"I had better technique than Gavaskar": Boycott

[fredfertang]

was just going to say the same thing. think he would've had his moments against them but in general would not have scored tons of runs.

If nothing else he would probably have made sure that Denness didn't get that big score he got in the game Thommo missed and Lillee only bowled a few overs in

 

[BoyBrumby]

At the time, many thought he did a runner because he was scared of pace - He ducked out of facing Lillee for 7 years.

England batsman on the tour of Australia 1974/5 - "Boycott was frightened to death...he missed out on Lillee and Thomson because he knew they were going to hit him. He was very clever." - Letting Rip

And didn't Tony Greig lose the Sussex captaincy for calling out Boycott for not being there?

Probably unfair, whatever his faults I don't think cowardice was amongst them. He did ok against the Windies in 80 & 80/81, when he was approaching and actually past his 40th birthday. Croft, Garner, Holding, Roberts & Marshall all featured.

 

[TT Boy]

Probably unfair, whatever his faults I don't think cowardice was amongst them. He did ok against the Windies in 80 & 80/81, when he was approaching and actually past his 40th birthday. Croft, Garner, Holding, Roberts & Marshall all featured.

Yeah, Bob Willis says as much. He said that whilst it looked bad, especially at the time for Boycott, it wasn't like he never got roughed up when he comeback. Hadlee, Croft, Hogg and Holding all tucked into him

 

[fredfertang]

Yeah, Bob Willis says as much. He said that whilst it looked bad, especially at the time for Boycott, it wasn't like he never got roughed up when he comeback. Hadlee, Croft, Hogg and Holding all tucked into him

Being a good Lancastrian I was always happy to accuse Boycs of cowardice - until I saw my one and only Roses Match, at Bradford of all places at the end of the 70's - Colin Croft gave Boycs a real working over - he clearly wasn't at all happy but he stood there and took it - there can be no doubt he preferred the likes of Geoff Dymock and Vanburn Holder but who wouldn't?

 

[Richard]

At the time, many thought he did a runner because he was scared of pace

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.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

At the time Boycott pulled out of the 74/75 tour Lillee's back was still in plaster and no one in England had even heard of Thomson.

 

[Matt79]

Are we talking batting technique or ****-stirring technique. Either way, it's very close.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think you can use the term 'easily better' when comparing the two. Boycott might have had a better technique - the statement is not far fetched.

 

[Richard]

Are we talking batting technique or ****-stirring technique. Either way, it's very close.

Sunny's far more of a ****stirrer than Sir Geoff TBH. Although he does come out with some crap, precious little of it is along the lines of the pointless post-colonial bull**** that Gavaskar generally seems to require once every couple of years. 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.

Oh and as for their batting techniques, both were about as solid as you'll get. Can't really see that anyone could justifiably claim one was better than the other.

 

[bagapath]

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.

that doesn't sound like a good enough reason to not want to represent your country. boycott proved once again he was self centered. compare this with gavaskar playing under kapil or bedi. he didn't like them either but worked with them despite the differences. boycott's personal ambition so often got in the way of the team's goals that botham claims once he went into bat earlier with the sole purpose of running boycs out so that they could get on with the game. boycott hated this anecdote, understandably. it features in both their autobiographies.

Although he does come out with some crap, precious little of it is along the lines of the pointless post-colonial bull**** that Gavaskar generally seems to require once every couple of years.

mmm. it annoys me too. and i think the indian board's attitude of late is as deplorable as "imperial cricket council's" high handedness in earlier eras. i guess the wheel will keep circling and we will always have one arrogant ass on top. but still let us acknowledge that gavaskar comes from a post colonial hangup influenced era and had reasons to fight it. in the late 1960s, the manager of the indian team touring england went to the english manager and told him that his team had come to their country not to win but to learn cricket from them. obviously this servile attitude continued for several decades after the british left indian shores. gavaskar had to deal with such idiots and prove he was second to none in his profession. he doesnt have to bring it up this often these days i agree. but the issue was genuine, imo.

Oh and as for their batting techniques, both were about as solid as you'll get. Can't really see that anyone could justifiably claim one was better than the other.

true. on the basis of bad wicket play boycott could be deemed better. sunny was better to watch and scored faster. tough to split them on technique alone.

 

[Sanz]

on the basis of bad wicket play boycott could be deemed better. sunny was better to watch and scored faster. tough to split them on technique alone.

Depends, Sunny was better against spin on any kind of track, Boycott rarely faced Imran and Co. which Sunny faced for most of his career.

 

[Streetwise]

Beats my why they bothered to keep playing cricket after Boycott retired.

 

[Dissector]

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.

 

[Ikki]

I don't think it's even that close. For most of Sunny's career, he averaged above - often well above - 50. Boycott was usually below 50 apart from a short period in his career. I know that's simplistic but I think it makes the point.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I don't think it's even that close. For most of Sunny's career, he averaged above - often well above - 50. Boycott was usually below 50 apart from a short period in his career. I know that's simplistic but I think it makes the point.

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).

 

[neobuxadmin]

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.

 

[Son Of Coco]

What do you mean mate? He played for 18 years and 108 tests.



AWTA.

Spend most of those years in a forward defensive pose

 

[Richard]

that doesn't sound like a good enough reason to not want to represent your country. boycott proved once again he was self centered. compare this with gavaskar playing under kapil or bedi. he didn't like them either but worked with them despite the differences.

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.

boycott's personal ambition so often got in the way of the team's goals that botham claims once he went into bat earlier with the sole purpose of running boycs out so that they could get on with the game. boycott hated this anecdote, understandably. it features in both their autobiographies.

The number of times Boycott's own interests got in the way of the team's is ridiculously magnified. Under the vast, vast majority of circumstances the interests of batsman and batting side go hand-in-hand. There may have been a very occasional second-innings where Boycott batting in the only way he ever batted was counter-intuitive to England's best interests, but no more than that.

mmm. it annoys me too. and i think the indian board's attitude of late is as deplorable as "imperial cricket council's" high handedness in earlier eras. i guess the wheel will keep circling and we will always have one arrogant ass on top. but still let us acknowledge that gavaskar comes from a post colonial hangup influenced era and had reasons to fight it. in the late 1960s, the manager of the indian team touring england went to the english manager and told him that his team had come to their country not to win but to learn cricket from them. obviously this servile attitude continued for several decades after the british left indian shores. gavaskar had to deal with such idiots and prove he was second to none in his profession. he doesnt have to bring it up this often these days i agree. but the issue was genuine, imo.

It's absolutely right that Indians be aggrieved about the way things were in the 1960s and 1970s (and pretty much the 1980s as well). But those days are long-gone, and you won't change the past under any circumstances. So therefore all banging-on the way Sunny does, constantly, about how India are now in charge is causes more disharmony at the current time.

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

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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.

Boycott's problem with Denness wasn't just his lack of batting credentials, it was the fact that he was captain when he wasn't good enough to be in the side - a job Boycott wanted for himself.

 

[Richard]

More or less as I said in fact:

Boycott took the time out because ... he believed - rightly - that Mike Denness was not good enough for Test cricket and should not have got the captaincy.