"I had better technique than Gavaskar": Boycott

[bagapath]

It wasn't a case of personality-clashes - Boycott simply didn't rate Denness as a batsman, and he was right not to - Denness wasn't good enough to play Test cricket, and only scored against weak Test attacks. If pulling-out of the team completely was maybe a bit OTT, the reasons behind it were sound.

I dont understand how the reasons were sound. Boycott pulling out was just a petty reaction to missing out on captaincy. Even if he did not rate Denness, he was not a selector to decide whether mike should play or not.

BTW it was Imperial Cricket Conference TBH. Then it became International Cricket Conference in something like 1975.

Correct. but the name change happened much much later in 1989. and now it is international cricket council

 

[Lillian Thomson]

More or less as I said in fact:

Fair enough, but if you were going to miss one of the issues out the second time around it should have been the batsman point as the captaincy was the greater issue rather than "simply not rating him as a batsman."

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It should also be pointed out that Boycott had already withdrawn from Test Cricket before the Ashes tour party was announced. He could have filled his boots in 5 more Tests against weak India and Pakistan bowling attacks during the summer of 1974. He didn't make himself unavailable for the tour until after they picked him as it wasn't up to him to pre-empt the selectors who might not have picked him anyway.
He was also on the verge of making himself available for the 76 series against the West Indies after Greig offered him the vice captaincy but he picked up an injury which kept him out of all cricket until the series was half over.

 

[Richard]

I dont understand how the reasons were sound. Boycott pulling out was just a petty reaction to missing out on captaincy. Even if he did not rate Denness, he was not a selector to decide whether mike should play or not.

Just because someone isn't a selector doesn't mean they can't have a view on who should be in the team and who shouldn't TBH.

As I say, whether Boycott was right to refuse to play under Denness because he didn't consider Denness a good enough batsman to play, never mind captain, and believed he himself should have been captain, is a moot point. That he was right to believe Denness should not have been playing, never mind captaining, because he was not good enough is beyond doubt IMO.

 

[Sanz]

I don't think that really makes any point at all about batting technique. As far as the coaching manual is concerned Boycott had a better "technique" than Viv Richards or Brian Lara but he doesn't compare in his effectiveness as a batsman. I look on Gavaskar as the perfect opening batsman in that he can play defensively or aggressively depending on the situation (give or take his innings at Lords in the 1975 World Cup).

Technic is only one of the aspect of batting.Temprament,attitude, mental toughness and adaptaion are also significant for success of any batsman. In all these terms Gavaskar was a miles ahead to Boycott. He carried more burden and responsiblity on his shoulder compare to Boycott, as in those days India was not a great test team.

These two posts sum up my thinking on the subject.

 

[bagapath]

Just because someone isn't a selector doesn't mean they can't have a view on who should be in the team and who shouldn't TBH.

As I say, whether Boycott was right to refuse to play under Denness because he didn't consider Denness a good enough batsman to play, never mind captain, and believed he himself should have been captain, is a moot point. That he was right to believe Denness should not have been playing, never mind captaining, because he was not good enough is beyond doubt IMO.

I like the "IMO" you have added in the end. because I dont think it is beyond doubt the whole world would have agreed with boycott that mike denness was not good enough to play for england. at least the guys who selected the english teams those days didnt think so. and they didnt care if boycott threw his toy out of the pram and cried.

and boycott was not right to refuse to play under him just because he believed denness was not good enough to captain him. no wonder ian chappell called him a selfish b*****d

 

[fredfertang]

Denness was the incumbent and had a pretty good record as captain - there was no reason not to appoint him in 74/75 and an average of just under 40 from 28 tests is better than some highly regarded successors - I think you judge him too harshly Rich

 

[aussie]

It was patent nonsense even then, before he proved it so quite clearly bull**** when he came back aged 40 and faced Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft and Marshall in 1980 and 1981. As if Boycott never batted against Garth McKenzie and Wes Hall in the 1960s.

Boycott took the time out because he - like plenty would be - was exhausted from 11 years of non-stop Test cricket, and because he believed - rightly - that Mike Denness was not good enough for Test cricket and should not have got the captaincy.

Word, this is the idea i've always gathered as well.

 

[Richard]

Denness was the incumbent and had a pretty good record as captain - there was no reason not to appoint him in 74/75 and an average of just under 40 from 28 tests is better than some highly regarded successors - I think you judge him too harshly Rich

Not arguing for a second that Denness shouldn't have gotten the job in '74/75 - he had an unequivocal case at that point. He just shouldn't have been given it in '74 after Illingworth's final assignment was complete, because he wasn't good enough.

Denness' Test average may have been pretty good but he was a flat-track bully IMO, I've never heard anyone seriously suggest otherwise.

 

[Richard]

I like the "IMO" you have added in the end. because I dont think it is beyond doubt the whole world would have agreed with boycott that mike denness was not good enough to play for england. at least the guys who selected the english teams those days didnt think so. and they didnt care if boycott threw his toy out of the pram and cried.

Selectors make mistakes all the time - appointing Denness as Illingworth's successor was very much one IMO.

What's more at that time there was still the very tail end of the northerner-southerner\upper-class-lower-class thing hanging around. IIRR there were some accusations that being a southern upper-class type counted in Denness' favour as there was still some thought that the lower-class northerner Illingworth couldn't be followed by a like-for-like.

Allowing northern\southern or class considerations to impact on selection is of course utterly nonsensical.

and boycott was not right to refuse to play under him just because he believed denness was not good enough to captain him. no wonder ian chappell called him a selfish b*****d

Perhaps he thought they'd change their minds on Denness if he withdrew? Not saying he was right to do so as I say, just that it's not a case of unequivocal wrongdoing on his part.

As I say though, Denness' being given the captaincy wasn't the only reason for his 3-year withdrawl.

 

[fredfertang]

Not arguing for a second that Denness shouldn't have gotten the job in '74/75 - he had an unequivocal case at that point. He just shouldn't have been given it in '74 after Illingworth's final assignment was complete, because he wasn't good enough.

Denness' Test average may have been pretty good but he was a flat-track bully IMO, I've never heard anyone seriously suggest otherwise.

So who would you say should have succeeded Illingworth?

Sir Geoffrey himself had a woeful record as captain - not necessarily all his fault at Yorkshire because of the politics there but his brief tenure of the Test team was pretty unsuccessful

 

[Richard]

I'd have given it to anyone ahead of someone I didn't consider good enough to be playing. If that was Sir Geoff, so be it.

With hindsight I've always rather wished Greig had got it there and then - presume this was an option never seriously considered ATT though, as I've never heard the slightest mention of it, where (as I say) I've heard hundreds of mentions that Denness was not a Test-class batsman.

Better still if Greig had got it then he might've been sacked by 1977 and wouldn't have had the chance to betray the team when he did.

 

[fredfertang]

It was less than ten years since the distinction between Gents and Players was abolished and three years after the D'Oliveira affair - Greig only got the gig when he did because the selectors had nowhere else to turn

.............. and Greig was a much better cricketer than history remembers - it could almost be said his stats don't do him justice - although they're not at all bad

 

[Richard]

You reckon the D'Oliveira affair impacted upon people's perceptions of Greig?

Seems incredible if so. If you believed he was a nasty racist like all South Africans then surely you'd have merely wanted nothing whatsoever to do with him. If on the other hand you were keen to treat every man on his own merits surely you'd have treated him as you would any other Englishman?

 

[fredfertang]

Not me mate - the stuffed shirts at Lords

 

[subshakerz]

Boycott did have a better record against the Windies at their peak than Gavaskar. Gavaskar was a better player of spin. Hard to separate the two but if I wanted an opening batsman against top quality fast bowling on a seaming track I would pick Boycott.

Actually, against the West Indies quartet, they both averaged nearly the same (41). They both played two series against them, Boycott in 80/81, and Gavaskar in 82/83.

For those who like to deride Gavaskar's record against the West Indies at their best as being poor, its worth pointing out that both Greg Chappell and Javed Miandad, who he was being compared with recently, didn't even average 30 against the same attack. Nobody questions Chappell's ability against top notch pace though. Averaging over 40 against the greatest bowling machine of all-time is not as small an achievement as it seems.

 

[aussie]

Actually, against the West Indies quartet, they both averaged nearly the same (41). They both played two series against them, Boycott in 80/81, and Gavaskar in 82/83.

For those who like to deride Gavaskar's record against the West Indies at their best as being poor, its worth pointing out that both Greg Chappell and Javed Miandad, who he was being compared with recently, didn't even average 30 against the same attack. Nobody questions Chappell's ability against top notch pace though. Averaging over 40 against the greatest bowling machine of all-time is not as small an achievement as it seems.

Greg Chappell aveaged what was it 69 vs WI in WI during WSC 79. That really should go on his test record.

 

[Dissector]

The difference is that Gavaskar averaged around 50 in India and 30 in the West Indies to get that 40. IIRC Boycott averaged around 40 in both West Indies and England. Clearly it would have been more difficult to face the Windies pacers in England than India.

And I never said that Gavaskar did poorly. I give him a lot of credit for playing under the pressure of being the most prized wicket in the Indian lineup for most of his career. That is especially difficult when you are an opener and constantly face fresh bowlers with a new ball.

However the idea that Gavaskar had a much more successful test career than Boycott is nonsense. There is very little to choose between them once you go beneath the surface.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So who would you say should have succeeded Illingworth?

Sir Geoffrey himself had a woeful record as captain - not necessarily all his fault at Yorkshire because of the politics there but his brief tenure of the Test team was pretty unsuccessful

Unlike the previous winter when he wasn't available for the Indian tour and Tony Lewis was made captain, Illingworth was available for the West Indies tour in 73/74 and although England had struggled in the home series against the West Indies there was no reason why he shouldn't have continued as captain. The three spinners on that tour were Underwood (which is fair enough) plus Birkenshaw and Pocock so Illingworth was still worth a place in the side.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Boycott just tends to over-criticise batsmen, often neglecting the vital realisation that batsmen are human and thus will make errors of judgement - and in most cases, not irregularly.

Is this being said with or without irony?