Barry Richards vs Geoffrey Boycott

[subshakerz]

My reasoning was less so SR and moreso the approach of batting allowing Gavaskar to go seriously big on flat wickets in a sense that Geoffrey didn't, a better user of good batting conditions if you will.

Well that does reflect in SR and why Boycott was unusually slow regardless of surface.

and yet he played an inning that clears anything Greenidge played in Australia, why did he do that? because he plaued slow and literally outlasted the overcast WACA conditions. An example of his slower tempo being a positive.

I could bring Sehwag innings to show how fast batting can be more useful too. The question is what is a better general approach.

Again, going back to the point, you framed Boycotts SR as an England issue. It isn't. It's his general approach to batting.

 

[Johan]

No you can have an opener who does see off the new ball and then asserts himself to set the pace. It's not a binary.

I'll take the opener better at seeing off the new ball and crease occupation than the one good at "asserting himself", anyway, it's like comparing Mervin Attapattu. and Michael Atherton

And if Boycott is better at surviving the new ball but not as good at capitalizing on it, it neutralised his survival advantage.

Yeah, Boycott's crease occupation neutralises (I'd argue exceeds but let's go with your version) the assertion advantage of other openers, and then he gives them a statistical beatdown.

 

[Johan]

Well that does reflect in SR and why Boycott was unusually slow regardless of surface.

watch his hundreds against Pakistan in early 70s and his hundred in Centenary Test where he shows he can play at a respectable pace.

I could bring Sehwag innings to show how fast batting can be more useful too. The question is what is a better general approach.

Again, going back to the point, you framed Boycotts SR as an England issue. It isn't. It's his general approach to batting.

Yeah, so if they cancel out, Boycott simply statistically beats any opener except the big five.

 

[subshakerz]

I'll take the opener better at seeing off the new ball and crease occupation than the one good at "asserting himself", anyway, it's like comparing Mervin Attapattu. and Michael Atherton

If you don't see any benefits of batsmen having a dominant mode you shouldn't rate Viv so highly.

Like I said, it's a mix and you can get too much of over aggression like Sehwag who can't handle tougher new ball spells or ultra defensiveness of Boycott who will almost never impose himself on opposition. Greenidge to me is a better mix.

Yeah, Boycott's crease occupation neutralises (I'd argue exceeds but let's go with your version) the assertion advantage of other openers, and then he gives them a statistical beatdown.

Not if the other opener has a similar average and output in the same era.

 

[subshakerz]

watch his hundreds against Pakistan in early 70s and his hundred in Centenary Test where he shows he can play at a respectable pace.

What matters is his normal mode of playing which is being critiqued.

Yeah, so if they cancel out, Boycott simply statistically beats any opener except the big five.

Right so this is your essential point, SR and batting style is irrelevant. I disagree and I think Greenidge in terms of record is still in the same ballpark as Boycott for me to give him the edge based on his batting style not being a liability.

 

[Johan]

If you don't see any benefits of batsmen having a dominant mode you shouldn't rate Viv so highly.

Like I said, it's a mix and you can get too much of over aggression like Sehwag who can't handle tougher new ball spells or ultra defensiveness of Boycott who will almost never impose himself on opposition. Greenidge to me is a better mix.

MO bats and openers are not the same.

Not at all, I think slower an opener bats is actually better, and I've made my case why, the job of the opener is to see of the new ball and protect the middle order, and Boycott is the best at that.

Not if the other opener has a similar average and output in the same era.

Only Gavaskar exceeds him statistically and tbh he has a huge advantage in home wickets

 

[subshakerz]

MO bats and openers are not the same.

Not at all, I think slower an opener bats is actually better, and I've made my case why, the job of the opener is to see of the new ball and protect the middle order, and Boycott is the best at that.

Let's just disagree. I think if what you said is true Boycott the bat would have been a more appreciated cricketer rather than be seen as a selfish by his own teammates.

Only Gavaskar exceeds him statistically and tbh he has a huge advantage in home wickets

I don't think Boycotts stats case is as impressive upon further scrutiny.

Didn't really face the Indian quartet in India. Nothing particularly outstanding against the top pacers of the era to set him well apart from Greenidge.

Greenidge in England is more impressive.

 

[Johan]

Let's just disagree. I think if what you said is true Boycott the bat would have been a more appreciated cricketer rather than be seen as a selfish by his own teammates.

Gavaskar also had plenty of selfish allegations.

Didn't really face the Indian quartet in India. Nothing particularly outstanding against the top pacers of the era to set him well apart from Greenidge.

Greenidge in England is more impressive.

All of this is applicable to Gavaskar, you have Gavaskar ahear of Greenidge by a long shot, make your mind.

 

[subshakerz]

Gavaskar also had plenty of selfish allegations.


All of this is applicable to Gavaskar, you have Gavaskar ahear of Greenidge by a long shot, make your mind.

Gavaskar never had nearly the same level of allegations.

Gavaskar has his Imran record and was elite against spin. Also a fair bit of output difference with Greenidge.

 

[Johan]

Gavaskar never had nearly the same level of allegations.

In his second half of his career he 100% did.

Gavaskar has his Imran record.

Chunk of it is from before Imran was a great bowler and on the flattest wickets ever and you know that

and was elite against spin.

so was Boyc

Also a fair bit of output difference with Greenidge.

Reminder Gavaskar is 50, Boycott 48, Greenidge 43.

 

[subshakerz]

In his second half of his career he 100% did.

I don't recall any from his teammates or any severe enough to question his standing.

Chunk of it is from before Imran was a great bowler and on the flattest wickets ever and you know that

No he has two quality back to back series against peak Imran.

so was Boyc

I don't rate him Gavaskar level.

Reminder Gavaskar is 50, Boycott 48, Greenidge 43.

No it's 51, 47 and 44.

So quite a distance between Greenidge and Gavaskar.

 

[Johan]

I don't recall any from his teammates or any severe enough to question his standing.

I don't recall any of that for Boycott.

No he has two quality back to back series against peak Imran..

Boycott has two back to back quality serieses against peak WI while being over 40 in age.

I don't rate him Gavaskar level..

you're wrong.

No it's 51, 47 and 44.

You count WSC, I count World XI games, WSC knocks Greenidge to 43, ups Boycott to 48 and downs Gavaskar to 50

So quite a distance between Greenidge and Gavaskar.

quite the difference between Greenidge and Geoffrey too, infact Greenidge is closer to Gooch than to Boycott

 

[subshakerz]

I don't recall any of that for Boycott.


Boycott has two back to back quality serieses against peak WI while being over 40 in age.


you're wrong.


You count WSC, I count World XI games, WSC knocks Greenidge to 43, ups Boycott to 48 and downs Gavaskar to 50


quite the difference between Greenidge and Geoffrey too, infact Greenidge is closer to Gooch than to Boycott

Give me a break. Botham called Boycott, 'totally, almost insanely, selfish.’ Boycott was dropped for his selfishness the next test after making a double.

Those are good series against WI sure but Gavaskar has those too. Boycott doesn't have something besides that against Lillee, Hadlee or Imran.

Really? Please regale us of his conquests against spin. Gavaskar as per Kimber averaged something almost Bradmanesque against spin his career.

You were the one who convinced me not to mix WSC averages with tests.

There is a three point difference between Boycott and Greenidge and it's not enough of a gap for me to overcome Boycotts weakness.

 

[Coronis]

I mean lets just agree that Boycs > Greenidge but Sunny > Boycs

 

[Johan]

Give me a break. Botham called Boycott, 'totally, almost insanely, selfish.’ Boycott was dropped for his selfishness the next test after making a double.

That game was Boycott saying it won't rain so play normal Cricket while others suggesting it will rain so play fast, it didn't rain, common Boycott W. He was dropped for slow scoring like Barrington.

Those are good series against WI sure but Gavaskar has those too. Boycott doesn't have something besides that against Lillee, Hadlee or Imran.

Boycott averages 43 in games with Lillee and has three hundreds over him.

Really? Please regale us of his conquests against spin. Gavaskar as per Kimber averaged something almost Bradmanesque against spin his career.

Double ton against the indian spin quaret, can I see Gavaskar's greatness against spin. Kimber is irrelevant to me, source the stat.

You were the one who convinced me not to mix WSC averages with tests.

I'm playing by your logic, and no, you were never convinced.

There is a three point difference between Boycott and Greenidge and it's not enough of a gap for me to overcome Boycotts weakness.

Greenidge totally tanked in the hardest opposition's homes, that counts against him. Not a problem with Geoffrey, the fact Greenidge was condition reliant and had much easier home conditions than Boycott and still is 4-5 points behind on average says it all.

Gooch was better than Greenidge

 

[subshakerz]

That game was Boycott saying it won't rain so play normal Cricket while others suggesting it will rain so play fast, it didn't rain, common Boycott W. He was dropped for slow scoring like Barrington.


Boycott averages 43 in games with Lillee and has three hundreds over him.


Double ton against the indian spin quaret, can I see Gavaskar's greatness against spin. Kimber is irrelevant to me, source the stat.


I'm playing by your logic, and no, you were never convinced.


Greenidge totally tanked in the hardest opposition's homes, that counts against him. Not a problem with Geoffrey, the fact Greenidge was condition reliant and had much easier home conditions than Boycott and still is 4-5 points behind on average says it all.

Gooch was better than Greenidge

Yeah so he was dropped for the exact problem I am talking about. Come on there are plenty yod his teammates who called him selfish.

Fair enough thanks to a great solo test in 80, two ordinary series besides that. Again not something outstanding but good.

I was, our conclusion was that WSC should be test adjacent and not mixed.

Greenidge was condition reliant but excelled more than Boycott in England and NZ?

 

[Johan]

Yeah so he was dropped for the exact problem I am talking about. Come on there are plenty yod his teammates who called him selfish.

Nah, he was dropped because the English big shots wanted money to flow in by good positive play, dead wickets were killing CC and their pockets were only being filled by the West Indies games. Why do you think England played West Indies so often? that's why players like Gower, Cowdrey, Dexter were preffered over Cricketers like Boycott and Barrington, even if the latter were more effective, it's all about the money.

Fair enough thanks to a great solo test in 80, two ordinary series besides that. Again not something outstanding but good.

Ok? His average in the games is 43.78, and I'm pretty sure he had health issues in the 1972 games too.

I was, our conclusion was that WSC should be test adjacent and not mixed.

Ok 48 and 44, counting the World XI games, clear gap. 12 point FC gap too.

Greenidge was condition reliant but excelled more than Boycott in England and NZ?

New Zealand is small sample for Boycott but Greenidge deserves credit but nothing is going to fix completely flopping at the homes of your two top opposition really. Imagine if a bowler averaged 35+ in Australia and England and India today, nobody would rate them.

 

[subshakerz]

Nah, he was dropped because the English big shots wanted money to flow in by good positive play, dead wickets were killing CC and their pockets were only being filled by the West Indies games. Why do you think England played West Indies so often? that's why players like Gower, Cowdrey, Dexter were preffered over Cricketers like Boycott and Barrington, even if the latter were more effective, it's all about the money.


Ok? His average in the games is 43.78, and I'm pretty sure he had health issues in the 1972 games too.


Ok 48 and 44, counting the World XI games, clear gap. 12 point FC gap too.


New Zealand is small sample for Boycott but Greenidge deserves credit but nothing is going to fix completely flopping at the homes of your two top opposition really. Imagine if a bowler averaged 35+ in Australia and England and India today, nobody would rate them.

You really are reaching. Boycott had a selfish rep with his teammates and you can find plenty of testimony on that.

These are good series averages without really being outright outstanding is my point.

I already conceded that Boycott has a cleaner spreadsheet, but because he doesn't overtake him significantly against top bowlers I prefer the one whose batting style isn't an active liability to the team and has a better rep.

 

[Johan]

You really are reaching. Boycott had a selfish rep with his teammates and you can find plenty of testimony on that.

Okay, he also had great rep from many, and in modern times the selfishness mellowed so his revised rep is better than before.

These are good series averages without really being outright outstanding is my point.

He has good output against ATGs yeah, wasn't scared of opening against Thomson like Greenidge was, better player of high pace.

I already conceded that Boycott has a cleaner spreadsheet, but because he doesn't overtake him significantly against top bowlers I prefer the one whose batting style isn't an active liability to the team and has a better rep.

Like I told you, I think slower batting is better for openers.

 

[subshakerz]

Okay, he also had great rep from many, and in modern times the selfishness mellowed so his revised rep is better than before.


He has good output against ATGs yeah, wasn't scared of opening against Thomson like Greenidge was, better player of high pace.


Like I told you, I think slower batting is better for openers.

We disagree slightly on the difference between their record and much more on the problems with his batting style. So can leave it there.