weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Last edited:
Better player of top quality fast bowling, I agree. Boycs was probably better on bad wickets, if only because he had more to play on.He Probably did, but Sunny was the better batsman, easily.
What do you mean mate? He played for 18 years and 108 tests.Boycott, had he played more, would have been regarded much more highly. I can't separate Gavaskar and Boycott, whatever I have read and watched of the two.
AWTA.He Probably did, but Sunny was the better batsman, easily.
Did have a three year sulk & withdrew his test services when he should've been somewhere near his peak.What do you mean mate? He played for 18 years and 108 tests.
come on. boycott took off for three years from tests after playing international cricket for eleven years from his debut. and then he came back to play for 4 more years. there is no way anyone can say he would be rated higher (or lower) if he had played more. he played enough for us to know his caliber. its okay if someone rated him on par with or better than other openers of his era. he retired as the highest run getter in world cricket for god's sake! but he evokes memories of boring, selfish test match batting that will have no place in my books.Did have a three year sulk & withdrew his test services when he should've been somewhere near his peak.
Was just looking over to see how old he was then; and since he didn't play between 74-77 he would have been 34-37 years old.Did have a three year sulk & withdrew his test services when he should've been somewhere near his peak.
Had he played more and ended up with more test runs than Sunil Gavaskar, a lot of young cricket fans would rate him higher. It wouldn't make much difference to the people who look beyond the stats like you though for sure.come on. boycott took off for three years from tests after playing international cricket for eleven years from his debut. and then he came back to play for 4 more years. there is no way anyone can say he would be rated higher (or lower) if he had played more.
I wasn't saying I though he should've played more or less or if it would've had any affect on his career figures, rather I was suggesting why Pratters might say that he should've played more.come on. boycott took off for three years from tests after playing international cricket for eleven years from his debut. and then he came back to play for 4 more years. there is no way anyone can say he would be rated higher (or lower) if he had played more. he played enough for us to know his caliber. its okay if someone rated him on par with or better than other openers of his era. he retired as the highest run getter in world cricket for god's sake! but he evokes memories of boring, selfish test match batting that will have no place in my books.
True (almost, he was 33-36, ftr), but he was a late developer. He didn't play first class cricket until he was 22 and, in the two seasons following his comeback he averaged 73.06 in tests, suggesting he was still at the zenith of his powers.Was just looking over to see how old he was then; and since he didn't play between 74-77 he would have been 34-37 years old.
I am not sure one could say conclusively that he missed out on his peak. Maybe by not playing it helped him to do better the following years? Did he average similarly 2 years prior (when one would say, generally, is the peak for all batsmen 28-32)? It's impressive, I agree, but if I were hearing this as a reason why Gavaskar = Boycott I would be dismissive of it.True (almost, he was 33-36, ftr), but he was a late developer. He didn't play first class cricket until he was 22 and, in the two seasons following his comeback he averaged 73.06 in tests, suggesting he was still at the zenith of his powers.
I'm not suggesting it as a reason to rate him higher (or lower) than Sunny for one second, merely pointing out he could've played more and the years he missed might have been somewhere near his best. FTR in the two years before his exile he was averaging 47.95, which is as close to his career figure as makes no odds. Output alone didn't suggest he needed a break. The most obvious reason for the self-imposed exile was his fit of pique at Mike Denness being given the captaincy above him.I am not sure one could say conclusively that he missed out on his peak. Maybe by not playing it helped him to do better the following years? Did he average similarly 2 years prior (when one would say, generally, is the peak for all batsmen 28-32)? It's impressive, I agree, but if I were hearing this as a reason why Gavaskar = Boycott I would be dismissive of it.
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.Boycott chose three good years to miss - I rather doubt his stats would've been improved had he faced Lillee and Thomson in 74/75 and 75 and the WIndies in 76
At the time, many thought he did a runner because he was scared of pace - He ducked out of facing Lillee for 7 years.Did have a three year sulk & withdrew his test services when he should've been somewhere near his peak.