The Debate.

[PhoenixFire]

i found this snippet to be quite amusing:
Guys like Geoffrey Boycott couldn't keep me awake at night, in fact he put me to sleep during the day. I figured that if he got 150 he took so long that it made our chances of saving the game much better. Another reason why I don't classify Geoffrey Boycott as great was that he was a selfish bastard; he never played for the team, he always played for himself. I heard Bill Lawry call him a great batsman one day, and I said to Bill as he came off the field, "that's rubbish Bill, he wasn't a great player". He hemmed and hawed and I said, "Bill, Gary Sobers averaged bloody 58 and he played every second for the game of cricket and not for himself. Boycott played every single second of his career as a batsman for himself and he averaged only 47. What are you talking?"

People make so much out of Boycs being a selfish bastard, and I can guarantee that a load of it is total ****. I have a coach at my club who played for Yorkshire around the same time as Boycs and he said that Boycs was nothing more than what many people are, ie. Gavaskar. many people made up stories of him, siply because they disliked his personality, read his autobiography for a more interesting perspective on his career, and you'll find that he wasn't up his own arse that some people make him out to be. It shouldn't be a measure of greatness whether you were selfish or not.

 

[silentstriker]

People make so much out of Boycs being a selfish bastard, and I can guarantee that a load of it is total ****. I have a coach at my club who played for Yorkshire around the same time as Boycs and he said that Boycs was nothing more than what many people are, ie. Gavaskar. many people made up stories of him, siply because they disliked his personality, read his autobiography for a more interesting perspective on his career, and you'll find that he wasn't up his own arse that some people make him out to be. It shouldn't be a measure of greatness whether you were selfish or not.

Yea, it does. But defensive players does not necessarily mean selfish players. Dravid is defensive, not not selfish. Kallis is defensive, and might be selfish (I say might because I don't know, he is accused as such at least). Selfish players very much should not be considered great.

And the guy who said Sobers was selfish needs a slap upside the head.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yea, it does. But defensive players does not necessarily mean selfish players. Dravid is defensive, not not selfish. Kallis is defensive, and might be selfish (I say might because I don't know, he is accused as such at least). Selfish players very much should not be considered great.

And the guy who said Sobers was selfish needs a slap upside the head.

What exactly constitutes being selfish at Test Level?

 

[silentstriker]

What exactly constitutes being selfish at Test Level?

Example: your team needs you to score fast, and your strike rate doesn't improve much.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Boycott has faults in his character like everyone else, but I find it difficult to believe that he just would refuse to go faster when runs were needed. I can understand exactly how he must have felt, because me being a defensive batsman myself. I strike at around 68 in 50 over matches, and hate slogging and such, because I hate giving my wicket away. He was very much the same, in which he hated giving his wicket away. I believe it is much more selfish slogging and giving your wicket away when your team need you, Boycs wouldn't ever do that.

 

[silentstriker]

Boycott has faults in his character like everyone else, but I find it difficult to believe that he just would refuse to go faster when runs were needed. I can understand exactly how he must have felt, because me being a defensive batsman myself. I strike at around 68 in 50 over matches, and hate slogging and such, because I hate giving my wicket away. He was very much the same, in which he hated giving his wicket away. I believe it is much more selfish slogging and giving your wicket away when your team need you, Boycs wouldn't ever do that.

Yes, it goes both ways. I accuse Dhoni and Sehwag of doing that from time to time too. But Boycs was definitely guilty of it (if his contemporaries can be believed). Its not about playing defensively.

Look at Dravid, his S/R is around 40-45 normally, but when runs are needed he gets it up all the way around 65-80 when needed, even if it means he loses his wicket. I wasn't alive to see Boycs, but from reading about him, a lot of people seem to think he batted for himself and to preserve his average.

Now, that might be because no one liked him personally, but I see opposing players also accusing him of this, not just his teammates. So, I don't know.

I can only speak of players I've seen, and Sehwag is selfish from time to time. Dravid I have never known to be selfish. Kallis is accused by many to do the same, but again he didn't do it in any innings I personally saw, so I can't make that judgement.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I never saw Boycs bat either. I guess that every player is slightly selfish in a way, because nobody likes giving their wicket away, just he hated it more than most people did.

 

[Goughy]

Yes, it goes both ways. I accuse Dhoni and Sehwag of doing that from time to time too. But Boycs was definitely guilty of it (if his contemporaries can be believed). Its not about playing defensively.

Look at Dravid, his S/R is around 40-45 normally, but when runs are needed he gets it up all the way around 65-80 when needed, even if it means he loses his wicket. I wasn't alive to see Boycs, but from reading about him, a lot of people seem to think he batted for himself and to preserve his average.

Now, that might be because no one liked him personally, but I see opposing players also accusing him of this, not just his teammates. So, I don't know.

I can only speak of players I've seen, and Sehwag is selfish from time to time. Dravid I have never known to be selfish.

Selfish, Boring...ahem
http://rsa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/...K-OUTS/SURREY_YORKS_GLTE-FINAL_04SEP1965.html

Also even his most outspoken and critical teammates only criticise him as a person rather than a cricketer.

Boycott was always an easy target but he was a quality and versitile player.

Capable of taking a single of any balled bowled and protecting players and rotating the strike, he primarily played a role that was dictated by the fact that he was expected to be the rock Englands batting was built.

 

[PhoenixFire]

In some ways that 146 was against him, because it showed his critics that he could play fantastic attacking shots, and that he was capable of murdering attack, but he needed Brian Close do kick him up the backside for him to do it.

 

[silentstriker]

Selfish, Boring...ahem
http://rsa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/...K-OUTS/SURREY_YORKS_GLTE-FINAL_04SEP1965.html

Also even his most outspoken and critical teammates only criticise him as a person rather than a cricketer.

Boycott was always an easy target but he was a quality and versitile player.

Capable of taking a single of any balled bowled and protecting players and rotating the strike, he primarily played a role that was dictated by the fact that he was expected to be the rock Englands batting was built.

But he didn't play that way often, did he?

He was dropped for batting too slow once, right? After he had scored a century?

 

[Goughy]

But he didn't play that way often, did he?

He was dropped for batting too slow once, right? After he had scored a century?

Yes he was. However that was because of the selectors acting like clowns. It really was not that slow and his being dropped was a travesty.

If people understand Boycott, they would know that despite hating it with every fibre in his body he batted no. 4 for England in an effort to do what was best for the team.

Why would he agree to do something he despised and felt awkward doing if he was such a selfish player?

I dont know why people fall into the popular fallacy that he was not a team player and scored overly slowly. Its not like he ever scored 36 notout off 174 balls in an ODI

 

[silentstriker]

Yes he was. However that was because of the selectors acting like clowns. It really was not that slow and his being dropped was a travesty.

If people understand Boycott, they would know that despite hating it with every fibre in his body he batted no. 4 for England in an effort to do what was best for the team.

Why would he agree to do something he despised and felt awkward doing if he was such a selfish player?

Did he have a choice?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Also even his most outspoken and critical teammates only criticise him as a person rather than a cricketer.

Not strictly true, actually. I don't know if you've read Leo McKinstry's biography (simply called "Boycs"), but a repeated criticism of him as a player was his desire to hog the strike. More than one of his ex-team mates put his poor running between the wickets down to this.

Another recurring negative was his refusal to offer advice to other players on how to counter a particular bowler or play a particular pitch. David Bairstow recalls his standard response as being "It's nowt to do with me, I'm not the captain."

His slow scoring has been exaggerated by posterity tho. He was famously dropped from the test team after scoring 246* for its funereal pace, but the strike rate was a comparatively respectable (IMHO) 44.30.

 

[Goughy]

Another recurring negative was his refusal to offer advice to other players on how to counter a particular bowler or play a particular pitch. David Bairstow recalls his standard response as being "It's nowt to do with me, I'm not the captain."

Do you not think it is the ultimate sign of respect and recognition of ability and standing that he was always the one man expected to be able to 'work out' bowlers and provide information that others were not capable of acquiring?

I remember talking to Don Wilson about Boycs. He made a lot of jokes at his expense but when it came down to pure cricket there was a deep respect.

 

[silentstriker]

Do you not think it is the ultimate sign of respect and recognition of ability and standing that he was always the one man expected to be able to 'work out' bowlers and provide information that others were not capable of acquiring?

Sure, you can be respected for your ability and still be selfish. No one said he didn't have ability, just that he used it for selfish purposes.

If he wasn't willing to help out his teammate, thats the ultimate act of selfishness (If its true, not sure if it is).

 

[BoyBrumby]

Do you not think it is the ultimate sign of respect and recognition of ability and standing that he was always the one man expected to be able to 'work out' bowlers and provide information that others were not capable of acquiring?

I remember talking to Don Wilson about Boycs. He made a lot of jokes at his expense but when it came down to pure cricket there was a deep respect.

Absolutely. Whatever their opinions of him as a man, none of his ex-colleagues would ever demure from the assertion that he was the greatest post-war bat Yorkshire had produced. However it is indicative of his one-eyed approach to cricket that he would refuse to offer any help he could to his team mates.

In his later career particularly he was playing primarily for himself & if his and Yorkshire's needs coincided it was more of a happy coincidence. Paradoxically though in his own way he was tremendously loyal; there is no doubt he could've extended his career with another county after Yorks declined to offer him another contract; unlike Trueman, Illingworth & Close he could not countenance it.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Do you not think it is the ultimate sign of respect and recognition of ability and standing that he was always the one man expected to be able to 'work out' bowlers and provide information that others were not capable of acquiring?

I remember talking to Don Wilson about Boycs. He made a lot of jokes at his expense but when it came down to pure cricket there was a deep respect.

And that's all there is too it, if you're talking about just cricket.

 

[SA]

Example: your team needs you to score fast, and your strike rate doesn't improve much.

I admit that I was wrong about Sobers but I can give you lot of examples when Sunil Gavaskar was selfish .I'm 100% sure that he's one of the most selfish pl;ayers & doesn't deserve to be called great.

 

[silentstriker]

I admit that I was wrong about Sobers but I can give you lot of examples when Sunil Gavaskar was selfish .

Sure, give me examples (no, not the ODI, in which he pretty much sucked anyway) in tests.

 

[SA]

Sure, give me examples (no, not the ODI, in which he pretty much sucked anyway) in tests.

Sir,I was refering to ODIs basically.Please tell me that aren't ODIs part of the game called cricket.I couldn' watch Gavaska in tests much to give my views but there's some reason he's regarded as one of the most selfish players in the history of the game along with Boycott.