cricket with balls

Mitchell Johnson plays better at home than away.

Mitchell Johnson can be a monster.

Mitchell Johnson often bowls balls that barely hit the cut strip.

Mitchell Johnson seems like a good bloke.

Mitchell Johnson is prone to bouts of bowling hopelessness.

Mitchell Johnson can bowl very fast.

Mitchell Johnson is a confidence bowler.

Mitchell Johnson can hurt people.

Mitchell Johnson is not the most stable individual.

Mitchell Johnson can donate runs.

Mitchell Johnson has destroyed good batting line ups.

Mitchell Johnson is the new Steve Harmison.

These are all vague generalisations, but you know, kinda right.

I’m not writing this for any reason other than I thought it would be nice to write a post about someone being the new someone without mentioning the person who people usually mention when the are new someoneing a bowler.

Should: He is a bit mental.

Shouldn’t: He is a bit mental

Should: He gets freakish bounce.

Shouldn’t: He bowls to second slip.

Should: He is fast, experienced and hungry.

Shouldn’t: He is a gerbil crossed with an electric tie organiser.

Should: Phil Hughes can’t play him.

Shouldn’t: Phil Hughes also can’t play Pepsi Sandri either.

Should: Freddie will look after him.

Shouldn’t: Freddie can’t look after his fucking self.

Should: Harmy plays good in England.

Shouldn’t: The first test is in Wales.

Should: Harmy loves playing in the Ashes.

Shouldn’t: He averages 42 in the Ashes.

Should: Will either excite us with great cricket, or make us laugh by playing shit.

Shouldn’t: Will probably make at least one side cry.

If Harmy (and Pepsi Sandri) has worked Phil Hughes out, why do I have an over whelming feeling to back him for most runs in the series?

Today Michael Vaughan went out to Steve Harmison.

It was a confusing day for England.

Not for Australia.

Phillip Hughes played his first game for Middlesex, and the most predictable thing happened.

A hundred.

The boy seems to ooze runs from every available orifice.

Before today no one knew if Phil could play in English conditions.

He could have been a little Michael Clarke or Douggie Waltersesque.

That looks less likely now.

There is a sense of eager overachiever about Phil, I can see him pissing off a great deal of people, sort of like the a young know it all kid who is good at computers and has way too much confidence for his general appearance.

I think I like him though, he seems to make alot of runs, but does it so ugly.

A sportsman needs a weakness for me to like them.

I know I’m sick.

If Phil had a perfect technique, I’d probably hate him.

But for now I like him, even if he is a tad predictable.

Is he injured?

Has he been dropped?

Is he part of an eloborate plan to keep English cricket down?

You decide.

Don’t think about it too much though.

1st test Freddie, Broad, Panesar, Sidebottom, Harmison

2nd test Freddie, Broad, Panesar, Sidebottom, Anderson

3rd test Freddie, Broad, Swann, Anderson, Harmison

4th test Broad, Swann, Anderson, Sidebottom

All of this and one injury has forced a change.

According to Michael Holding “If you don’t pick Harmison on this pitch, you might as well tell him to pack his bags and go home”.

Does anyone expect harmy to last on tour?

Other than the selectors.

Its not all bad news though, Ravi is in, which means Bell is out.