Rank the ATG team in away conditions:

[Johan]

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.

Except the fact that they don't, they largely just make stuff up and ask for the readers to believe them to be correct From a neutral perspective, neither his 26* or 246* were poor or questionable knocks, the basis comes from believing their version of events and it requires us to give them a higher level of authority than Geoffrey's version of events, why should we give Botham, someone who exposed himself as a unprofessional goon in his desire to undermine his captain, the benefit of the doubt? ofcourse we won't.

When you're educated, you won't really feel the need to suck off such cricketers and their hearsay to develop your beliefs.

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.

Wrong. Insubordination is not the same thing as being selfish, people can have their own views and beliefs on how to approach certain situations and contexts, that's the point of human free will, what's the point of being a person if you'd just let a person you're on horrible terms with dictate what you should do, rather than what you think would get you the objective, which is winning or saving the game?

The accusers aren’t just one or two, its a legion of peers across formats.

I know, I respect their singlemindedness and obsession with mythcrafting, and yes, it's mythcrafting until they send forward some evidence rather than their opinions and hypothesis on someone they dislike. Once again, an educated person would never let random people dictate their views.

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.

No "Ifs", I make my statements on reality instead of hypotheticals, it would've been a draw if he played another 250 balls or something, but sadly he didn't play another 250 balls and therefore it isn't a draw. Infact, I would give the credit of the win to him, because it was the late second day collapse that led to India losing, well done by him to cause a collapse by exhausting India in the field.

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?

Well that's because his teammates include Botham, who is a well known stoner and unprofessional, So ofcourse people like him are expected to make irrational and unprofessional decisions when confronted with a plan he wasn't a fan of, which was the idea of batting into day five. Is Boycott selfish for wanting to bat even a few overs into day five and choose the roller to be used on the pitch? ofcourse not, perhaps it's not the best plan but it's still just a plan. The act of running him out is deeply unprofessional, no wonder Botham never recovered from being a fatso post-1982, a distint lack of manners and maturity.

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

Boycott batted both innings in his last Test, next.

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

I don't need to, a lineup of Chappell brothers, Walters, Lawry, Stackpole etc would chase 245 easily in their home grounds, He saved the Ashes here actually. Defense first was the policy of the time.

 

[subshakerz]

Except the fact that they don't, they largely just make stuff up and ask for the readers to believe them to be correct From a neutral perspective, neither his 26* or 246* were poor or questionable knocks, the basis comes from believing their version of events and it requires us to give them a higher level of authority than Geoffrey's version of events, why should we give Botham, someone who exposed himself as a unprofessional goon in his desire to undermine his captain, the benefit of the doubt? ofcourse we won't.

When you're educated, you won't really feel the need to suck off such cricketers and their hearsay to develop your beliefs.


Wrong. Insubordination is not the same thing as being selfish, people can have their own views and beliefs on how to approach certain situations and contexts, that's the point of human free will, what's the point of being a person if you'd just let a person you're on horrible terms with dictate what you should do, rather than what you think would get you the objective, which is winning or saving the game?


I know, I respect their singlemindedness and obsession with mythcrafting, and yes, it's mythcrafting until they send forward some evidence rather than their opinions and hypothesis on someone they dislike. Once again, an educated person would never let random people dictate their views.


No "Ifs", I make my statements on reality instead of hypotheticals, it would've been a draw if he played another 250 balls or something, but sadly he didn't play another 250 balls and therefore it isn't a draw. Infact, I would give the credit of the win to him, because it was the late second day collapse that led to India losing, well done by him to cause a collapse by exhausting India in the field.


Well that's because his teammates include Botham, who is a well known stoner and unprofessional, So ofcourse people like him are expected to make irrational and unprofessional decisions when confronted with a plan he wasn't a fan of, which was the idea of batting into day five. Is Boycott selfish for wanting to bat even a few overs into day five and choose the roller to be used on the pitch? ofcourse not, perhaps it's not the best plan but it's still just a plan. The act of running him out is deeply unprofessional, no wonder Botham never recovered from being a fatso post-1982, a distint lack of manners and maturity.


Boycott batted both innings in his last Test, next.


I don't need to, a lineup of Chappell brothers, Walters, Lawry, Stackpole etc would chase 245 easily in their home grounds, He saved the Ashes here actually. Defense first was the policy of the time.

It’s not just one or two people, it’s a host of teammates who give their version of the innings.

Insubordination by refusing to modify the way you play based on team demands is selfish,

Glad we agree there is a consensus of his perception as a selfish player.

The point is as he is playing, you don’t know if you are potentially wasting time for a win or not, so the Innings has to be judged based in that phase of match circumstances, and in that phase, the captain clearly felt he was wasting time even though he was settled on the crease on a batting surface.

He wouldn’t run his out unless it was an extreme response to his refusal to adapt to the match situation and play more aggressively. It shows the extent of Boycotts sheer match blindness.

You are clearly being willfully obtuse about that innings I gave. He was batting first on a batting surface, played needlessly dour when the situation didn’t not demand it, and in the match, they ran out of time to post a bigger total or have a chance to bowl them out.

The point is judging him by how he was playing in the context of day 1, and it was selfish.

 

[Johan]

It’s not just one or two people, it’s a host of teammates who give their version of the innings.

Yeah they all intricately worked to built a narrative about a person they don't like, it's similar to how the GOP works, doesn't mean we should buy evidenceless nonsense.

Insubordination by refusing to modify the way you play based on team demands is selfish,

As he showed at Port of Spain in 1968, he would adapt the batting game as needed to win, not as his captain asks, having a sense of self isn't a negative.

Glad we agree there is a consensus of his perception as a selfish player.

Consensus among bitter people who dislike him on a personal level yes, sadly I don't give a damn about their beefs.

The point is as he is playing, you don’t know if you are potentially wasting time for a win or not, so the Innings has to be judged based in that phase of match circumstances, and in that phase, the captain clearly felt he was wasting time even though he was settled on the crease on a batting surface..

The captain was wrong, because Boycott batting endlessly and well into day two allowed England to easily pick apart a tired Indian batting limeup and reduce them to 86/6, a death sentence. If Boycott had wrapped up the innings by the end of day one or early day two, for all we know the match would be a sureshot draw as a focused and fresh Indian batting line-up can and did pile runs on like shown in their second innings. Close can thank Geoffrey for getting the team a win.

He wouldn’t run his out unless it was an extreme response to his refusal to adapt to the match situation and play more aggressively. It shows the extent of Boycotts sheer match blindness.

Honestly I'm getting the vibe you realise you've been refuted in this debate and have run out of meaningful things to say so you're just running around in circles like a headless chicken.

No, Boycott had a plan: it was to bat into day five, even if a few overs, and get to use the roller England wanted on the pitch. He batted the way he did because he believed with the right roller there would be plenty of time on day five to bowl New Zealand out. Willis disagreed with this plan and wanted to declare overnight, therefore a disagreement of plan blew out into an intentional runout of the captain, which was shameless and unprofessional.

For reference, England won the match with two entire sessions spare, some difference the spat made. Once again, you're just refusing to acknowledge the basic reality of the situation because you hold a myth about your idolized time period too dear to your heart, and you don't seem to care about the reality, it's really jarring.

You are clearly being willfully obtuse about that innings I gave. He was batting first on a batting surface, played needlessly dour when the situation didn’t not demand it,

it could just be a bad knock or a day of not getting into the flow, as it was his first match at the WACA, it's pretty natural, why are we pretending a player can completely control the pace of their knock in every context? don't you meticulously argue that Kallis lacked extra gears, can't the same be applicable here? why does it have to be malicious selfish intent?

and in the match, they ran out of time to post a bigger total or have a chance to bowl them out.

They go for a bigger score = more balls played = more time spent = a similar amount of time is given to bowl out Australia = 100/3 again

They try to balance it and give 270 or something = Australia have strong batting and more overs = they chase it down and the Ashes is likely lost.

No, Thank You. I'm contet with the result. Also, John Edrich, Alan Knott and Brian Lackhurst in the second innings show that England were content with a draw, they batted even worse than Boycott in first as far as result forcing intent goes. Clearly, the English dressing room was very content with a draw.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah they all intricately worked to built a narrative about a person they don't like, it's similar to how the GOP works, doesn't mean we should buy evidenceless nonsense.


As he showed at Port of Spain in 1968, he would adapt the batting game as needed to win, not as his captain asks, having a sense of self isn't a negative.


Consensus among bitter people who dislike him on a personal level yes, sadly I don't give a damn about their beefs.


The captain was wrong, because Boycott batting endlessly and well into day two allowed England to easily pick apart a tired Indian batting limeup and reduce them to 86/6, a death sentence. If Boycott had wrapped up the innings by the end of day one or early day two, for all we know the match would be a sureshot draw as a focused and fresh Indian batting line-up can and did pile runs on like shown in their second innings. Close can thank Geoffrey for getting the team a win.


Honestly I'm getting the vibe you realise you've been refuted in this debate and have run out of meaningful things to say so you're just running around in circles like a headless chicken.

No, Boycott had a plan: it was to bat into day five, even if a few overs, and get to use the roller England wanted on the pitch. He batted the way he did because he believed with the right roller there would be plenty of time on day five to bowl New Zealand out. Willis disagreed with this plan and wanted to declare overnight, therefore a disagreement of plan blew out into an intentional runout of the captain, which was shameless and unprofessional.

For reference, England won the match with two entire sessions spare, some difference the spat made. Once again, you're just refusing to acknowledge the basic reality of the situation because you hold a myth about your idolized time period too dear to your heart, and you don't seem to care about the reality, it's really jarring.


it could just be a bad knock or a day of not getting into the flow, as it was his first match at the WACA, it's pretty natural, why are we pretending a player can completely control the pace of their knock in every context? don't you meticulously argue that Kallis lacked extra gears, can't the same be applicable here? why does it have to be malicious selfish intent?


They go for a bigger score = more balls played = more time spent = a similar amount of time is given to bowl out Australia = 100/3 again

They try to balance it and give 270 or something = Australia have strong batting and more overs = they chase it down and the Ashes is likely lost.

No, Thank You. I'm contet with the result. Also, John Edrich, Alan Knott and Brian Lackhurst in the second innings show that England were content with a draw, they batted even worse than Boycott in first as far as result forcing intent goes. Clearly, the English dressing room was very content with a draw.

Pretending they were all just bitter or resentful and didn't have actual reservations about the way he played and it's effects is just cope. I don't actually believe you think they are just propagandizing.

India were always going to lose but Boycott didn't need to waste time. You as you tend to do are imputing motives to the way Boycott plays depending on each innings when it is clear he is sticking by and large to a comfort zone.

No, you already conceded that there exists a general consensus that Boycott was selfish. You are the one who has to now retroactively do damage control and pretend he had some secret motive for each innings and play his lawyer.

Why should we believe Boycotts version in that NZ knock and not his teammates? And oh yes it's just a coincidence his version justifies playing slow.

Once again, you don't even address my point. The critique can't be seen just by looking at a result but by what the state of the game is when he was batting and whether it justified his approach. You retreating to just a result doesn't change that it was bad to bat that way.

Ok great so you admit that WACA knock wasn't appropriate pacing in that context. Him playing a series of knocks throughout his career like that on top of his teammates all.alleging him selfish is enough to prove it.

There is no way you know Australia chase 270. Its still a reasonable defendable total to chase. Again this is just cope to pretend playing slowly day 1 on a flat track is justified.

Nobody asked if you are content with the result, the question is whether batting day 1 like that is correct. It wasn’t.

 

[Johan]

Pretending they were all just bitter or resentful

Oh what's there to pretend? It's common sense they're all just bitter and resentful, if they weren't, they won't be making unsubstantiated and baseless claims.

and didn't have actual reservations about the way he played and it's effects is just cope.

No, what's actual cope is failing to present a single innings of negativity or selfishness after four pages of glazing a an unprofessional stoner like Botham because he said something that fits a headcanon narrative you've constructed.

I don't actually believe you think they are just propagandizing.

Well if you're unable to read that is your issue, but I guarantee, I fully believe Boycott was a player aiming for win just as much as Tendulkar or Viv.

India were always going to lose but Boycott didn't need to waste time.

As I clearly told you, he needed to, an exhausted India collapsing to 86/6 is why they lost the match, they made over 500 on the featherbed next dig, so basically without Boycott occupying the crease for a long amount on day 2, India would save that match.

You as you tend to do are imputing motives to the way Boycott plays depending on each innings when it is clear he is sticking by and large to a comfort zone.

you as you always do are inventing malicious intents when there are none to fit a narrative you decided to be correct years ago, please, I request that you grow up and learn how to approach an issue rather than going into your unhinged rants when people don't see your conspiracy theories as viable and go for more logical alternatives.

No, you already conceded that there exists a general consensus that Boycott was selfish.

ofcourse, I compared it to witchcraft narrative during the witch hunt of the dark ages so you can probably guess how true I find the consensus to be.

You are the one who has to now retroactively do damage control and pretend he had some secret motive for each innings and play his lawyer.

deary are you off your meds and having one of your episodes again? where you're seeing things that just aren't there? because I guarantee you, I'm not claiming he has some super secret motive, I just don't believe in hearsay, I get that some people like you are not mentally strong enough to have their own beliefs but surely you shouldn't question anyone who thinks by logic rather than just taking whatever they're told as gospel?

Why should we believe Boycotts version in that NZ knock and not his teammates? And oh yes it's just a coincidence his version justifies playing slow.

Why should we trust Willis and Botham's version? Infact, their stories don't exactly contradict, They believe he was batting selfishly (for god knows what reason) and he says he wanted to bat into day five, infact, he even argued with them that he wanted to bat atleast one over into day five rather than an overnight declaration. So really, I know that you can't fathom the fact that maybe there weren't evil malicious intents involved in this knock, but it is what it is, it was a tactic and at the end, it didn't even matter.

Once again, you don't even address my point.

But I already shredded it! You're a headless chicken at this point, confused his little Harmison blowjob article didn't convince anyone and are just yapping at this point, it's irritating but as always you're desperately hunting for the last word, which I assure you, you won't get.

The critique can't be seen just by looking at a result but by what the state of the game is when he was batting and whether it justified his approach. You retreating to just a result doesn't change that it was bad to bat that way.

All of the knocks were justified by the state of the game too, or what his plans were. Batting even a few overs into say five was the plan and he tried to do it, I don't see anything selfish about that.

Ok great so you admit that WACA knock wasn't appropriate pacing in that context.

Nope, I'd have preffered if he scored a bit faster but England were more than content with draw there anyway.

Him playing a series of knocks throughout his career like that

Except the part where he didn't play a series of such knocks, especially on flat wickets. Also, the knock saved the Ashes, surely an Ashes saving knock shouldn't be questioned.

on top of his teammates all.alleging him selfish is enough to prove it.

As I've told you, my belief is anyone who claims something so insane without extraordinary evidence is equivalent to a rat squeeking in the corner, it simply does not function without evidence, it can't even begin to compare to the selfishness (or stupidity) of Sobers.

There is no way you know Australia chase 270. Its still a reasonable defendable total to chase.

Why risk it? 270 is completely chaseable against a mediocre attack, on a road at home. Why oh why would you ever risk that?

Again this is just cope to pretend.

Agreed, you are coping so much because a dumb narrative you made is being shredded and completely dismissed, clearly you don't like it when people don't buy into your conspiracy theories.

Nobody asked if you are content with the result, the question is whether batting day 1 like that is correct. It wasn’t.

If the team and the player in question are both content with draw, as shown by England's approach in the next dig, surely you just have to let it go and give it up. Sorry, slow batting =/= selfish. I'd argue Viv's batting in the 83 Final wss a lot more selfish than any knock Boycott ever played really, where he practically threw away a world cup to stroke his macho ego when logical batting would've made Windies a three time world champion.

 

[subshakerz]

Oh what's there to pretend? It's common sense they're all just bitter and resentful, if they weren't, they won't be making unsubstantiated and baseless claims.


No, what's actual cope is failing to present a single innings of negativity or selfishness after four pages of glazing a an unprofessional stoner like Botham because he said something that fits a headcanon narrative you've constructed.


Well if you're unable to read that is your issue, but I guarantee, I fully believe Boycott was a player aiming for win just as much as Tendulkar or Viv.


As I clearly told you, he needed to, an exhausted India collapsing to 86/6 is why they lost the match, they made over 500 on the featherbed next dig, so basically without Boycott occupying the crease for a long amount on day 2, India would save that match.


you as you always do are inventing malicious intents when there are none to fit a narrative you decided to be correct years ago, please, I request that you grow up and learn how to approach an issue rather than going into your unhinged rants when people don't see your conspiracy theories as viable and go for more logical alternatives.


ofcourse, I compared it to witchcraft narrative during the witch hunt of the dark ages so you can probably guess how true I find the consensus to be.


deary are you off your meds and having one of your episodes again? where you're seeing things that just aren't there? because I guarantee you, I'm not claiming he has some super secret motive, I just don't believe in hearsay, I get that some people like you are not mentally strong enough to have their own beliefs but surely you shouldn't question anyone who thinks by logic rather than just taking whatever they're told as gospel?


Why should we trust Willis and Botham's version? Infact, their stories don't exactly contradict, They believe he was batting selfishly (for god knows what reason) and he says he wanted to bat into day five, infact, he even argued with them that he wanted to bat atleast one over into day five rather than an overnight declaration. So really, I know that you can't fathom the fact that maybe there weren't evil malicious intents involved in this knock, but it is what it is, it was a tactic and at the end, it didn't even matter.


But I already shredded it! You're a headless chicken at this point, confused his little Harmison blowjob article didn't convince anyone and are just yapping at this point, it's irritating but as always you're desperately hunting for the last word, which I assure you, you won't get.


All of the knocks were justified by the state of the game too, or what his plans were. Batting even a few overs into say five was the plan and he tried to do it, I don't see anything selfish about that.


Nope, I'd have preffered if he scored a bit faster but England were more than content with draw there anyway.


Except the part where he didn't play a series of such knocks, especially on flat wickets. Also, the knock saved the Ashes, surely an Ashes saving knock shouldn't be questioned.


As I've told you, my belief is anyone who claims something so insane without extraordinary evidence is equivalent to a rat squeeking in the corner, it simply does not function without evidence, it can't even begin to compare to the selfishness (or stupidity) of Sobers.


Why risk it? 270 is completely chaseable against a mediocre attack, on a road at home. Why oh why would you ever risk that?


Agreed, you are coping so much because a dumb narrative you made is being shredded and completely dismissed, clearly you don't like it when people don't buy into your conspiracy theories.


If the team and the player in question are both content with draw, as shown by England's approach in the next dig, surely you just have to let it go and give it up. Sorry, slow batting =/= selfish. I'd argue Viv's batting in the 83 Final wss a lot more selfish than any knock Boycott ever played really, where he practically threw away a world cup to stroke his macho ego when logical batting would've made Windies a three time world champion.

You really are in denial.

Boycott is the guy who left his side on a fake injury call in his last test to play golf (for which he later apologized ) so,yeah it’s perfectly believable to think this guy didn’t care that much about the team.

You are just totally misrepresenting the 246* knock. Even if you want to believe the goal was to grind India out (which even Boycott didn’t claim), that doesn’t mean he has to score at a snails pace, India was missing two of their main bowlers, it was a batting track, and he was playing full tosses and half volleys back to the bowler as he only scored 106 on the first day when the priority for the captain was scoring runs. Nothing in that situation justified mindless crease occupation and Boycott himself doesnt claim his goal was to tire out the Indians.

Boycs version of the NZ test is bunk because England could easily had batted into the next day and still needed to score quick runs to get a good target. England only had a session or so left on the 4th day, of course they needed to score and were at no risk of getting dismissed before the end of play, how can you justify a t8me wasting 26 (120)?

The WACA knock again is inexcusable. It was the 2nd test and he was playing on Day 1, how can you say at that point in the opening session he was playing for a draw? Logically on a batting track you should up the pace once settled. And yes it did end up eating time and the possibility of a positive result.

Your problem in all of these situations if that you are on a keyboard looking at the result and coming up with post hoc justifications rather than trying to understand the frustration of those in the moment when Boycotts batting approach is inadequate.

 

[Johan]

You really are in denial.

Isn't that the motto of gutterish posters such as yourself?

Boycott is the guy who left his side on a fake injury call in his last test to play golf (for which he later apologized ) so,yeah it’s perfectly believable to think this guy didn’t care that much about the team.

He batted twice in his last test, him not fielding has nothing to do with him not batting. I think this is just you being a totally garbage debater as usual, running aroud like a headless chicken rather than actually refuting a statement. So Please, keep repeating this same line in your idiotic hunt for the last word that you're not going to get.

You are just totally misrepresenting the 246* knock. Even if you want to believe the goal was to grind India out (which even Boycott didn’t claim),

Wait wasn't it so that Boycott's versions were unreliable and we (you) needed to suck Botham off virtually to get to the truth of anything? which is it? Also, I'm telling you what did happen rather than what your headcanon version deemed happened.

that doesn’t mean he has to score at a snails pace, India was missing two of their main bowlers, it was a batting track, and he was playing full tosses and half volleys back to the bowler as he only scored 106 on the first day when the priority for the captain was scoring runs.

Uhm, Boycott did accelerate but he did so on day two. Your hard on for aggressive batting is just so strong, you're offended at the idea of a batsman delaying attacking Cricket and doing it on day two rather than on day one, which led to positive effects for the team. I think you clearly started watching Cricket with T20s so you don't really get Test Cricket, that's fine, I'm willing to educate you on how that format is played.

Nothing in that situation justified mindless crease occupation and Boycott himself doesnt claim his goal was to tire out the Indians.

He doesn't see the wrong with the pace of the knock at all if I remember. What justifies crease occupation is the result, a tired India collapsing in the first innings is why India lost the match, but who cares about the result of the match right? as long as you're not providing gooning material for fans with a huge hard on for Gutterish batting the likes of Richards do, it's not a good knock eh?

Boycs version of the NZ test is bunk

Botham's version of the NZ test is bunk because he is an unprofessional stoner.

because England could easily had batted into the next day and still needed to score quick runs to get a good target. England only had a session or so left on the 4th day, of course they needed to score and were at no risk of getting dismissed before the end of play,

They could've just accelerate for a few overs on day five rather than giving a huge target on day 4, plus usually it's the lower order who hits out, on top of that the match was won with 60-70 overs left so clearly England had time. Can you stop trying to paint everything in a negative and malicious light so it fits a narrative that just isn't true?

how can you justify a t8me wasting 26 (120)?

I like how you pulled another 40 balls out of your ass.

The WACA knock again is inexcusable.

Great knock, saved the Ashes.

It was the 2nd test and he was playing on Day 1, how can you say at that point in the opening session he was playing for a draw? Logically on a batting track you should up the pace once settled.

Nah, he is an opener, he can play at whatever pace. The middle order should've gotten good and scored some runs instead of being hacks after Boyc got them to 170-1, skill issue for them tbh, I don't see anything wrong with Boycott's approach on that pitch frankly

And yes it did end up eating time and the possibility of a positive result.

Also saved us from a potential loss, which could've meant a drubbing as the first loss in an Aussie Ashes usually means. Well done, the middle order failing to consolidate on the slow but exceptionally steady start, and then the 207 by whoever in the Australian lineup, is what cost the win. Geoffrey just prevented a loss.

Your problem in all of these situations if that you are on a keyboard looking at the result and coming up with post hoc justifications

Again, No. I'm just analysing all of these knocks from a perspective of what I would think of them, if I saw the 246* and saw him declare at day 2 tea or something with over 500, I would be exceptionally overjoyed. the NZ knock has nothing to do with selfish and just a tactical difference between the captain and the VC, and the WACA knock is totally reasonable as it seems like England played for a draw anyway and if anyone had to accelerate, it were the MO coming in at 170-1, so No, it's just what I believe, why are you butthurt about it?

rather than trying to understand the frustration of those in the moment when Boycotts batting approach is inadequate.

Why would I ever try to understand the frustrations of my inferiors? on a more serious note, I don't care for their frustrations if they can't show the negatives in real time, otherwise their views are simply irrelevant to me

 

[subshakerz]

Isn't that the motto of gutterish posters such as yourself?


He batted twice in his last test, him not fielding has nothing to do with him not batting. I think this is just you being a totally garbage debater as usual, running aroud like a headless chicken rather than actually refuting a statement. So Please, keep repeating this same line in your idiotic hunt for the last word that you're not going to get.


Wait wasn't it so that Boycott's versions were unreliable and we (you) needed to suck Botham off virtually to get to the truth of anything? which is it? Also, I'm telling you what did happen rather than what your headcanon version deemed happened.


Uhm, Boycott did accelerate but he did so on day two. Your hard on for aggressive batting is just so strong, you're offended at the idea of a batsman delaying attacking Cricket and doing it on day two rather than on day one, which led to positive effects for the team. I think you clearly started watching Cricket with T20s so you don't really get Test Cricket, that's fine, I'm willing to educate you on how that format is played.


He doesn't see the wrong with the pace of the knock at all if I remember. What justifies crease occupation is the result, a tired India collapsing in the first innings is why India lost the match, but who cares about the result of the match right? as long as you're not providing gooning material for fans with a huge hard on for Gutterish batting the likes of Richards do, it's not a good knock eh?


Botham's version of the NZ test is bunk because he is an unprofessional stoner.


They could've just accelerate for a few overs on day five rather than giving a huge target on day 4, plus usually it's the lower order who hits out, on top of that the match was won with 60-70 overs left so clearly England had time. Can you stop trying to paint everything in a negative and malicious light so it fits a narrative that just isn't true?



I like how you pulled another 40 balls out of your ass.


Great knock, saved the Ashes.


Nah, he is an opener, he can play at whatever pace. The middle order should've gotten good and scored some runs instead of being hacks after Boyc got them to 170-1, skill issue for them tbh, I don't see anything wrong with Boycott's approach on that pitch frankly


Also saved us from a potential loss, which could've meant a drubbing as the first loss in an Aussie Ashes usually means. Well done, the middle order failing to consolidate on the slow but exceptionally steady start, and then the 207 by whoever in the Australian lineup, is what cost the win. Geoffrey just prevented a loss.


Again, No. I'm just analysing all of these knocks from a perspective of what I would think of them, if I saw the 246* and saw him declare at day 2 tea or something with over 500, I would be exceptionally overjoyed. the NZ knock has nothing to do with selfish and just a tactical difference between the captain and the VC, and the WACA knock is totally reasonable as it seems like England played for a draw anyway and if anyone had to accelerate, it were the MO coming in at 170-1, so No, it's just what I believe, why are you butthurt about it?


Why would I ever try to understand the frustrations of my inferiors? on a more serious note, I don't care for their frustrations if they can't show the negatives in real time, otherwise their views are simply irrelevant to me

Why is it you aren’t able to maintain an exchange without getting personal? Not the sign of a winning argument btw.

Anyways, sad to see you defend a player claiming illness to go golfing. No wonder he got pilloried for that.

Sorry I misread minutes for balls faced in the NZ knock.

An innings should be primarily judged in the context of when it is being played. Whlie Boycott is playing he doesn’t know the result. Here are the three contexts:

Day 1 batting pitch in India with two of their main bowlers down

Day 4 in NZ mid end day, needing to get a defendable total to bowl out NZ on the last day

Day 1 in Aus on batting pitch in WACA

None of those contexts justify crease occupation and all of them would logically call to press further when you are settled in the crease. Somehow you are pulling out of your backside for example that in the WACA knock Boycott was playing for a draw on Day 1.

You basically revealed yourself when you said as an owner he can play at whatever pace, after earlier saying for at least the WACA knock he should have upped the pace.

Btw, let’s see how consistent you are in citing player testimonials when assessing dynamics of players. Do recall you were as adamant that Laras form wasnt affected by mental challenges until I had to show he that he was.

 

[OverratedSanity]

**** me dead it really is this era's Richard vs TEC

 

[Johan]

Why is it you aren’t able to maintain an exchange without getting personal?

You start first with the jabs and then you start complaining about it going in reverse, it's not my issue you start complaining.m.

Not the sign of a winning argument btw.

Okay headless chicken

Anyways, sad to see you defend a player claiming illness to go golfing. No wonder he got pilloried for that.

Anyways, sad to see you repeating the same line over and over and pretending the player in question didn't already bat twice, no wonder HB bullies you.

Sorry I misread minutes for balls faced in the NZ knock.

Use your brain sometimes eh? It should be at maximum output considering it has gone unused for 40 years.

An innings should be primarily judged in the context of when it is being played. Whlie Boycott is playing he doesn’t know the result. Here are the three contexts:

Wrong again, an Innings should primarily be judged on the impact they have, not on the "context of the day", and more importantly it shouldn't matter how many balls you play anyway, it's like the least important statistic in Cricket.

Day 1 batting pitch in India with two of their main bowlers down

no reason to accelerate, especially since crease occupation on day two is what led to the win at the first place

Day 4 in NZ mid end day, needing to get a defendable total to bowl out NZ on the last day

A tactical disagreement between the captain and the vice captain, planning to bat into day five to choose the roller to be used on the pitch. I know, reality is hard for you to cope with.

Day 1 in Aus on batting pitch in WACA

Zero reason to accelerate, building the foundation for a big total is more important than entertaining a nerd like you.

None of those contexts justify crease occupation

None of those contexts justify fast batting.

and all of them would logically call to press further when you are settled in the crease.

None of them require you to bat fast, for example the 246* match would be lost if England declares overnight after reaching 500 on day one, and a fresh India makes 510 (like they did). Crease occupation saved the match from being a boring dead draw.

Somehow you are pulling out of your backside for example that in the WACA knock Boycott was playing for a draw on Day 1.

Totally reasonable mode of play, it's Australia, hot day and a flat wicket, grind the ****ers down. Got a great start, England not capitalising on it is a big skill issue. I see nothing wrong with either the pace of the knock or the approach to the game by England, safety first after all.

You basically revealed yourself when you said as an owner he can play at whatever pace, after earlier saying for at least the WACA knock he should have upped the pace.

Nah I initially thought that but after thinking a little I realised I was wrong and that there was no reason to play fast at all, grind em down in real time, make it easier for the middle order to score runs. The match was lost to a freak double century and England being content with a draw. If the team is content with a draw, so is the player, why are you whinging?

Btw, let’s see how consistent you are in citing player testimonials when assessing dynamics of players.

A person who lets his views on dynamics of players be influenced by the opinions of others is lower than scum in my opinion.

Do recall you were as adamant that Laras form wasnt affected by mental challenges until I had to show he that he was.

Is this the bedtime story in your household? Great fantasy but I don't see how it connects to our usual debate about scoring rates.

 

[manoftommorow]

Australia
West Indies
England
South Africa
Pakistan
India
New Zealand
Sri Lanka

 

[subshakerz]

You start first with the jabs and then you start complaining about it going in reverse, it's not my issue you start complaining.m.


Okay headless chicken


Anyways, sad to see you repeating the same line over and over and pretending the player in question didn't already bat twice, no wonder HB bullies you.


Use your brain sometimes eh? It should be at maximum output considering it has gone unused for 40 years.


Wrong again, an Innings should primarily be judged on the impact they have, not on the "context of the day", and more importantly it shouldn't matter how many balls you play anyway, it's like the least important statistic in Cricket.


no reason to accelerate, especially since crease occupation on day two is what led to the win at the first place


A tactical disagreement between the captain and the vice captain, planning to bat into day five to choose the roller to be used on the pitch. I know, reality is hard for you to cope with.


Zero reason to accelerate, building the foundation for a big total is more important than entertaining a nerd like you.


None of those contexts justify fast batting.


None of them require you to bat fast, for example the 246* match would be lost if England declares overnight after reaching 500 on day one, and a fresh India makes 510 (like they did). Crease occupation saved the match from being a boring dead draw.


Totally reasonable mode of play, it's Australia, hot day and a flat wicket, grind the ****ers down. Got a great start, England not capitalising on it is a big skill issue. I see nothing wrong with either the pace of the knock or the approach to the game by England, safety first after all.


Nah I initially thought that but after thinking a little I realised I was wrong and that there was no reason to play fast at all, grind em down in real time, make it easier for the middle order to score runs. The match was lost to a freak double century and England being content with a draw. If the team is content with a draw, so is the player, why are you whinging?


A person who lets his views on dynamics of players be influenced by the opinions of others is lower than scum in my opinion.


Is this the bedtime story in your household? Great fantasy but I don't see how it connects to our usual debate about scoring rates.

What jabs? Maybe learn to control yourself like an adult.

How does batting twice make it ok to go golfing when your team is playing? lol there is a reason Boycott apologized.

It’s unbelievable you would say we shouldn’t look at match context of an innings in judging an innings. The result of the game may be totally out of his hands.

Was Boycott really intended to grind out Aus and India or was he just stuck to playing as he normally does? Be honest. Hitting full tosses and half volleys back to the bowler is something you endorse?

Calling it a grind every time Boycott sticks to mindless crease occupation is a cop out. A bat who is settled in batting conditions on day 1 has no excuse not to up the pace.

Btw, you can say an opener should never be penalized for batting slow, which appears to be your position, but that doesnt mean a bat who does so is never doing it for selfish reasons. If his entire team is calling him selfish, they clearly feel he is defying what they see in the best interest of the team for his own record.

You are looking from the outside and a peer consensus from the inside says the opposite. Maybe Dont pretend to know what you don’t have the capacity to.

 

[Johan]

What jabs?

Basically everytime you try to play an armchair psychologist and get whipped.

Maybe learn to control yourself like an adult.

maybe it's you who should learn how to lead a conversation without being pompous and annoying.

How does batting twice make it ok to go golfing when your team is playing? lol there is a reason Boycott apologized.

He did his thing, once again like I said way ago, I've no interest in defending his character. The debate is if he batted selfishly, this match doesn't function as evidence of such, now is your argument that he fielded selfishly?

.
It’s unbelievable you would say we shouldn’t look at match context of an innings in judging an innings.

It's unbelievable you woild say we shouldn't look at the actual effect of a knock and persecute someone over hypotheticals that didn't happen.

The result of the game may be totally out of his hands.

Except in these instances it wasn't.

Was Boycott really intended to grind out Aus and India or was he just stuck to playing as he normally does? Be honest.

he was a defensive minded player, if you're asking me, he probably thought he was doing the team a favour by working out the Aussies, I don't think there was some selfish intent Blackbeard style at play.

Hitting full tosses and half volleys back to the bowler is something you endorse?

Yes, that's totally fine.

Calling it a grind every time Boycott sticks to mindless crease occupation is a cop out.

Mindless =/= selfish, even if you don't like the ideology toward Cricket of safety first, why can't a cricketer have a different approach to you towards the game without being selfish?

A bat who is settled in batting conditions on day 1 has no excuse not to up the pace.

First, he did up the pace in 246. Second, there is no rule in the game that says you should up the pace on day one if you're settled.

Btw, you can say an opener should never be penalized for batting slow, which appears to be your position,

I mean, ofcourse. An opener can score at 25 SR and even that is totally respectable.

but that doesnt mean a bat who does so is never doing it for selfish reasons. If his entire team is calling him selfish, they clearly feel he is defying what they see in the best interest of the team for his own record.

The best interest of the team lies in winning a game or saving a game where they are behind, Boycott did both plenty, I can't find a game where he turned a winnable match into a draw or lost a drawable match and therefore I have no reason to believe someone's yap over what I can ascertain.

You are looking from the outside and a peer consensus from the inside says the opposite.

As you know, I'm very anti-peer consensus, If I'm not willing to acknowledge peer arguments to even strengthen my beliefs, what makes you think I'll use peer consensus in any other way?

Maybe Dont pretend to know what you don’t have the capacity to.

It's "Don't" not Dont. Perhaps you should let others think for you as you always do, just don't expect to follow your cult sheep mindset.

 

[subshakerz]

Basically everytime you try to play an armchair psychologist and get whipped.


maybe it's you who should learn how to lead a conversation without being pompous and annoying.


He did his thing, once again like I said way ago, I've no interest in defending his character. The debate is if he batted selfishly, this match doesn't function as evidence of such, now is your argument that he fielded selfishly?


It's unbelievable you woild say we shouldn't look at the actual effect of a knock and persecute someone over hypotheticals that didn't happen.


Except in these instances it wasn't.


he was a defensive minded player, if you're asking me, he probably thought he was doing the team a favour by working out the Aussies, I don't think there was some selfish intent Blackbeard style at play.


Yes, that's totally fine.


Mindless =/= selfish, even if you don't like the ideology toward Cricket of safety first, why can't a cricketer have a different approach to you towards the game without being selfish?


First, he did up the pace in 246. Second, there is no rule in the game that says you should up the pace on day one if you're settled.


I mean, ofcourse. An opener can score at 25 SR and even that is totally respectable.


The best interest of the team lies in winning a game or saving a game where they are behind, Boycott did both plenty, I can't find a game where he turned a winnable match into a draw or lost a drawable match and therefore I have no reason to believe someone's yap over what I can ascertain.


As you know, I'm very anti-peer consensus, If I'm not willing to acknowledge peer arguments to even strengthen my beliefs, what makes you think I'll use peer consensus in any other way?


It's "Don't" not Dont. Perhaps you should let others think for you as you always do, just don't expect to follow your cult sheep mindset.

Again, learn to restrain yourself and avoid throwing insults the moment you are frustrated.

Great so you are willing to admit he acted selfishly in that incident. Now you want us to think somehow the accusations of selfishness in his batting come from nowhere.

We aren’t rating based on hypotheticals that didn’t happen but on how they played in their circumstances at the exact time they played.

Hitting back clear run opportunities For dot balls isnt good.

I would have considered Boycott safety first if he didn’t have a whole career of teammates call in him selfish. Then it’s clear.

Once an opener is settled on day one on a good surface, and chooses to continue to stay in block mode and eschew run opportunities, yes he is liable.

Your problem is denying the opinions of those who played closest to him altogether as having no weight. If the same opinions attested to him having a hard work ethic, you 100 percent would use that if I argued he was unprofessional.

 

[Johan]

Again, learn to restrain yourself

How about you learn to take your own advice.

and avoid throwing insults the moment you are frustrated.

No.

Great so you are willing to admit he acted selfishly in that incident.

unprofessional is the word I would use, it's not overtly selfish like Sobers declaring and throwing away an entire series so he could feed his saviour complex, or Viv throwing away a world cup to feed his machismo. It's kinda like Botham being a stoner and missing games over that.

Now you want us to think somehow the accusations of selfishness in his batting come from nowhere.

Hon, I don't want you to think anything, as always you disgustingly overestimate your own importance, you're the one who started this debate remember? and No, I don't think missing fielding is the evidence of selfish batting, but again, I've never seen anyone not gutterish who unironically believes slow batting = selfish.

We aren’t rating based on hypotheticals that didn’t happen

Yeah it's all just dumb hypotheticals ngl, literally none of this games led to a negative results from an English perspective. The sample is of over a hundred or so games, surely you would've found one incontestable example of selfish batting, sadly you don't because it doesn't exist.

but on how they played in their circumstances at the exact time they played.

As I told you, in the context of the game, all of this knocks were either neutral (NZ) or positive (Aus, India)

Hitting back clear run opportunities For dot balls isnt good.

Who cares? If he gets runs one way or the other, it doesn't matter if he hit a full toss back to the bowler.

I would have considered Boycott safety first if he didn’t have a whole career of teammates call in him selfish.

His reputation is mixed, ranging from selfish to just defensive, but who cares? the fact that from a sample of over a hundred matches, you haven't found a single selfish knock is clear display that this is a salem witchtrials case

Then it’s clear.

Nah, the only clear selfish cricketers in the game are the likes of Viv, Sobers, KP etc, putting personal glory over team's needs.

Once an opener is settled on day one on a good surface, and chooses to continue to stay in block mode and eschew run opportunities, yes he is liable.

Once an opener is settled on day one on a good batting surface, and chooses to continue to play in a defensive conservative method and not make full of run scoring opportunities, he is completely in the clear because there's no rule in Cricket that says you should bat faster just for the fun of it.

Your problem is denying the opinions of those who played closest to him altogether as having no weight. If the same opinions attested to him having a hard work ethic, you 100 percent would use that if I argued he was unprofessional.

Lol, I do think Geoffrey was unprofessional as a person off the field and it hurt his Test career. Shows how little you know of such topics.

 

[subshakerz]

How about you learn to take your own advice.


No.


unprofessional is the word I would use, it's not overtly selfish like Sobers declaring and throwing away an entire series so he could feed his saviour complex, or Viv throwing away a world cup to feed his machismo. It's kinda like Botham being a stoner and missing games over that.


Hon, I don't want you to think anything, as always you disgustingly overestimate your own importance, you're the one who started this debate remember? and No, I don't think missing fielding is the evidence of selfish batting, but again, I've never seen anyone not gutterish who unironically believes slow batting = selfish.


Yeah it's all just dumb hypotheticals ngl, literally none of this games led to a negative results from an English perspective. The sample is of over a hundred or so games, surely you would've found one incontestable example of selfish batting, sadly you don't because it doesn't exist.


As I told you, in the context of the game, all of this knocks were either neutral (NZ) or positive (Aus, India)


Who cares? If he gets runs one way or the other, it doesn't matter if he hit a full toss back to the bowler.


His reputation is mixed, ranging from selfish to just defensive, but who cares? the fact that from a sample of over a hundred matches, you haven't found a single selfish knock is clear display that this is a salem witchtrials case


Nah, the only clear selfish cricketers in the game are the likes of Viv, Sobers, KP etc, leading country to humiliation for personal glory, truly shameless cricketers.


Once an opener is settled on day one on a good batting surface, and chooses to continue to play in a defensive conservative method and not make full of run scoring opportunities, he is completely in the clear because there's no rule in Cricket that says you should bat faster just for the fun of it.


Lol, I do think Geoffrey was unprofessional as a person off the field and it hurt his Test career. Shows how little you know of such topics.

I am taking my own advice my keeping to the topic and not engaging in adhominems, you know it leads to ugly outcomes in your case hence why I say just keep your cool please.

Sorry but leaving the team during an active test to play golf is the definition of selfish.

You are redefining context to mean match result, whereas I am talking about course of play.

The problem is he is wasting run opportunities as a matter of choice if he lets full tosses and half volleys go.

An opener who is settled on a batting surface and doesnt press his advantage is losing his team potential runs and wasting time that can be used later in the game to win. This isnt sophisticated it’s basic logic and you don’t need to look at match results to have to make this true.

Simple question: in your book how would it be possible to prove a test innings is selfish and can you give an example?

 

[honestbharani]

**** me dead it really is this era's Richard vs TEC

It always was.

 

[Johan]

I am taking my own advice my keeping to the topic and not engaging in adhominems,

The Idea I'm engaging in ad hominem is either an ad hominem in itself or you just don't know what the terminology means and are just spouting something you recently learned.

you know it leads to ugly outcomes in your case hence why I say just keep your cool please.

I'll worry about the ugly outcomes, you worry about your ugly arguments.

Sorry but leaving the team during an active test to play golf is the definition of selfish.

Nothing to do with batting, and also not fielding is not that big a deal.

You are redefining context to mean match result,

Cricket is a result oriented sport, perception is fundamentally dependent on result .

whereas I am talking about course of play.

First, the end justifies the means. Second, it's totally okay even from a course of play perspective.

The problem is he is wasting run opportunities as a matter of choice if he lets full tosses and half volleys go.

If he's getting runs then who cares? It doesn't matter

An opener who is settled on a batting surface and doesnt press his advantage is losing his team potential runs and wasting time that can be used later in the game to win.

By taking less time to finish the innings, he is giving his opposition more potential overs to chase down totals, and therefore it's increasing the probability of a loss in parallel to the possibility of a win.

Theoretically, all batsmen are selfish because they don't hit a six every ball, which is 'costing the team potential runs".

This isnt sophisticated it’s basic logic and you don’t need to look at match results to have to make this true.

This is just your aggression bias, you're complaning about random balls being left lmao, you would do well in the current Bazball England setup.

Simple question: in your book how would it be possible to prove a test innings is selfish and can you give an example?

It's probably impossible to prove a knock is selfish, I don't think any cricketer who has played test Cricket in the top order can be called selfish, I mean, maybe selfishness can be shown when someone bats down the order despite being asked to do it up, not sure how you can be selfish in regards to scoring rate, especially when batting at top 4.

Maybe an example of such would one of the fixed matches from the 90s.

 

[subshakerz]

The Idea I'm engaging in ad hominem is either an ad hominem in itself or you just don't know what the terminology means and are just spouting something you recently learned.


I'll worry about the ugly outcomes, you worry about your ugly arguments.


Nothing to do with batting, and also not fielding is not that big a deal.


Cricket is a result oriented sport, perception is fundamentally dependent on result .


First, the end justifies the means. Second, it's totally okay even from a course of play perspective.


If he's getting runs then who cares? It doesn't matter


By taking less time to finish the innings, he is giving his opposition more potential overs to chase down totals, and therefore it's increasing the probability of a loss in parallel to the possibility of a win.

Theoretically, all batsmen are selfish because they don't hit a six every ball, which is 'costing the team potential runs".


This is just your aggression bias, you're complaning about random balls being left lmao, you would do well in the current Bazball England setup.


It's probably impossible to prove a knock is selfish, I don't think any cricketer who has played test Cricket in the top order can be called selfish

You are being needlessly aggressive and I am not even insulting you. Stop spazzing.

The point is that incident does show he could have a selfish approach to the game.

You don’t know the result when you are playing a knock, you only know if how you are playing suits the demands of the team then.

Its not like he only played negatively in that innings, it was his general approach.

Nobody is saying Boycott needs to play like a maniac. Taking unnecessary time costs you potential wins. Priority should be on winning.

If you don’t even believe it’s possible to prove a batsman can be selfish, you should have just said that from the beginning because I had the misconception you had an open mind instead of already having excluded any possibility you might be wrong.

 

[Johan]

You are being needlessly aggressive and I am not even insulting you. Stop spazzing.

I'm not being aggressive at all, I feel like you're very sheltered and coddled when you go on these tangents about how I'm being mean to you

The point is that incident does show he could have a selfish approach to the game.

It's moreso an unprofessional approach to the game. Also by his own admission he shouldn't have done it but he also mentioned that he didn't do much at all, walked down a few holes, hit the ball a couple times and sat down when it got weary. Surely that can't compare to actually having to go through playing a Test match while sick.

You don’t know the result when you are playing a knock, you only know if how you are playing suits the demands of the team then.

A knock's value is determinant on the result it leads to, I see nothing wrong with the WACA knock for that reason, without it there is a strong possibility of a loss.

Its not like he only played negatively in that innings, it was his general approach.

How can you play negatively? Runs are made from 0-400*, I've never seen a batsman end up making negative runs in a knock so I don't see how one can bat negatively?

Nobody is saying Boycott needs to play like a maniac. Taking unnecessary time costs you potential wins. Priority should be on winning.

Exactly, so should we declare all batsman selfish if they are not batting at the same pace as Harry Brook and taking their time to play big knocks? just trying to understand your thought process here.

If you don’t even believe it’s possible to prove a batsman can be selfish, you should have just said that from the beginning because I had the misconception you had an open mind instead of already having excluded any possibility you might be wrong.

Why would I go out of my way to include an impossibility?