Barry Richards vs Geoffrey Boycott

[Johan]

Court found him guilty. That's enough for me.
Others can exclude such matters for me they count as part of evaluating a player.

I mean, alright if you think conviction is absolute.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Happy birthday in a few hours Barry

 

[kyear2]

Boycott is the second best post war opener.
He is ahead of Greenidge, Smith, Cook & Hayden

Hard disagree on that one.

 

[subshakerz]

by how much

A small but notable bit.

 

[Johan]

Hard disagree on that one.

None of those have a valid argument over him.

 

[subshakerz]

None of those have a valid argument over him.

SR. Even you admit it's a problem with Boycott.

 

[Johan]

SR. Even you admit it's a problem with Boycott.

compared to Gavaskar Yes, compared to these bums No, they aren't close to him in quality to remotely bring SR as a factor.

 

[subshakerz]

compared to Gavaskar Yes, compared to these bums No, they aren't close to him in quality to remotely bring SR as a factor.

They are based on how they imposed themselves on the game, at least with Greenidge since he was in the same era.

Somebody like Boycott is an oppositions preference. Doesn't ever pick up the pace so you can effectively ignore him as he bats sedately and essentially build ups pressure that the other bats have to deal with. He won't ever do anything to break a bowlers rhythm and is entirely predictable.

To me an assertive opener averaging mid 40s in the same era is enough to overcome Boycott who has a fundamental defect in his game that taints his runs even if he has a cleaner spreadsheet.

 

[subshakerz]

It's mid 30s, and no, the impact doesn't lessen, the ball swung and seam substantially more in England than anywhere else in the world so the early defensive phase would naturally be larger in England than elsewhere. Infact, The English way is very much to whether the storm before playing the old ball normally, never lessened the impact of runs by the bats. 100 (285) doesn't have less impact than 100(200), Complaining about the strikerate of an opener is a bit much.

Just want to point out how loony this view is.

You are saying Boycott taking an extra 15 overs a game to score a ton doesn't somehow change the course of a game. That's nonsense. It not only increases the chance of a draw but generates pressure on the other teammates to accelerate to get to a par score.

And no, you cant blame it on England. Boycott had the same early 30s SR in Pakistan and Australia. That was just how he played.

Lol Boycott has an entire 6 test match series against a secondrate Aussie attack with an SR of 22! Inexcusable.

 

[Johan]

They are based on how they imposed themselves on the game, at least with Greenidge since he was in the same era.

Somebody like Boycott is an oppositions preference. Doesn't ever pick up the pace so you can effectively ignore him as he bats sedately and essentially build ups pressure that the other bats have to deal with. He won't ever do anything to break a bowlers rhythm and is entirely predictable.

To me an assertive opener averaging mid 40s in the same era is enough to overcome Boycott who has a fundamental defect in his game that taints his runs even if he has a cleaner spreadsheet.

Terrible post.

Boycott can and will punish the bad balls, but Boycott builds the preassure on the opposition by repeatedly tiring out their main bowlers and forcing them to move to the weaker ones, the batsmen aren't under preassure, you live in a world where a middle order batsmen would prefer coming in at 40/2 (10 overs) over 40/2 (20 overs but that's simply not true. The older the ball and the more tired the attack the better for the middle order and Boycott gives you that, there's no fanfictional preassure, even bazballers play slow in their first overs.

Actually, you know what, I'm going to agree with @Prince EWS here and say the slower the strike rate is arguably better for the opener, less chances, more tired attacks for the middle order, older and softer ball, I really don't see any reason why an opener should play fast tbh.