The Road to the 2009 Ashes

[Uppercut]

Botham should know more about the game than any of the others. But if he does, he doesn't seem to want to let on to the rest of us. He was (at one stage) a truly great swing bowler. When has he ever imparted any of his knowledge about swing bowling? He either can't or won't. Very much like Gower (and Botham himself) re batting technique. I rather suspect it all came too easily to them, and this is why the likes of Simon Hughes make far better commentators with regard to the technical side of the game.

Besides which, he casts a huge blokeish shadow over the entire commentary team and makes them want to behave like overgrown schoolboys just like him.

I can't think of examples, obviously, but in comparison to Lloyd and Hussain i find him fairly insightful. In their current lineup, Holding puts them to shame. Pollock suffers from being unable to say anything negative about players he so recently played with, but maybe he will improve.

I hate Boycott, as a writer and as a commentator. He seems to believe everyone should be a poor impersonation of him. Look at his comments on players like Gilchrist, Sehwag, even Oram, and its evident that he treats them with so much contempt for playing their own way and refusing to conform to his self-appointed "right way to bat". The irony being that after almost as many test matches, Gilchrist averages just as much and Sehwag more than Boycott did. Add to this his derogatory comments about Shaun Tait for wanting a break from cricket and you have an anachronistic old man who should not be allowed near the tv.

 

[Richard]

Nonetheless, Boycott > Gilchrist and certainly Boycott >>>>>>>>>>>> Sehwag, IMO.

 

[Burgey]

Nonetheless, Boycott > Gilchrist and certainly Boycott >>>>>>>>>>>> Sehwag, IMO.

Aye, but I think the point was more about his closed-mindedness.

Mind you, I think he's a pretty good analyst on the game. Some of his stuff on the dire England efforts in the Ashes through the 90s were gold.

 

[Uppercut]

Nonetheless, Boycott > Gilchrist and certainly Boycott >>>>>>>>>>>> Sehwag, IMO.

I've never seen Boycott bat, so i'm not going to pass judgement (you're almost certainly right though). Nevertheless, if Gilchrist had conformed to the Geoffrey Boycott batting school, he'd have got nowhere near 47 as an average and probably would have been about mid-thirties. Boycott fails to grasp that the best way for him to play isn't necessarily the best way for everyone else to play.

 

[tooextracool]

Botham should know more about the game than any of the others. But if he does, he doesn't seem to want to let on to the rest of us. He was (at one stage) a truly great swing bowler. When has he ever imparted any of his knowledge about swing bowling? He either can't or won't. Very much like Gower (and Botham himself) re batting technique. I rather suspect it all came too easily to them, and this is why the likes of Simon Hughes make far better commentators with regard to the technical side of the game.

Besides which, he casts a huge blokeish shadow over the entire commentary team and makes them want to behave like overgrown schoolboys just like him.

I agree with that. Rarely do you hear him talk about the technical aspects of bowling despite the fact that he was a bowler himself and it just seems to me that he was the sort of player who just happened to be fortunate enough to run down the hill, throw the ball in the air and have it zig zag across the air before getting the batsman out without the faintest indication of what he did or how he managed to it. I guess his batting was the same as well, he probably spent a lot less time thinking about it then he did thinking about what he was going to do at the end of the day. It seems to me like he was the sort of character who just happened to be that fortunate and talented that everything sort of clicked into place regardless of how much effort he put in. Probably exasperated a fair few other players on his side in his time. Surprisingly, I find Holding's comments when he talks about the technical side of bowling to be far far more insightful than anything else that I hear on Sky.

 

[zaremba]

I agree with that. Rarely do you hear him talk about the technical aspects of bowling despite the fact that he was a bowler himself and it just seems to me that he was the sort of player who just happened to be fortunate enough to run down the hill, throw the ball in the air and have it zig zag across the air before getting the batsman out without the faintest indication of what he did or how he managed to it. I guess his batting was the same as well, he probably spent a lot less time thinking about it then he did thinking about what he was going to do at the end of the day. It seems to me like he was the sort of character who just happened to be that fortunate and talented that everything sort of clicked into place regardless of how much effort he put in. Probably exasperated a fair few other players on his side in his time. Surprisingly, I find Holding's comments when he talks about the technical side of bowling to be far far more insightful than anything else that I hear on Sky.

Botham was blessed with beautiful natural technique with both bat and ball. Imagine how great a player he could have been if he had been a proper professional, or even had the mind-set of, say, Richard Hadlee.

Perhaps he could have sustained or even improved on the performance in the first half of his career, and we wouldn't now be arguing (oh so tediously) on other threads about whether Garry Sobers was the greatest all-rounder of all time.

Botham's waste of talent is in my view almost criminal and it annoys me when he celebrates the avoiding of training or nets, drinking etc because this is all self-justification and self-delusion.

As it was, his natural talent was just enough to keep him in the England team for a number of years in the late 80s and early 90s despite a very public decline in his ability, physique and performance.

 

[zaremba]

edit: duplicate post

 

[Uppercut]

Botham was blessed with beautiful natural technique with both bat and ball. Imagine how great a player he could have been if he had been a proper professional, or even had the mind-set of, say, Richard Hadlee.

Perhaps he could have sustained or even improved on the performance in the first half of his career, and we wouldn't now be arguing (oh so tediously) on other threads about whether Garry Sobers was the greatest all-rounder of all time.

Botham's waste of talent is in my view almost criminal and it annoys me when he celebrates the avoiding of training or nets, drinking etc because this is all self-justification and self-delusion.

As it was, his natural talent was just enough to keep him in the England team for a number of years in the late 80s and early 90s despite a very public decline in his ability, physique and performance.

I don't know if it was a waste of talent, though. Had he cared enough to take his training seriously he may well have cared too much to play so well without feeling the pressure of top-level cricket. It's all part of the same egotistical personality, that drives you nuts sometimes and amazes you other times. It was his strength and his weakness, to take it away might have prolonged his career but would this mindset have been as successful on the pitch?


I've always believed the best sportsmen have the ability to 'play as if it means nothing when it means everything'. When people complain that certain talented sportsmen just don't care enough- they're often right. And not caring enough is a big part of what makes them so talented.

 

[Richard]

I've never seen Boycott bat, so i'm not going to pass judgement (you're almost certainly right though). Nevertheless, if Gilchrist had conformed to the Geoffrey Boycott batting school, he'd have got nowhere near 47 as an average and probably would have been about mid-thirties. Boycott fails to grasp that the best way for him to play isn't necessarily the best way for everyone else to play.

I don't know that he neccessarily does, though. Certainly, had Gilchrist tried to play the way Boycott did it wouldn't have worked, he was obviously completely incapable of playing that way, and had he done so he might well have been half the batsman.

But Boycott certainly doesn't tend to suggest no batsman should play strokes. Not in my experience anyway. He usually criticises someone who's got out to rash strokes a few times in a short space of time, but that's different. Rash and attacking are different things, though often the only difference many people can tell is "if it works it's attacking, if it doesn't it's rash".

 

[Richard]

Botham was blessed with beautiful natural technique with both bat and ball. Imagine how great a player he could have been if he had been a proper professional, or even had the mind-set of, say, Richard Hadlee.

Perhaps he could have sustained or even improved on the performance in the first half of his career, and we wouldn't now be arguing (oh so tediously) on other threads about whether Garry Sobers was the greatest all-rounder of all time.

Botham's waste of talent is in my view almost criminal and it annoys me when he celebrates the avoiding of training or nets, drinking etc because this is all self-justification and self-delusion.

As it was, his natural talent was just enough to keep him in the England team for a number of years in the late 80s and early 90s despite a very public decline in his ability, physique and performance.

I don't know if it was a waste of talent, though. Had he cared enough to take his training seriously he may well have cared too much to play so well without feeling the pressure of top-level cricket. It's all part of the same egotistical personality, that drives you nuts sometimes and amazes you other times. It was his strength and his weakness, to take it away might have prolonged his career but would this mindset have been as successful on the pitch?

There's certainly something in that. It's difficult to say with any certainty that someone could have been better than they were if their attitudes had been different. Could Botham (or Gower? Or Richards? Or any number of other people?) been better had they taken different attitudes to what can broadly be classified as "how much do you care" (or maybe appear to care)? It's possible. But it's no more than that. It's certainly not a nailed-on certainty for mine. Had Botham been less laissez-faire, it's possible (though again far from certain) that he'd not have had the success 1977-1982 that he did.

I very much agree that it's incredibly annoying to hear someone talk about avoiding training to go down the pub as if it's a brilliant idea, because infusing that mindset on someone can never be a good thing.

 

[Uppercut]

But Boycott certainly doesn't tend to suggest no batsman should play strokes. Not in my experience anyway. He usually criticises someone who's got out to rash strokes a few times in a short space of time, but that's different. Rash and attacking are different things, though often the only difference many people can tell is "if it works it's attacking, if it doesn't it's rash".

That is usually the case though. I've always felt someone like Jacob Oram looks far likelier to make a big score when he bats aggressively, because his defensive technique is so poor. But when he plays a slog-sweep and gets caught at fine leg, Boycott makes a comment like "where are your brains, son?" If he hangs around like a lemon then nicks a length ball he's done just as little good for his team, but Boycott won't be anywhere near as critical.

In the case of someone like Sehwag, who strangely has excellent defensive technique but chooses to hardly ever use it, Boycott's probably right that he could maximise his average a few notches by being more selective with his strokes. But i still don't believe he should. Cricket shouldn't be a matter of life and death, Sehwag goes out to enjoy himself, the way sports should be played- and he doesn't care if it upsets the conservative element in the game. In an age of ultra-competitiveness, it's something i respect about him.

 

[Flem274*]

Botham should know more about the game than any of the others. But if he does, he doesn't seem to want to let on to the rest of us. He was (at one stage) a truly great swing bowler. When has he ever imparted any of his knowledge about swing bowling? He either can't or won't. Very much like Gower (and Botham himself) re batting technique. I rather suspect it all came too easily to them, and this is why the likes of Simon Hughes make far better commentators with regard to the technical side of the game.

Besides which, he casts a huge blokeish shadow over the entire commentary team and makes them want to behave like overgrown schoolboys just like him.

Lesbian.
















Just kidding.

 

[Flem274*]

That is usually the case though. I've always felt someone like Jacob Oram looks far likelier to make a big score when he bats aggressively, because his defensive technique is so poor. But when he plays a slog-sweep and gets caught at fine leg, Boycott makes a comment like "where are your brains, son?" If he hangs around like a lemon then nicks a length ball he's done just as little good for his team, but Boycott won't be anywhere near as critical.

Most of the members on here know my low opinion of several of the English TV commetators (seriously, they are light years behind their radio counterparts) but it really depends what Boyvott is criticising. I'll use Oram as an example because I know a wee bit about him. Orams two issues are the short ball and getting his feet moving early in the innings. Once he gets in he doesn't mind not having to play the big shots, he isn't the stereotypical slogging allrounder, he can bat..like a batsman (for want of a better word). So I could understand Boycott if he criticised a dumb slog, or his technical deficiencies. If he gets out to a big shot that wasn't much of a slog then I can see your point. Unfortunately I stopped taking any notice of what Boycott says after some comments he made a while back against my beloved Black Caps (in my biased defence they were really biased, dumb comments though, if only I could remember them ) so I can't really comment much, even if I have written a long winded paragraph.

 

[zaremba]

I don't know if it was a waste of talent, though. Had he cared enough to take his training seriously he may well have cared too much to play so well without feeling the pressure of top-level cricket. It's all part of the same egotistical personality, that drives you nuts sometimes and amazes you other times. It was his strength and his weakness, to take it away might have prolonged his career but would this mindset have been as successful on the pitch?


I've always believed the best sportsmen have the ability to 'play as if it means nothing when it means everything'. When people complain that certain talented sportsmen just don't care enough- they're often right. And not caring enough is a big part of what makes them so talented.

This is a fair point and you (and Richard) are right to say that we can't be sure either way.

However as a general rule I think it's safe to say that the harder you work, the better your results will be (provided of course you don't overdo it and suffer from burnout / exhaustion). As Gary Player put it, "the harder I practise the luckier I get."

And for a pace bowler, physical conditioning will tend to enhance performance, while excess fat and lack of fitness will impair it. Consider Botham waddling in to bowl medium-pace bouncers in the late 80s and compare it to a lean Richard Hadlee bowling highly effective fast-medium aged 39 in 1990.

 

[zaremba]

Lesbian.

I wish.

 

[pasag]

Gower and Botham are two peas in a pod. Neither particularly enjoys watching cricket but it's the only thing they can do to earn a living.

Botham I'd agree with but not Gower.

 

[pasag]

People see me, and they see the suit, and they go: 'You're not fooling anyone', they know I'm rock and roll through and through. But you know that old thing, "live fast, die young"? Not my way. Live fast, sure, live too bloody fast sometimes, but die young? Die old. That's the way - not orthodox, I don't live by "the rules" you know. And if there's one other person who's influenced me in that way I think, someone who is a maverick, someone who does that (puts middle finger up) to the system, then, it's Ian Botham. Because Beefy will happily say 'that's what I think of your selection policy (jerks fist about), yes I've hit the odd copper, yes I've enjoyed the old doobie, but will you piss off and leave me alone, I'm walking to John o' Groats for some spastics.

 

[andruid]

What are the odds of Bopara ursurping Collingwood as no6 by the time of the Ashes.

 

[pskov]

What are the odds of Bopara ursurping Collingwood as no6 by the time of the Ashes.

Why wait till the next series? Unless Collingwood makes good runs in the second innings here I'd say it'd be odds on for this summer.

 

[grecian]

Can we just play the twenty/20 world cup instead of this? It just looks like it will be as humiliatingly one-sided as last time. Waste of a ****ing summer.