Rank the ATG team in away conditions:

[subshakerz]

It promotes an awkwardly defensive mindset to the team, more importantly, your tips being ignored gives the idea that insubordination is going to go unpunished.

Everything in the article is incorrect.

Yes and a defensive mindset is bad for winning games.

The article can’t be dismissed that easily with that many references and player testimony,

 

[Johan]

Yes and a defensive mindset is bad for winning games.

The article can’t be dismissed that easily with that many references and player testimony,

It's also good for not losing games, Boycott has said he only understands the value of a player through how many games they win or save for their teams. It's good to have both defensive minded and aggressive minded players in one team, and the captain/VC ideally being somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

It is already dismissed, it's a nothing character assassination article, on par with what our usual suspects post on Imran.

 

[subshakerz]

It promotes an awkwardly defensive mindset to the team, more importantly, your tips being ignored gives the idea that insubordination is going to go unpunished.

Everything in the article is incorrect.

it literally gives a list of his teammates having that objection to him, I really think your approach is simply a cope.

 

[Johan]

Yes and a defensive mindset is bad for winning games.

The article can’t be dismissed that easily with that many references and player testimony, it literally gives a list of his teammates having that objection to him, I really think your approach is simply a cope.

Yes and a defensive mindset is good for saving games

I think you are coping here that none of us really take such a fantastical article seriously, I already told you, unless you can bring me tangible evidence of him losing games by being selfish, I won't really take it seriously.

 

[subshakerz]

It's good to have both defensive minded and aggressive minded players in one team

Nah all the players should be on the same page

 

[subshakerz]

I think you are coping here that none of us really take such a fantastical article seriously, I already told you, unless you can bring me tangible evidence of him losing games by being selfish, I won't really take it seriously.

So you agree he was selfish just disagree that it cost the team that much?

 

[Johan]

So you agree he was selfish just disagree that it cost the team that much?

Nope, I don't agree at all that he was a "selfish batsman" unless I can, you know, be presented with evidence of selfish batsmanship.

 

[subshakerz]

Nope, I don't agree at all that he was a "selfish batsman" unless I can, you know, be presented with evidence of selfish batsmanship.

Wouldn’t his teammate and captain be the best ones to determine motives by playing with him?

 

[Johan]

Wouldn’t his teammate and captain be the best ones to determine motives by playing with him?

No, it would have tangible effects on reality, otherwise it's the same thing as people complaining about witchcraft in the dark times.

 

[subshakerz]

No, it would have tangible effects on reality, otherwise it's the same thing as people complaining about witchcraft in the dark times.

Him being selfish is a personality trait, not some supernatural phenomenon, how can you deny that if so many peers playing with him claim it?

 

[Johan]

Him being selfish is a personality trait, not some supernatural phenomenon, how can you deny that if so many peers playing with him claim it?

It's very easy, by not giving power to hearsay.

 

[subshakerz]

It's very easy, by not giving power to hearsay.

Nah it’s confirmed by enough people to be trustworthy assertion

 

[Johan]

Nah it’s confirmed by enough people to be trustworthy assertion

"The witchcraft was confirmed by enough people to be trustworthy assertion"

 

[subshakerz]

"The witchcraft was confirmed by enough people to be trustworthy assertion"

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, isnt it?

Boycott being selfish isnt an extraordinary claim. You just need a volume of peers in his career to testify to that.

 

[Johan]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, isnt it?

Boycott being selfish isnt an extraordinary claim. You just need a volume of peers in his career to testify to that.

Indeed, all claims require evidence, and hearsay isn't evidence.

 

[subshakerz]

Indeed, all claims require evidence, and hearsay isn't evidence.

Except this isn’t hearsay. The veracity of whether these testimonies made to reporters isnt being debated. Just whether they consistute enough to claim a phenomenon exists.

If someone is an employee in a firm, and a large volume of peers and bosses across his career claim he is short tempered, you can either be disingenuous and claim that means nothing or acknowledge that a problem exists.

 

[Johan]

Except this isn’t hearsay. The veracity of whether these testimonies made to reporters isnt being debated. Just whether they consistute enough to claim a phenomenon exists.

If someone is an employee in a firm, and a large volume of peers and bosses across his career claim he is short tempered, you can either be disingenuous and claim that means nothing or acknowledge that a problem exists.

They don't.

Almost all of these are from people whose opinion can be influenced by a personal dislike, why am I to assume they are completely objective in their assessment of a batsman's batting when all of them have a strong personal dislike of the individual in question? why can their views not be the resultant of their personal biases? and if they are not, why have not a single performance been presented as an unequivocal example of selfishness that isn't founded upon the reader relying on someone else's opinion to come to the conclusion that it's a negative selfish performance? oh I know why, because it doesn't exist.

I don't care how many people dislike him, either post a performance that proves selfishness or just accept nobody really buys this urban myth.

 

[subshakerz]

They don't.

Almost all of these are from people whose opinion can be influenced by a personal dislike, why am I to assume they are completely objective in their assessment of a batsman's batting when all of them have a strong personal dislike of the individual in question? why can their views not be the resultant of their personal biases? and if they are not, why have not a single performance been presented as an unequivocal example of selfishness that isn't founded upon the reader relying on someone else's opinion to come to the conclusion that it's a negative selfish performance? oh I know why, because it doesn't exist.

I don't care how many people dislike him, either post a performance that proves selfishness or just accept nobody really buys this urban myth.

Except these are professional cricketers, if they just disliked him they could just call him a prick, him being selfish was a specific professional accusation that Dogged him throughout first class to test level, across teams and captains. I never make this accusation of Kallis of being selfish because all the testimony I get from his teammates is that he is a consummate team man.

And you go to silly lengths to justify his selfish innings, because your bar of looking at end match result isnt the one professional cricketer use, which is whether they feel accelerating the rate is needed in the context of that passage of the game. These players are also the ones best positioned to know if he cared more for his average than team.

 

[Johan]

Except these are professional cricketers, if they just disliked him they could just call him a prick, him being selfish was a specific professional accusation that Dogged him throughout first class to test level, across teams and captains. I never make this accusation of Kallis of being selfish because all the testimony I get from his teammates is that he is a consummate team man.

And you go to silly lengths to justify his selfish innings, because your bar of looking at end match result isnt the one professional cricketer use, which is whether they feel accelerating the rate is needed in the context of that passage of the game. These players are also the ones best positioned to know if he cared more for his average than team.

Except that they do it already, Boycott was not an easy person to work with, nor was he a particularly pleasant or good personality off the stage. That clearly is why accross captains and formats nobody in the game really liked him, and sometimes it does seep into the criticism of his batting but I see no reality in it. All of these guys have a personal dislike of the man, and I've no interest in defending his character, and that seeps into critiques of his batsmanship. Simply put, from my perspective all of these guys rightly having a personal grudge against Geoffrey means their testimonies are unreliable until they can produce actual examples of selfish batsmanship, which they can't. There is a reason no court or jury is going to take the testimony of Nazis as gospel when the accused is a minority.

Actually no, it's you who goes to silly and frankly idiotic lengths which make me question your mental stability when you're suggesting these are selfish, negative knocks. If they feel the need that accelerating is necessary, Geoffrey doesn't, and it leads to an English victory, who is right? and what makes the accusor correct? nothing, it's a thing of personal dislike, if the same knocks are played by Dravid they would be hailed as masterpieces while they are critiqued by Boycott, because the perception of the art is fundamentally influenced by the perception of the artist for most people. Regardless, still zero evidence that Geoffrey's batting was selfish.

 

[subshakerz]

Except that they do it already, Boycott was not an easy person to work with, nor was he a particularly pleasant or good personality off the stage. That clearly is why accross captains and formats nobody in the game really liked him, and sometimes it does seep into the criticism of his batting but I see no reality in it. All of these guys have a personal dislike of the man, and I've no interest in defending his character, and that seeps into critiques of his batsmanship. Simply put, from my perspective all of these guys rightly having a personal grudge against Geoffrey means their testimonies are unreliable until they can produce actual examples of selfish batsmanship, which they can't. There is a reason no court or jury is going to take the testimony of Nazis as gospel when the accused is a minority.

Actually no, it's you who goes to silly and frankly idiotic lengths which make me question your mental stability when you're suggesting these are selfish, negative knocks. If they feel the need that accelerating is necessary, Geoffrey doesn't, and it leads to an English victory, who is right? and what makes the accusor correct? nothing, it's a thing of personal dislike, if the same knocks are played by Dravid they would be hailed as masterpieces while they are critiqued by Boycott, because the perception of the art is fundamentally influenced by the perception of the artist for most people. Regardless, still zero evidence that Geoffrey's batting was selfish.

Boycott could be difficult but again and again their issue isnt just personal, it’s with how he plays, and they bring up specific innings too.

It seems you are willing to accept that he went against the wishes of his own team again and again in refusing to up his scoring rate and take risks, yeah that is the definition of not being a team man and selfish. He is putting his ego and wishes ahead of the team. The accusers aren’t just one or two, its a legion of peers across formats.

I shouldn’t have to debate about knocks because the double ton example was enough to get him sacked, if that ended in a draw, you would still find some other excuse to justify it. Or the NZ knock despite it being clear that the situation demanded quick runs, yet he stuck to default mode, otherwise why would teammates go to such extraordinary measures to run him out?

Your excuse for him to play golf while claiming to be ill for his last test is pathetic, there is no excuse for that.

You still haven’t even given a real justification for playing this slow Day 1 knock on a batting friendly surface which cost a potential win.

https://www.howstat.com/Cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0675