Former Indian cricketer Aakash Chopra and veteran Australian speedster Mitchell Johnson were engaged in the war of words on Friday on micro-blogging site, Twitter, over the ‘average’ review of Perth pitch by International Cricket Council (ICC).
Mitchell Johson took to Twitter to express his disappointment over the review of Perth pitch given by match referee Ranjan Madugalle writing, “Nothing wrong with it. It was exciting to watch a contest between bat and ball for a change and not these dull flat tracks being served up constantly. I’d actually be interested in knowing what a good pitch is? Hope for another exciting test at the MCG.”
Nothing wrong with it. It was exciting to watch a contest between bat and ball for a change and not these dull flat tracks being served up constantly. I’d actually be interested in knowing what a good pitch is? Hope for another exciting test at the MCG 🏏 https://t.co/Q1vOYm6AaB
— Mitchell Johnson (@MitchJohnson398) December 21, 2018
Replying to Johnson’s comment, a fan reminded the Aussie about the pitch’s inconsistent bounce. Responding to the fan’s remark he said, “Inconsistent bounce use to happen a lot, the pitch is supposed to deteriorate. Is it any different to a pitch that spins a metre or more & stays low?”
Inconsistent bounce use to happen a lot, the pitch is supposed to deteriorate. Is it any different to a pitch that spins a metre or more & stays low?
— Mitchell Johnson (@MitchJohnson398) December 21, 2018
Soon Aakash Chopra also joined the debate reminding Johnson about Marcus Harris’ wicket by Hanuma Vihari in the first innings.
Vihari bowled a bouncer on the ‘first day’ to dismiss a well set Harris. I rest my case 🙌🙏 https://t.co/gELNtmLUuI
— Aakash Chopra (@cricketaakash) December 21, 2018
After Chopra’s Tweet, the war of words started. Here is their conversation:
Pretty shitty case if that what your coming with Aakash. You’re saying it was a dangerous delivery from a spinner? Did you pipe up when the Indian 4 man attack bowled plenty of short balls, which I enjoyed as a fan & was awesome to watch? What is a good wicket is to you?
— Mitchell Johnson (@MitchJohnson398) December 21, 2018
You spoke of natural deterioration that leads to variable bounce. That ball was a reflection of variable bounce on the first day. Not dangerous then. But yes…that Shami spell on day four was close to dangerous….felt that player safety was in question. Therefore the rating. https://t.co/AlE4Me9Iko
— Aakash Chopra (@cricketaakash) December 21, 2018
I disagree, I’ve seen far worse & played on pitches similar to it. Do you want to see boring flat belters? I don’t. I want to see pitches that produce an exciting contest between bat and ball. Anything else you want to get off your chest?
— Mitchell Johnson (@MitchJohnson398) December 21, 2018
I never said that I want to see cricket on feather beds..ICC rated the pitch ‘Average’-I agree with their neutral observation based on the feedback of match officials. You don’t. We r entitled to have our own opinions. FOE. Too bad if the pitches you played on got a ‘good’ rating
— Aakash Chopra (@cricketaakash) December 21, 2018
Plenty of pitches much worse that never had this rating. I know what you saying & no issues with you disagreeing & having your opinion, that’s all good. But I still disagree & have no idea why you would comment directly to me?
— Mitchell Johnson (@MitchJohnson398) December 21, 2018
Too late in Melbourne..just landed…body clock still set on Perth timings. Chanced upon your observation somehow…enough reasons for commenting to you directly? ☺️😉✌️Merry Christmas in advance…see you on the Boxing Day. Hopefully MCG wont be a road like last year… 🤞
— Aakash Chopra (@cricketaakash) December 21, 2018