What's new

Shoaib Akhtar or Mitchell Johnson - Who is the better bowler?

Hasan123

Hasan123

Test Star
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Runs
38,432
2 of the quickest bowlers the game has ever seen. At there lethal best they were nearly unplayable.

Who would you say is the better bowler?

Discuss.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Equal in ODIs.Akhtar better in Tests.
Better strike rate and average and played on more flat tracks.Also better at old ball use.
 
Akthar all day, MJ only became decent in the last 3 years of his career.

Akthar was absolutely unplayable in his first 3 years of international cricket, after that he was still world class and very good Test bowler.
 
akhtar by a country mile

akhtar test average is way better than mitchell
akhtar instill the terror n fear in batsmen heart
akhtar was atleast 10k quicker than johnson

comparing akhtar with johnson is like comparing javagal srinath with waqar younus
 
Akhtar and it is not close.

MJ is only remembered for his single season Ashes exploits

Akhtar has destroyed batting lineups on several occasions. He was unplayable in his prime. Ask Ganguly.

To me, Akhtar was at his ruthless best during 1998-1999 against India. He was bowling well over 150k's and those reverse swinging yorkers were from hell.
 
Akhtar is the best and most exciting bowler that I have watched. He can decimate any batting side even on the flattest of pitches. As an Indian i have been jealous of Pakistan for 3 reasons only ; Akhtar , Inzi and Anwar.
 
Who was more talented? Obviously Akhtar. Who achieved more? Obviously Johnson. Whom would you want in your team? Knowing Akhtar's track record, I'd be the last person to pick him ahead of Johnson.
 
Akhter was in his league of his own and a class above MJ. People comparing both players either have not watched shoaib akhter playing at all or only last 2-3 years of his career, otherwise he was magnificent .
 
Akhtar was the better bowler but MJ had the better career.
 
Akhter was in his league of his own and a class above MJ. People comparing both players either have not watched shoaib akhter playing at all or watched only last 2-3 years of his career, otherwise he was magnificent .
 
Shoaib akhter.... he was superstar bowler... johnson is struggling now...akhter bowled 155plus in his second last match against srilanka in wc 2011 at the age of 35... his pace never went down even if he came back after a year or 2 gap... batsmen feared of him more than mitch.. rockstar... and was much more skilled as well than mitch...perfect bouncers and yorkers at such sheer pace...treat to watch

Miss him
 
mueez14 said:
Shoaib akhter.... he was superstar bowler... johnson is struggling now...akhter bowled 155plus in his second last match against srilanka in wc 2011 at the age of 35... his pace never went down even if he came back after a year or 2 gap... batsmen feared of him more than mitch.. rockstar... and was much more skilled as well than mitch...perfect bouncers and yorkers at such sheer pace...treat to watch

Miss him
Click to expand...

What? :))
 
Posters acting like Johnson is an average test bowler who won't make it to any good bowling attack in the world.
 
I'd pick Johnson. Akhtar s fitness was always an issue in test cricket . And I think Johnson s destructive fast bowling in the ashes and the tour of South Africa were ahead of most spells I've seen of akhtars.
 
Ab Fan said:
Posters acting like Johnson is an average test bowler who won't make it to any good bowling attack in the world.
Click to expand...

Akhter has an average of 25.6 in test with strike rate of 44.while MJ has average of 28.4 with sr of 51.6 . Even shoaib ' s odi stats are marginally better than Johnson's.
Don't bring the logic of him having 313 wickets in tests , by that logic Anderson is going to be GOAT very soon.Mj was a very good bowler but not better / equal than akhter definitely .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bilal7 said:
Read the whole post. He's comparing how Akhtar was bowling at 155 kph at the age of 35 while Johnson at a similar age is nowhere as quick.
Click to expand...

"Johnson is struggling now"

What does the above line suggest?
 
Some of the descriptions above make it seem like Shoaib averaged 15 with a strike rate of 30. He was crazy fast with deadly spells. But the man got bashed around just as often as wayward Mitch.
 
Godhelpma said:
Akhter has an average of 25.6 in test with strike rate of 44.while MJ has average of 28.4 with sr of 51.6 . Even shoaib ' s odi stats are marginally better than Johnson's.
Don't bring the logic of him having 313 wickets in tests , by that logic Anderson is going to be GOAT very soon.Mj was a very good bowler but not better / equal than akhter definitely .
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say?

I am not getting this logic of Akhtar vs Johnson a comparison similar to Srinath vs Waqar.

I have already said Akhtar was superior but this is no one sided contest as some comments are speaking.

And when did I said Johnson has 313 wkts or anything like that?

He is a great bowler too but not an ATG.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
I'd pick Johnson. Akhtar s fitness was always an issue in test cricket . And I think Johnson s destructive fast bowling in the ashes and the tour of South Africa were ahead of most spells I've seen of akhtars.
Click to expand...

You probably missed a lot of his spells then
 
Ab Fan said:
What are you trying to say?

I am not getting this logic of Akhtar vs Johnson a comparison similar to Srinath vs Waqar.

I have already said Akhtar was superior but this is no one sided contest as some comments are speaking.

And when did I said Johnson has 313 wkts or anything like that?

He is a great bowler too but not an ATG.
Click to expand...

My comment got moderated by a moderator so probably it is not making sense at the moment .Anyways , I meant to say that some posters were belittling shoaib in comparison to Johnson . MJ was a good bowler but shoaib was a better one .
 
Big problem with Akhtar. He didn't win as many matches as he could due to his attitude problems. You can't argue with injuries but attitude is in your own hands.

Otherwise, he was an all wicket, all weather bowler who is head and shoulder above the very one dimensional, couple of series wonder Johnson.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
I'd pick Johnson. Akhtar s fitness was always an issue in test cricket . And I think Johnson s destructive fast bowling in the ashes and the tour of South Africa were ahead of most spells I've seen of akhtars.
Click to expand...

I can't change your opinion but please read through the link I have below.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/506631.html

When you say Johnson is a superior destructive bowler then you are completely wrong. You don't have to look beyond Kirsten, Lara, Ganguly, etc to understand what destructive fast bowling looks like. But then again you are entitled to your opinion so be it.
 
Mitchell Johnson has had one or two good series in his whole career. Akhtar, even with all his injury and attitude issues, beats him fair and square in a comparison.
 
Akhtar. No doubt about it. Johnson had a single purple patch where he destroyed England, but Shoaib had done that throughout his whole career. Johnson was a spray gun for the majority of his career who got bashed around for fun. Akhtar was consistetly spuerior and one of the greats of the game.
 
One must not forget that Johnson was completely toothless in the UAE even during his purple patch.

Shoaib could take the pitch out of equation.
 
Mitchell Johnson without a doubt... Akhtar was too injury prone to actually match the levels of fitness Johnson provided.. not to mention a great fielder and a healthy bat down the order (most fans use this to big up Imran Khan). Shoaib was a liability in the field, was never fielding (half the time he was back in the pavilion) and a terrible batsman. Dropped many crucial catches as well.
 
Also those bashing Johnson's average in UAE, he averages 29.5 in the 2 matches he played. Not bad for a 'failure'
 
Mitchell Johnson was player of the year twice, I can't recall when Shoaib was player of the year if ever
 
Akhtar was probably more talented but I will take Jhonson in my lineup because of better discipline and all tht
 
Saffer_XIII said:
Some of the descriptions above make it seem like Shoaib averaged 15 with a strike rate of 30. He was crazy fast with deadly spells. But the man got bashed around just as often as wayward Mitch.
Click to expand...

Shoaib definitely had more control throughout his career, was quicker, and could also swing and reverse swing it. His average and strike-rate is better in tests, and his average marginally better in ODI's, where strike-rate is par. Fewer matches because of injuries, but if talking about who would get picked first purely as a bowler, if both fit, has to be Akhtar.
 
troodon said:
Akhtar and it is not close.

MJ is only remembered for his single season Ashes exploits

Akhtar has destroyed batting lineups on several occasions. He was unplayable in his prime. Ask Ganguly.

To me, Akhtar was at his ruthless best during 1998-1999 against India. He was bowling well over 150k's and those reverse swinging yorkers were from hell.
Click to expand...

Why don't you look into Johnsons actual career before resigning him to a one series wonder. It will increase your knowledge of the game and help explain why one has twice as many test wickets as the other.
 
Johnson was useless on flat pitches, a pure flat track bully.
 
Akhtar type bowlers are just not around these days. Raw pace, fury and intimidating from day one.
 
Savak said:
Johnson was useless on flat pitches, a pure flat track bully.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you didn't watch the Adelaide test- a slow, low batting track which Oz scored 570 on in first innings & then 3/132 before Johnson blew England away. No pitch advantage there.

Shoaib was busted & slow after 3 overs whenever I saw him bowl and only good for 1 decent spell a day.
 
In terms of Pace, Mitchel Johnson is tad overrated.

He was never as quick as Akhtar, Lee and Tate. Maybe that worked in his favour though. He was just about fast enough to be considered quick, and prolong his career enough due to not getting injured often, and a bit more control. The problem with Akhtar was....

A) amateur management/corrupt management
B) Ego
C) Injuries. It's very hard to maintain yourself if you have been built to bowl express.
 
Shoaib Akthar was a massive underachiever due to many reasons. Johnson improved vastly at the end of his career and his Ashes 2013 spells are something I will remember for the rest of my life. However I would still go in favor of Akthar.
 
wrongun said:
I'm guessing you didn't watch the Adelaide test- a slow, low batting track which Oz scored 570 on in first innings & then 3/132 before Johnson blew England away. No pitch advantage there.

Shoaib was busted & slow after 3 overs whenever I saw him bowl and only good for 1 decent spell a day.
Click to expand...

Trust me, that pitch was nowhere near flat as the wickets in Colombo wear Shoaib wrecked havoc on the best batting line up in history. What Johnson needs 15-20 overs to do, Shoaib could do in 3-4 overs.
 
I still remember the clueless, overwhelmed, depressed look on Johnson's face in the 2010 Ashes tour
 
Savak said:
Trust me, that pitch was nowhere near flat as the wickets in Colombo wear Shoaib wrecked havoc on the best batting line up in history. What Johnson needs 15-20 overs to do, Shoaib could do in 3-4 overs.
Click to expand...

It is very futile to compare intangible things like the severity of the flatness of the pitch. For naked eye , both were very flat pitches. Now i prefer Akhtar over Johnson , but that does not mean he is far behind.
 
Johnson. He single handedly won a test series in SA, which Akthar could only dream about. Performances matter not how phaaast you bowl.
 
Savak said:
Trust me, that pitch was nowhere near flat as the wickets in Colombo wear Shoaib wrecked havoc on the best batting line up in history. What Johnson needs 15-20 overs to do, Shoaib could do in 3-4 overs.
Click to expand...

Never mind.. I thought you were talking about India vs Pk 1999
 
Rana said:
In terms of Pace, Mitchel Johnson is tad overrated.

He was never as quick as Akhtar, Lee and Tate. Maybe that worked in his favour though. He was just about fast enough to be considered quick, and prolong his career enough due to not getting injured often, and a bit more control. The problem with Akhtar was....

A) amateur management/corrupt management
B) Ego
C) Injuries. It's very hard to maintain yourself if you have been built to bowl express.
Click to expand...

Well the main issue was discipline, he never cared about taking orders from anyone, from Javed Miandad to Woolmer to Inzamam, Shoaib didn't get along with anyone actually all complained about them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone keeps talking about Johnson's match winning performance vs southafrica but does nobody remember that Shoaib was responsible for Pakistan winning its first 3 or 4 test matches vs Southafrica with match winning spells .
Both match winners , fantastic to watch at their peak but Akhtar was a better bowler in both formats.
 
ethan hunt said:
Everyone keeps talking about Johnson's match winning performance vs southafrica but does nobody remember that Shoaib was responsible for Pakistan winning its first 3 or 4 test matches vs Southafrica with match winning spells .
Both match winners , fantastic to watch at their peak but Akhtar was a better bowler in both formats.
Click to expand...

Anyone can produce those performances if they are only playing 4-5 times a year
 
Savak said:
I still remember the clueless, overwhelmed, depressed look on Johnson's face in the 2010 Ashes tour
Click to expand...


The Shoaib we saw every tour to Australia was unfit, tired after 12 balls & was only trying in the morning session. Then he'd put on a limp so he didn't have to bowl at the openers he had failed to remove later on once the ball was older and they ere set. General consensus was that he was a pea heart. But all players have bad tours.
 
Shoaib akhtar without a shadow of a doubt. I started watching cricket around when akhtar debuted, since then there has not been a single bowler who has had the charisma the style the action the run up the pace the hostility to match akhtar no doubt McGrath/steyn/Lee all had better stats and alot more matches/wickets than akhtar but hostility and aura none can match. Johnson had couple very memorable series no doubt but akhtar no one like him.
 
Akhtar easily. Only Indians or die hard Misbah fans would dispute that
 
Johnson who ? Shoaib Akhtar is one of the greatest fast bowlers the world has ever seen.
 
amax said:
Akhtar was probably more talented but I will take Jhonson in my lineup because of better discipline and all tht
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Johnson also bowled to the left, he bowled to the right and his bowling was...
 
I would go with Akhtar. Johnson wasn't anything special majority of his career; however was incredible in the 5-0 Ashes victory. Shoaib Akhtar was more consistent.
 
Shoaib any day..

Reason: Mitch played 25+ more test matches than akhtar not to forget the conditions which Mitch played were better for bowlers.
Akhtar played on some dead pitches and still made the ball talk at his will also Akhtar has better SR as a bowler which is very important.
 
Johnson was about 10/15KMPH slower than Akthar.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I honestly think these comparison threads are a waste of time, except this particular one. The pertinent question is...What makes an effective bowler?

Speed?? Shohaib was miles ahead of anybody except Brett lee at the time but only for the first 5-7 overs. After that he was strictly high 80’s if not sitting On the bench clutching his hamstring. I would take Johnson’s low 90’s any day

Skill... people who say Shohaib had deadly in swinging Yorkers never saw him bowl post 1999. I honest don’t remember a single one. Johnson developed the inswing to a right hander and Shohaib developed a deadly slower ball in 2005. I’d say Shohaib had the complete package of swing, seam craft and guile.

Attitude and fitness: Johnson and many Australians edge this. Shohaib was constantly bickering with team mates with constant doubts over his fitness and action. Shohaib missed more matches than he played.

Star quality? Shohaib easily. Ripping through a top Australia side almost single handed was as typical as sitting out the rest of the game and watching his team lose that very match.

Who would you want in the team. Probably Johnson, the Mark 2 version.
 
It is often hard to compare two players - but in this case, it is easy. Akhtar was on a different planet to MJ.
 
Abid Z said:
I honestly think these comparison threads are a waste of time, except this particular one. The pertinent question is...What makes an effective bowler?

Speed?? Shohaib was miles ahead of anybody except Brett lee at the time but only for the first 5-7 overs. After that he was strictly high 80’s if not sitting On the bench clutching his hamstring. I would take Johnson’s low 90’s any day

Skill... people who say Shohaib had deadly in swinging Yorkers never saw him bowl post 1999. I honest don’t remember a single one. Johnson developed the inswing to a right hander and Shohaib developed a deadly slower ball in 2005. I’d say Shohaib had the complete package of swing, seam craft and guile.

Attitude and fitness: Johnson and many Australians edge this. Shohaib was constantly bickering with team mates with constant doubts over his fitness and action. Shohaib missed more matches than he played.

Star quality? Shohaib easily. Ripping through a top Australia side almost single handed was as typical as sitting out the rest of the game and watching his team lose that very match.

Who would you want in the team. Probably Johnson, the Mark 2 version.
Click to expand...

A very fair and balanced post.
 
Only difference is Akhtar was able to trigger a dramatic collapse. MJ a steady bowler who can collect wickets but not the same way as a Akhtar. Akhtar was more known for quick bursts. Both are strike bowlers albeit can be more lethal even on placid surfaces as he can take pitch out of the equation where MJ is never known for taking pitch out of the equation.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
Only difference is Akhtar was able to trigger a dramatic collapse. MJ a steady bowler who can collect wickets but not the same way as a Akhtar. Akhtar was more known for quick bursts. Both are strike bowlers albeit can be more lethal even on placid surfaces as he can take pitch out of the equation where MJ is never known for taking pitch out of the equation.
Click to expand...

he could get 4/5 quick wickets but rarely in a winning cause in tests. if you disagree i would love to see a scorecard.
 
Abid Z said:
he could get 4/5 quick wickets but rarely in a winning cause in tests. if you disagree i would love to see a scorecard.
Click to expand...

That is true. But more to do with fragile Pakistan batting line up. His 6 for 11 vs NZ on a pitch where Inzi made 329 confirms what i am staying. I am not saying who is a better match winner. I am just highlighting the difference.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
That is true. But more to do with fragile Pakistan batting line up. His 6 for 11 vs NZ on a pitch where Inzi made 329 confirms what i am staying. I am not saying who is a better match winner. I am just highlighting the difference.
Click to expand...

you know if we dig a little deeper in this i can demonstrate a pattern. shohaib comes on to bowl and in his opening spell of 5 overs he is at full pelt with 2/3 wickets touching 95/96 mph but settling around 93/94.

in those first 5 overs the batsmen keep pulling away knowing that soon he will tire. remember he is bowling in hot climates. with all this pulling away and exertion on his long bowling run up after about 5 overs from him he is panting like a horse and needs to go off the ground for quick hydration, cramp, stretch etc etc. Sami, Rana, Gul Kanaeria continue through the remainder of the overs. he comes on later picks up a wicket or two, then retires injured from the match and the series...the series is lost.

now for those 5 overs shohaib was great but it doesnt help the teams cause as still 90 overs have to be bowled in the day and a month long series has to be won and pakistan have to resort to line and length bowlers like shahid nazir or a very inexperienced mohammed Asif.
 
When Virat Kohli who inspite of having faced Johnson in his peak says Akhtar was a more terrifying prospect than that is saying something.
 
Savak said:
When Virat Kohli who inspite of having faced Johnson in his peak says Akhtar was a more terrifying prospect than that is saying something.
Click to expand...

Yaar that interview you saw was tongue and cheek. Sehwag and Kohli loved Shohaib but for the wrong reasons as the scorecard here shows. When you are outbowled by an aging Razzaq in swinging Dambulla of all places then there is definitely something wrong.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8532/scorecard/455234/India-vs-Pakistan-4th-Match/
 
Is this even a question?

Johnson was an average bowler who apart from 2013 to 2015 achieved nothing special..

Starc vs Akhter would be a better comparison
 
Johnson can only dream of performing in important matches like Akhter did in the SF of 1999 WC

Johnson was okayish in both the wcs he played
 
He's the fastest? I thought it was Styen for this gen.

Anyway, MJ takes leads for relatively better consistency but when compared on peaks Akhtar was a freakingly good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Poll Poll
Mitchell Starc versus Vernon Philander: who is more effective in Tests?
Replies
15
Views
456
Ab Fan
Ab Fan
Savak
Mitchell Johnson vs Mitchell Starc: Who will go down as the bigger legend for Australia?
Replies
28
Views
2K
RedwoodOriginal
RedwoodOriginal
T
James Anderson versus Andy Roberts: Who is the better Test bowler?
Replies
71
Views
1K
sindhiboy
S
RyanRyan10
Misbah-ul-Haq or Shoaib Akhtar: Who had a bigger impact on Pakistan cricket and who would be considered a better role model?
Replies
55
Views
2K
Fanboy375
Fanboy375
T
Mitchell Starc versus Wasim Akram in ODIs/LOIs: Who is better?
Replies
30
Views
1K
Ab Fan
Ab Fan
Back
Top