Australia Need Johnson to Win Ashes
Statistics Prove Struggling Fast Bowler is Still a Wicket Taker
Many critics are calling for Mitchell Johnson to be left out of the third Ashes Test match to be played in Edgbaston from Wednesday, and indeed the rest of the all-important series against England. But for all of Johnson's recent troubles - of which there have been many - one significant fact remains vital: Johnson is a wicket-taker. Not in the sense that he simply can take wickets, but in the sense that he does. Often - even when he's well below his best.
Ahead of Flintoff and Siddle in Terms of Statistics
Statistics obtained from Cricket Info tell the story, revealing that although Australia's spearhead has been wayward and costly, he is till doing damage where it counts - on the scoreboard. Johnson has eight wickets in the series to date at an average of 41. That is just one wicket behind the leading wicket-takers in Ben Hilfenhaus and Nathan Hauritz who have both been lauded for their strong, and to some surprising, performances with the ball. It also one more breakthrough than English talisman Andrew Flintoff, whose efforts won him man-of-the-match honours in the second Test at Lord's, and more than any bowler in the England team.
Admittedly Johnson has looked all over the place. His arm is low, his seam position poor, and the only thing consistent about his bowling is its inconsistency. He is conceding exactly 4 runs per over - costly when compared to other bowlers from both sides. Not, however, when compared to Peter Siddle. Siddle has received praise for his efforts thus far and and does no appear to be in danger of losing his position. And yet he has leaked 3.88 runs per over, only slightly less than Johnson. Combine that with his tally of seven wickets and it suddenly becomes clear that the biggest difference between the two Aussie quicks is the perception of their results rather than the results themselves.
Hard to Drop Bowlers That Take Vital Wickets
Australia trail 1-0 with three Tests to play and need to take twenty wickets for a series-leveling victory. Johnson is capable of snaring a large of haul of them, no matter how rapidly the numbers climb in his 'runs' column. For a long time Australian captain Ricky Ponting has been happy to let Brett Lee loose in the pursuit of wickets at any cost. On many occasions that cost was high. There is no substitute, though, for men back in the pavillion. If Johnson is the new Lee, does he not deserve the same latitude?
Often the saviour of the bowler, and curse of the life of a batsman, is the fact that it only takes one good ball to get a man out. Johnson is the perfect example of this. At Lord's he looked all at sea in the first innings as England's openers, Alistair Cook and Andrew Strauss, piled on 196 runs and looked set to take the game out of Australia's hands on the opening day. It was Johnson who broke the partnership, trapping Cook with one that thudded into his pads. It was crucial. Hilfenhaus has been exceptional, Hauritz steady, and Siddle patchy. Undoubtedly Johnson has been the most disappointing, but at the same time remains one of the most dangerous.
Can Australia survive without Johnson? If Lee was fit, a like for like swap would seem plausible. As it is however, replacing Johnson with Stuart Clark is a risk. Clark would surely tighten things up and build pressure from one end. But would he do the required damage? Are he and Siddle too similar to thrive in the same attack? Ommitting Johnson, it seems, might create as many questions as it answers.
At this point Australia can ill afford to be defensive. Statistically speaking at least, Mithcell Johnson is still an important part of the side. Genuine wicket-takers cannot be ignored lightly. If Australia choose to drop him and subsequently struggle to make inroads in the third Test it would not surprise. Johnson is no guaranteed selection, but for now at least he might just be a necessary risk.
What do you think about this article?
Comments
Latest Articles