to face Morkel if he gets worked up again - its just a pity he's so damn nice ! ( i might have to go and key his car on day one at Newlands) - it was he who was the real breakthrough bowler at PE, putting huge amounts of pressure on the Aussie batsmen.
Bearfax
Guest
Overall Warner has an average of 38.1 on first innings and 51.4 on second innings. However he had three not out scores in the second innings and none in the first innings. In 30 first innings scores he hit the century twice and 50 seven times not counting the centuries. In 24 second innings he has scored four centuries and four fifties. So there is a disparity though I think you'll find most openers have better second innings averages than first innings because they are facing the full brunt of fresh opposition bowers in the first innings. He has played 54 innings for 6 centuries and 11 fifties, which are pretty good conversion rates for an opening batsman. Further I doubt that there is an opener who has played for Australia since Hayden and Langer who have averages as good as Warner.
Brendon the 1st
Guest
I don't necessarily agree with this. Let's say Clarke, Warner and Smith fire in the same innings which is looking like it will happen at some stage, Australia would be very hard to beat in that match, the bowling unit is still a good solid one, despite one test on a dead wicket, Nathan Lyon got a five for last game, he's no mug and neither are Harris or Siddle. Remember we're playing the number one test team in the world, no need for panic or grand sweeping statements just yet.
Pom in Oz
Roar Guru
I'd have to say that if teams batting first risk collapsing to <100, there's something wrong with the pitch! I'd even go so far as to say that it suggests it's not a Test Match rated cricket pitch. Although, I'm sure the ICC would be satisfied, based on the number of games that have been played there.
PominOz, I agree, it will be up to Mitch, however I think Australia will come to the same conclusion as this article, and that will most likely mean the other bowlers will front up and take more responsibility. I think this game is not a foregone conclusion. The danger of batting first at Newlands is you can have a major collapse and be all out for 100, that puts the team batting second under no pressure at all.
Clavers
Guest
The lyrics have been updated: He breaks your left arm He breaks your right Pommies* all in hospital Feeling like sh**e * Substitite Saffers, Pakis, Windies, Kiwis etc as appropriate.
Pom in Oz
Roar Guru
Interesting stats, biltongbek. However, I really think SA now have the momentum. As the premise of the article states, "If Mitch doesn't fire, Australia doesn't win". I too, believe that to be the case. Cricket, like many sports, is a confidence game and I wonder how confident MJ is feeling right now. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the Aussie team as a whole weren't pervaded with a little diffidence...
AdamS
Roar Guru
Averages are all well and good, but in the question of value you need to look at when and how those scores occurred int he context of the match. Each batsman in the order has a specific job to do and is expected to do it consistently if the team is to be successful. Warner averages about 35 in first innings digs, and while the soft second innings big totals are nice, they were largely made against sides who knew they had already lost the test, or at least were under enormous pressure.. It's a bit like the freedom Gilchrist had to come in late and blast sixes. He rarely won a test with the bat but was often memorably responsible for how much it was won by. In the Ashes the only first innings that looked like it wasn't knocked up by a bunch of drunken Irish backpackers was Adelaide. That Haddin was in the running for man of the series for his innings saving batting is proof enough of how poorly we batted. And all that was done against a team with only one in form bowler and a clueless Captain. In PE we batted abysmally on a pitch the Saffas made look easy, in both innings. The only consistancy in our batting there was consistently poor. Identically poor in the case of Doolan and Marsh. Clarke is in the slump of his life, no doubt helped along by the fact that he must be tired of coming in at 4/100.
Simoc, SA has a better record at Newlands batting second than batting first. they have played 26 matches since re admission, batting first they have won 6, drew 4 and lost 3 batting second they have won 12 and drew one. All three those losses were against Australia batting first.
Simoc
Guest
We are lucky of course to have Dave Warner to motivate the South African pacemen for the next test. I doubt he'll be seeing any reverse swing, but a spare helmet or two will be handy. If Morkel and Steyn ark up our batsmen are in serious strife. It should be excellent viewing for the blood thirsty creatures out here (like me). I think Johnston will as well so an early result is on. It seems batting first is the way to go so win the toss, put up 400 runs and I fancy your chances. A good time to win the toss.
Bearfax
Guest
A little unfair on a couple of our batsmen. Sure there have been some who have not produced the goods lately including Clarke. But Since the beginning of the Ashes tour of England Warner has been scoring several centuries and is averaging 61.6, hardly a failure. Smith has also scored several centuries since that time and has averaged over that period 41.1. So some batsmen are producing the goods but not enough of them.
Cameron Rose
Expert
I see what you're saying Adam, and they can certainly influence the result, but with Mitch firing, the opposition batting second hasn't had a chance to put together a comparative total. Then Warner takes the game away in the second innings. As you say, our batting is so very thin, and still completely unreliable.