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.

 

[sayon basak]

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.

Doesn't hitting the ball make it old faster?

 

[Johan]

Just want to point out how loony this view is..

I'm not really in a good mood where I'd take your jabs playfully, I suggest you chose your words carefully.

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.

It allows him to occupy the crease further, one of your top bats occupying the crease is always good, allows him to see more spells from the elite bowler, allows him to keep a collapse from happening etc, there's really no fundamental reason an opener should play fast.

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

Lol you're stupid, I think this is the series where it is the lowest scoring series in Australia since the 1880s, literally since the Victorian Era. Geoffrey averaged around 21 in that series, but his ability to occupy crease actually gave the series value, imagine if it was Greenidge averaging 20~ with a 50 strike rate, inconsequential. While Geoffrey's 77 (337) saw off the overcast conditions and a new ball spell at the WACA which led to an English win, You can imagine, 1970s WACA with overcast conditions. He also saw the new ball off at Adeliade when that entire game had revolved around new ball rampages. Even when it was his worst series in Australia, his slow scoring actually gave his runs value, not the other way around.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

You are arguing against a strongman. We all concede an opener is allowed to take longer to survive the new ball and have a bit of a slower SR. It's why I don't mind Gavaskar as opener.

But there are limits and Boycott clearly crosses them. He doesn't have the extra gear enough for it to reflect in his record. The entire point of tiring attacks is so that you can eventually attack when they lose energy and score more runs. So if he is taking 15 overs more on average every ton, those are wasted deliveries and potential wins converted to draws.

 

[Johan]

You are arguing against a strongman. We all concede an opener is allowed to take longer to survive the new ball and have a bit of a slower SR. It's why I don't mind Gavaskar as opener.

But there are limits and Boycott clearly crosses them. He doesn't have the extra gear enough for it to reflect in his record. The entire point of tiring attacks is so that you can eventually attack when they lose energy and score more runs. So if he is taking 15 overs more on average every ton, those are wasted deliveries and potential wins converted to draws.

The limits aren't set by you, one can perfectly be happy with Boycs's approach as much as they can draw a line at Gavaskar's, hell one can go out and draw the line at 50 Strike rate, same way they can do it at 30 Strike Rate, there's no more validity to Gavaskar's approach with his marginally greater strike rate in substantially better general conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

It allows him to occupy the crease further, one of your top bats occupying the crease is always good, allows him to see more spells from the elite bowler, allows him to keep a collapse from happening etc, there's really no fundamental reason an opener should play fast.

You say that yet you rate Gavaskar ahead precisely for his ability to let loose when needed. Unless the goal is to draw games, crease occupation for its own sake is not a net positive for your team. You need at least a bit more run scoring capacity once pressure is off.

Lol you're stupid, I think this is the series where it is the lowest scoring series in Australia since the 1880s, literally since the Victorian Era. Geoffrey averaged around 21 in that series, but his ability to occupy crease actually gave the series value, imagine if it was Greenidge averaging 20~ with a 50 strike rate, inconsequential. While Geoffrey's 77 (337) saw off the overcast conditions and a new ball spell at the WACA which led to an English win, You can imagine, 1970s WACA with overcast conditions. He also saw the new ball off at Adeliade when that entire game had revolved around new ball rampages. Even when it was his worst series in Australia, his slow scoring actually gave his runs value, not the other way around.

The point was that his SR drops even well below the mid 30s you claimed at times and it was not just England.

 

[Coronis]

The limits aren't set by you, one can perfectly be happy with Boycs's approach as much as they can draw a line at Gavaskar's, hell one can go out and draw the line at 50 Strike rate, same way they can do it at 30 Strike Rate, there's no more validity to Gavaskar's approach with his marginally greater strike rate in substantially better general conditions.

I personally draw it at 60. Removes blokes like Greenidge and Gooch from the equation.

 

[subshakerz]

The limits aren't set by you, one can perfectly be happy with Boycs's approach as much as they can draw a line at Gavaskar's, hell one can go out and draw the line at 50 Strike rate, same way they can do it at 30 Strike Rate, there's no more validity to Gavaskar's approach with his marginally greater strike rate in substantially better general conditions.

No there are practically consequences for these approaches. Why would I prefer an opener who can't regularly let loose in good batting conditions and apply direct pressure on bowlers?

 

[Johan]

You say that yet you rate Gavaskar ahead precisely for his ability to let loose when needed. Unless the goal is to draw games, crease occupation for its own sake is not a net positive for your team. You need at least a bit more run scoring capacity once pressure is off.

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.

The point was that his SR drops even well below the mid 30s you claimed at times and it was not just England.

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.

 

[Johan]

No there are practically consequences for these approaches. Why would I prefer an opener who can't regularly let loose in good batting conditions and apply direct pressure on bowlers?

Why would I take an opener who spends less time at the crease and doesn't do the job of seeing off the shine of the ball and the hardness anywhere near as well as the other?

 

[subshakerz]

Why would I take an opener who spends less time at the crease and doesn't do the job of seeing off the shine of the ball and the hardness anywhere near as well as the other?

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.

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