Talk:Mitchell Johnson

KP

Towards the end of this article, it reads "His victims included Kevin Pietersen, and some believe the manner of his dismissal provided Johnson with a psychological edge over Pietersen, one of England's most talented batsmen." I've just changed it from "England's best batsmen" to "one of England's most talented batsmen", but maybe the entire statement should just be removed. (?)

"Fast" classification

Cricinfo classify him as Fast-Medium. I happen to agree that he ought to be classified as "Fast" as he regularly hits (and even exceeds) 90 mph (145 km/h) but this is merely an opinion. Until this becomes an official classification it would be remiss to use Cricinfo as a cited source and yet ignore its classification of his bowling speed.

Nimbus Sport also referred to him as Fast-Medium during their recent coverage of the India v Australia Test series. So far no media outlet outside of Australia has referred to him as Fast. That's not to say they're wrong, only that there is no consensus as yet and we ought to wait until there is before classifying him as "Fast". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.33.106 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cricinfo are now classifying Johnson as Fast - not sure when this was updated, possibly during the South Africa series. WarmasterKron (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lots of news outlets seem to be following suit now too (Sky Sports for example). Seems like there's now a definite consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.161.71 (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

One first-class stumping...?

This page from the Cricket Australia website seems to indicate Johnson has one stumping in first-class cricket. Does anyone know any more about this and do we think it is a notable stat to include in this article? Cheers, Mark 150.49.180.199 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

FLC

Just notifying any page watchers that List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Mitchell Johnson is at FLC -- NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Former" cricketer status

It is my firm opinion that Johnson is still an active cricketer. He has merely announced his retirement from international cricket, i.e. the Australian national team. There is no indication that he had retired from all forms of the game. Therefore, I disagree with him being called a "former" or "retired" cricketer as it is far too premature to place such a label. This point needs to be determined via discussion before the lead is changed again. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The IP, and the other "named" editor who keep changing this need to be monitored. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

To the IP editor who keeps changing this. Please note these two simple facts: (1) Johnson is still an active cricket player. (2) he is still an Australian citizen. Therefore, he is an "Australian cricketer". Take Will Bosisto as an example. Never played for Australia, but he is also described as an "Australian cricketer" because he also satisifies both (1) and (2). If the reader reads about four lines beyond the first one that you keep changing, it is perfectly clear that Johnson has retired from international play. It does not need to be jammed into the first sentence. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Pinging @49.195.182.31:, the most recent number. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Mitchell Johnson (cricketer) → Mitchell Johnson
• Mitchell Johnson → Mitchell Johnson (disambiguation)

– The cricketer is the primary topic with ~97% of pageviews. [1] —Jonny Nixon (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. As a side note, the article for the painter looks like spam-fest. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support more notable than the painter, and all the other aren't primarily known as Mitchell Johnson. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom.Ts12rAc (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Yeah I would happily see that happen. HawkAussie (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. extra999 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment if we're are just going on page views, then some consideration needs to be given to Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden which is now a redirect, but in the past had comparable views to the cricketer. Spike 'em (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incorret terminolgy

In the section "Indian Premier League (IPL)" It says he was 'sold'. He was a free agent and so was not 'sold', he was hired. It goes on to say he was 'bought' by Kolkata Knight Riders, again this is incorrect, he was hired by them. The concept of players being bought and sold suggests thay have no control over the matter, that they are vassals, or slaves, whereas this is untrue. 90.199.178.121 (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)