Mitchell Johnson vs Stuart Broad in batting

[piriyanth]

Who do you think is the better lower order batsman? Mitchell Johnsons or Stuart Broad?

 

[.::Stevo::.]

I'd go with Broad. But Johnson definitely has the potential to be better, and he strikes the ball so much better.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Broad has the technique, but has Stevo said, Johnson hits the ball better.

Tough choice. Maybe Broad?

 

[OffCutters]

Mitchell Johnson, but as Zorax said, Broad has a better technique. You might notice that at times, Johnson doesnt use his feet, whereas (I think) Broad does. But Johnson strikes the ball well, as we`ve seen during his half-century earlier in the series.

 

[aussie1st]

Johnson is more a quick eye person, once he gets his eye in he doesn't need to worry about moving his feet as it comes off his bat very cleanly. Broad certainly has the technique, hard to split them but I'll give it to Johnson who has the better average and a Test 100.

 

[Howsie]

Johnson. Broad hasn't even scored a FC century yet, whereas Johnson slapped the best fast bowlers in the world around less then four months ago. Broad does have a future as a all-rounder though.

 

[irottev]

How many hundreds has Broad scored? None in any form of cricket. Johnson averages more also. He also just looks more talented.

 

[Hooper]

Agree with the above poster.

Broad looks like a tail ender who has a decent eye. I don't think he will be anything more then a part time bowler who can throw the wood.

 

[Aditya]

Broad is better then johnson.Broad is scoring runs in low order since last year and johnson is not continues he can hit 10 15 but broad hit's 30 to 40 atleast so for me broad is much better.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Agree with the above poster.

Broad looks like a tail ender who has a decent eye. I don't think he will be anything more then a part time bowler who can throw the wood.

I don't know what you're watching, but Broad actually looks like a proper batsman. Johnson's the one who looks like a tail ender with a decent eye.

 

[King Pietersen]

Agree. Both handy batters, but I think, given Broad's technique that he'd be the more consistent and reliable batsman of the 2. Johnson more destructive, Broad more reliable, so I'd go for Broad in a Test match.

 

[nz0003]

Johnson is perfect for a lower order counter attack, say if the bowlers took 5 quick wickets he is the type of guy that can come in and hit 50 at a run a ball. Broad is handy but don't think he'll make many if any tons. Johnson just, but both of them are along with Vettori the best number 8s going around.

 

[TheGreemSim]

They're both good to have down the order and can get you out of tricky situations, I think Broad has beeter technique like many above posters but Johnson isn't too far behind. It's tough but I reckon Broad just has the edge

 

[Hooper]

Well when Broad has a century against S.A come see me.

 

[Burnsy1]

I'd say Broad as he does have the better technique and has more promiss than Johnson as he is 4 years younger. They have both crossed 50 the same number of times, Broad in 4 less tests. Johnson may have scored a century against the Safas but Dizzy scored a double ton in his career, albeit against Bangladesh but still. Broad has plenty of time and could one day prove himself to be a decent number 7 batsman. Look at Flintoff, on test debut he made just 17 batting at number 8 but ended up being one of the worlds best known allrounders.