Gavaskar v Boycott
Mike Holmans
great and who doesn't, I am led to muse about the relative status of
Sunil Gavaskar and Geoffrey Boycott.
I know most people would say Gavaskar goes in the pantheon and Boycs
doesn't, but why is that?
You'll take it as read that I don't take a difference of 47 to 51 in
career average as convincing, so don't try trotting that one out. I
don't propose going down that road, though my argument in favour of
basically ignoring the difference would be based on the relative
difficulty of opening on the slow Indian pitches and English greentops
of the 70s.
Saying Boycott was boring hardly makes it as a criterion for
distinguishing Mr Thirty-Six Not Out as a great batsman.
Both of them made a speciality of scoring obdurate large innings to
save matches. Both of them could and occasionally did play far more
dynamically than usual, and people sat around afterwards and said "I
wish he'd play like that more often."
Boycott shares a distinction with Bradman alone as having averaged
over 100 in a full English season, and held lots of English individual
records, some now surpassed, and Gavaskar set a lot of pretty simliar
Indian records.
And I remember at the time, effectively in the 70s, that people would
discuss at great length whether Boycott or Gavaskar was the finest
current example of classical opening batting, and no-one ever really
coming to much of a conclusion either way.
If it was as difficult to separate them as I remember it seeming when
they were active players, why is it now regarded as almost a
non-debate?
Cheers,
Mike
Aditya Basrur
<snip>
> If it was as difficult to separate them as I remember it seeming when
> they were active players, why is it now regarded as almost a
> non-debate?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
My take would be that Gavaskar was in a team where few people performed
regulary with the bat. Those who did - Vishwanath, Amarnath - were
considered pleasant to the eye, but unable to get results for the team.
Gavaskar went against this trend. He was technically correct, he performed
when it was needed most, etc. I don't think he would have the same stature
if Tendulkar was his contemporary. I think he'd be relegated to a
Dravid-type role: still acknowledged as very good, but not the guy you go
to the ground to see. (The guy who people went to the ground to see may
well have been Kapil more than SMG in many places.)
Boycott, on the other hand, appears to have had the misfortune to play
alongside pleasant players who *were* effective - Gower, Botham, Dexter,
Cowdrey, etc. From some of the books I've read, it also appears that
Boycott was considered a selfish so-and-so during his playing days, who put
his own average ahead of the team's need at the time. (Botham is especially
vitriolic on this.) This - apart from aberrations such as 36*, in a
meaningless match anyway - is a charge less easily levelled at Gavaskar. (I
think the ultimate unselfish player is Gilchrist, who's often given his
wicket away when chasing quick runs prior to a declaration. His average
shows that good guys *do* come first sometime.)
So, in sum, it seems like a question of expectations and results. I've no
doubt that if Boycott had played for India, he may well have been
appreciated more, since his batting was so against the mould of many of the
guys who played (and failed) for India repeatedly.
Aditya
Neil R.
Tambi_Dude
obvious trolls. Must be the heat.
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote
> I know most people would say Gavaskar goes in the pantheon and Boycs
> doesn't, but why is that?
I am not one of those who rate SMG > GB under any circumstance.
SMG avges just 4 more than Boycott. But given that SMG played nearly
half of his career on Asian tracks, as compared to GB who played in
Eng, it very well compensates.
GB was ugly. A crawl. I don't think he had a single good looking
shot. On that count he should be compared with Shastri.
rk-
R. Bharat Rao
> If it was as difficult to separate them as I remember it seeming when
> they were active players, why is it now regarded as almost a
> non-debate?
Fair point -- certainly during their careers, they were considered
the two "great" opening bats in the late 70s (Greenidge hadn't
yet fully established himself, and suffered by being a member of
a team filled with other outstanding bats, while these two blokes
were pretty much the sole hope of their respective teams).
When Boycs was reaching the end of his career, IIRC they were
viewed as "close" but Gavaskar slightly ahead -- partly because
Gavaskar was viewed more as a team man (in TESTS -- not ODIs
before the 36* is re-introduced), Boycott was universally hated
by mis teammates and as someone who batted more for stats and
less for the team (funny how many say that about Gavaskar now),
and also because Gavaskar was a reasonably successful captain
(in Indian terms). Surprisingly his slighting of Packer gold
didn't really help Boycott -- quite unfairly it was presented
as "Boycott padding his stats when the big boys are away".
OTOH, Gavaskar was much praised in India for not accepting the
Packer offer (though it was a matter of pride that he was
made such an offer).
What I think set the seal firmly on "Gavaskar is great, Boycott
is very very good" is what happenned after Boycott retired.
Gavaskar went on to break Bradman's record, had a fantastic
series against West Indies yet again and became the all-time
accumulator of runs, leaving Boycott's 8000-odd well in the
dust.
Basically, it boils down to Gavaskar was somewhat better for
significantly more Tests, and IMO had higher career value (if
one could put a formula to it). Also many opposing players
rated Gavaskar as the best batsman around -- at least the
best opener -- not Boycott.
The argument about the greatest batsman of that time was more
Gavaskar vs. Richards and didn't include Boycott, nor did it
include Miandad, Chappel, Gower, for whatever reason (read
and weep (TM)).
Interesting though how history has raised one up and put the
other down though...
Bharat [Greenidge much underrated IMO]
Kannans
> great and who doesn't, I am led to muse about the relative status of
> Sunil Gavaskar and Geoffrey Boycott.
>
> I know most people would say Gavaskar goes in the pantheon and Boycs
> doesn't, but why is that?
>
> You'll take it as read that I don't take a difference of 47 to 51 in
> career average as convincing, so don't try trotting that one out. I
> don't propose going down that road, though my argument in favour of
> basically ignoring the difference would be based on the relative
> difficulty of opening on the slow Indian pitches and English greentops
> of the 70s.
>
Well, if that theory is true then SMG's avg. at home must be higher, right?
Even GB's avg in India is less than (by a fraction) his overall avg.
(I am not necessarily disputing your theory, but I can't understand why
numbers
don't support it)
Lets look at them on neutral "green top" pitches.
SMG
AUS 51.11 (11)
WI 70.20 (13)
GB
AUS 45.03 (19)
WI 51.26 (14)
- MK
<snip>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Vijay Kumar K
I will bite....
> Pondering some of this nonsense about who qualifies as an all-time
> great and who doesn't, I am led to muse about the relative status of
> Sunil Gavaskar and Geoffrey Boycott.
>
> I know most people would say Gavaskar goes in the pantheon and Boycs
> doesn't, but why is that?
Perhaps because most people are not English?
I forgot the bowler who said "bowl a good ball to Boycott and he will block it;
so will Sunny. Bowl a bad ball to Boycott and he will still block it; Sunny
will hit it for four" Maybe the answer to your question lies somewhere in that.
Nice troll, Mike. Didn't know you were into these things...
Vijay
Tambi_Dude
"R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Boycott was universally hated
> by mis teammates and as someone who batted more for stats and
> less for the team (funny how many say that about Gavaskar now),
> and also because Gavaskar was a reasonably successful captain
> (in Indian terms).
when I was in Jacksonville,FL I had a brit colleague who was
in sales dept. So our conversation was limited to only polite
water cooler/coffee pot conversation. One day I casually asked
him which county he hails. He said Yorkshire. I then asked him
( a troll) : "Is it true that Yorkshire people are hated in
England". He just gave me a dirty glance and said "you don't
form opinion about a county people based on one Geoff Boycott".
That brit and I never spoke about cricket before and he had
no reasons to believe that I am a big cricket follower who
will know about the English cricket politics too. Yet he made that
comment. That sums it up how universally it was unknown that he
was hated.
rk-
ps: when I asked why he was so hated he told, "well for one,
you can not accuse him of putting team's interest above himself".
Then he asked me "do you know how many guys he has run out".
Tambi_Dude
"Tambi_Dude" <tambi...@hotmail.com> wrote
> comment. That sums it up how universally it was unknown that he
> was hated.
typo: how universally it was known that he was hated.
Satya Nitta
> Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<44s5iv4j440jlp064...@4ax.com>...
> > If it was as difficult to separate them as I remember it seeming when
> > they were active players, why is it now regarded as almost a
> > non-debate?
>
<snip sentiments by Bharat I agree with entirely>
> Interesting though how history has raised one up and put the
> other down though...
>
I think, as Bharat has pointed out, the breaking of Bradman's record
has a lot to do with it, as indeed does the breaking of the 10,000 run
barrier (sort of like Bannister breaking the 4 minute mile barrier).
Also, he is the current holder of one of batting's major records (34
centuries). This will be broken shortly by either Waugh or SRT, but
still, holding it approximately 20 years is commendable, especially
during these times when cricketers take better care of their bodies
and play for a lot longer. Additionally, Gavaskar had a fantastic
record against the WI who were the dominant team for the better part
of his career (certainly from mid to late 70's on). I know he rarely
faced the WI pace quartet at it's peak, but he did admirably against
whoever the WI fielded. Also, considering that he leart his cricket on
featherbeds, he did as well playing away as he did playing at home,
which as history has borne out repeatedly, is pretty difficult to do
if you're an Indian batsman. Finally, while the 4 run differential in
averages is small, the 50 run an innings mark has a pretty special
significance in cricket. Sort of like the difference between a 98 and
a 100. It's just a difference of 2 runs, but it's hard to argue that a
98 is the same as a 100.
I must hasten to add that I merely listed out the reasons why Gavaskar
might be regarded as the greater batsman than Boycott. I'm not
entirely convinced I subscribe to that argument. I have some sympathy
for it, but I can be convinced out of it fairly easily.
Satya
R. Bharat Rao
> I forgot the bowler who said "bowl a good ball to Boycott and he will block it;
> so will Sunny. Bowl a bad ball to Boycott and he will still block it; Sunny
> will hit it for four" Maybe the answer to your question lies somewhere in that.
>
> Nice troll, Mike. Didn't know you were into these things...
>
> Vijay
Don't think it was a troll at all... In the late 70's the two
were universally acknowledged as the GREAT opening bats around.
While most (myself included) thought that Gavaskar was better,
I don't think at that time (I'm speaking of 75-79 here) thought
that Gavaskar was *significantly* better -- history has certainly
changed that perception, and Gavaskar is now regarded a much
better (rightly so IMHO -- but that has, IMO, a lot to do with
what happenned after Boycott retired and Gavaskar kept going
on and on)...
Plus, whereas he was v. good against India (57) average, he wasn't
incredible against us IN India (sub-50 average) -- so I think it
is more us Indians who downgrade Boycott somewhat...
It certainly was a relevant question in 1980 -- not so much
now...
Bharat [Boyc's pretty good vs. WI as well]
Arvind Borde
news:44s5iv4j440jlp064...@4ax.com...
You've made the case that Boycott was as good as,
perhaps slightly better than, Gavaskar. On the other hand
all discerning observers would agree that Gavaskar was
significantly superior to Peter May. Does that make Boycott
the greatest post-war English batsman?
Arvind
Andrew Bull
<44s5iv4j440jlp064...@4ax.com>...
>Boycott shares a distinction with Bradman alone as having averaged
>over 100 in a full English season
Gooch averaged 101 in 1990.
Boycott, of course, achieved the feat twice.
(Martyn and Johnston also achieved the feat for Australia, but you may not
count them as they didn't score 1000 runs).
Mike Holmans
I wasn't trying to make the case that Boycott was better than
Gavaskar, because I don't think he was. I'm not even sure that I'd
argue strongly that he was quite Gavaskar's equal, although I wish I'd
been old enough to see him in the 60s, when he wasn't quite so
inclined to bat with the attitude that he was the only batsman in the
team who could be relied on to get runs (which may frequently have
been true, but the attitude was nonetheless unendearing).
Bharat made some good points about what Gavaskar did to crown his
career, as it were, and I think those do figure in the reasons why I
rate Gavaskar higher than Boycott, but I was more interested in what
Aditya said about Boycott possibly having a higher level of respect
had he been Indian, owing to the different contexts of the teams.
Even the greatest of players cannot always transcend their teams, and
they have to play within the team's limitations, not just their own.
Aditya was arguing that the rest of the Indian order was fragile and
Gavaskar did what the team wanted. The basic charge levelled againt
Boycott is that he spurned victory chances and blocked his way to a
significant, average-boosting not out in a tame draw rather than get
the chase off to the start it required. There is less evidence for the
charge as stated than you might expect, and in most of the cases which
you can mak the charge stick statistically, he has defended himself in
print by saying that the conditions were far worse than the boys in
the dressing room thought and they wouldn't have liked being out there
and frankly he wouldn't have fancied most of their chances either
because after all, none of them were half as good as he was. And
there's probably a fair degree of truth on his side on each occasion -
but, taken collectively, they are at best evidence for "I don't care
about winning, I just care about not losing." And I don't think that a
Great Batsman should have that attitude, let alone one based on trying
to impress future Jetleyists.
Which brings me back to the rather surprising observation that most
discerning observers would regard Gavaskar as superior to Peter May. I
take it that Anil heads the list of these discerning observers.
Cheers,
Mike
Andrew Dunford
<snip>
> Which brings me back to the rather surprising observation that most
> discerning observers would regard Gavaskar as superior to Peter May. I
> take it that Anil heads the list of these discerning observers.
Arvind actually wrote "all discerning observers would agree that Gavaskar
was significantly superior to Peter May".
Therefore the only possible conclusion one can draw from your surprise at
this observation is that you're not a discerning observer.
Andrew
Arvind Borde
news:Ih_Ua.7700$9f7.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
Mr. Dunford, you're an agitator.
I was being a little provocative in my May statement, but now that
May has been brought up, let me confess to some degree of puzzlement
about his career. That his peers and other contemporary observers
thought him peerless is not in doubt. Account after eyewitness account
talks of his powers as a batsman. But he had slumps in his career that
I don't understand. Between his first and second test hundreds
he made around 500 runs in 17 innings. Prior to his great 285
against the West Indies, he had made around 350 runs in 14 innings,
without a hundred. For someone who was as good as everyone says he
was, he appeared to lose his way rather more than he should have,
and I think his impact on English cricket was, as a result, less than
that of Hutton before the war.
May's impact on cricket, in general, was, in my view, less than that of
Gavaskar, who came to symbolize the transformation of Indian cricket
from the consistently third-rate to the inconsistently so. Gavaskar
was influential. He started us off on the road that's led to Tendulkar
and Dalmiya. To directly compare batting skills is hard to do across
generations, but even in this narrower comparison, I think that
Gavaskar's mastery stands up well.
Arvind
Raghu Jetley
> I was being a little provocative in my May statement, but now that
> May has been brought up, let me confess to some degree of puzzlement
> about his career. That his peers and other contemporary observers
> thought him peerless is not in doubt. Account after eyewitness account
> talks of his powers as a batsman. But he had slumps in his career
> that I don't understand. Between his first and second test hundreds
> he made around 500 runs in 17 innings. Prior to his great 285
> against the West Indies, he had made around 350 runs in 14 innings,
> without a hundred.
Between his 4th & 5th 100's SMG made 368 runs in 16 innings.
Between his 23th & 24th 100's, SMG made 474 runs in 18 innings.
I don't know what it means though.
> For someone who was as good as everyone says he
> was, he appeared to lose his way rather more than he should have,
> and I think his impact on English cricket was, as a result, less than
> that of Hutton before the war.
>
> May's impact on cricket, in general, was, in my view, less than that
> of Gavaskar, who came to symbolize the transformation of Indian
> cricket from the consistently third-rate to the inconsistently so.
> Gavaskar was influential. He started us off on the road that's led to
> Tendulkar and Dalmiya. To directly compare batting skills is hard to
> do across generations, but even in this narrower comparison, I think
> that Gavaskar's mastery stands up well.
I don't know much about Peter May, but my namesake (Statsguru) says
May averaged 57.30 at home & 36.42 away from home.
So it may probably be better to compare him with Azhar rather than
SMG.
Azhar 55.93 at home & 36.40 away.
Ramakrishnan G
"Raghu Jetley" <jraghu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bg2ame$k5lqj$1...@ID-27262.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I don't know much about Peter May, but my namesake (Statsguru) says
> May averaged 57.30 at home & 36.42 away from home.
>
> So it may probably be better to compare him with Azhar rather than
> SMG.
>
> Azhar 55.93 at home & 36.40 away.
>
Fabulous. I await Mike's response to this one. :-)
I also note that May has not played on the sub-continent at all. Maybe that
would have helped him bump up his away average?
Raghu Jetley
> "Raghu Jetley" <jraghu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bg2ame$k5lqj$1...@ID-27262.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>> I don't know much about Peter May, but my namesake (Statsguru) says
>> May averaged 57.30 at home & 36.42 away from home.
>>
>> So it may probably be better to compare him with Azhar rather than
>> SMG.
>>
>> Azhar 55.93 at home & 36.40 away.
>>
>
> Fabulous. I await Mike's response to this one. :-)
Why, I can predict it if you want.
He will twist my name in some new way & that should
be enough to silence any argument. Both him & Devdas
think this is a good argument buster.
>
> I also note that May has not played on the sub-continent at all.
> Maybe that would have helped him bump up his away average?
Actually, May's away average is already bumped up by playing in NZ
when NZ were a useless team. In other countries he averages 32.69.
Maybe he played some epic innings - so maybe he should be annointed
great.
Andrew Dunford
> Ramakrishnan G wrote:
> > "Raghu Jetley" <jraghu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:bg2ame$k5lqj$1...@ID-27262.news.uni-berlin.de...
<snip>
> Actually, May's away average is already bumped up by playing in NZ
> when NZ were a useless team. In other countries he averages 32.69.
>
> Maybe he played some epic innings - so maybe he should be annointed
> great.
I'd have said his dig against WI at Edgbaston in 1957 was more of a cameo
myself.
Andrew
Shariq A. Tariq
someone who has bowled to both these batsman surely does. In Marshall
Arts and you will find a less than complimentry opinion of Boycott's
skill and abilities. In contrast, Marshall heaps buckets of praise on
Gavaskar. IIRC there was no mention of Geoff Boycott in the list of
great batsmen in Imran Khan's biography either. However, there was a
lot of praise for both Sunil Gavaskar and Viv Richards
There was a line in the movie "Tommy Boy" that went something like
this,"You can have a good look at a T-Bone by sticking your head up a
bull's arse but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it..."
These two qualify amongst the greatest bowlers of all times and their
assessement of a player should give us a pretty good idea about their
talent and ability
Shariq
Shripathi Kamath
news:OU_Ua.1697$JS2...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
I saw neither May nor Barrington play. But I have always wondered why
Barrington isn't regarded higher than him. The most common answers have
been "May hit the ball hard - he was a man amongst boys", and "May was
simply better". Barrington apparently did not quite play the knocks May
did, and while I suppose that is true of any other player, I find it hard
running through Barrington's series and finding *that* set of awful series
against *that* kind of bowling. He was reputedly a slowish scorer (a little
like Boycott maybe, but more prolific), but got plenty of runs at a
spectacular average of 59. He scored against all kinds of opposition,
scored at home, scored away (actually at an even more spectacular 70 per).
My family members who saw him at Brabourne in 1961 simply said "he looks
like he's never going to get out", and in that test, he didn't.
A lot has to do with that flamboyance I guess, May certainly seems to have
had it, and Barrington? Probably more like a Dravid or a Gavaskar in
comparison to a Tendulkar. Dullish, but a barndoor defense.
Why did I even bring up Barrington? Heck it was Mike's troll to begin
with, the more we get it spread around, the better are his chances of
participating :-) Besides, I feel that Boycott was kinda like Barrington --
prolific run-getter, had a complete game, but with an emphasis on defense.
Same with Gavaskar.
Those who consider May to be a superior bat to Barrington, are not even
going to entertain comparisons with other similarly styled batsmen who are
not even as prolific as Barrington.
I think that this is where we bid adieu to Mike.
So back to the Gavaskar v May.
Cursory look: Gavaskar has distinctly superior numbers, and he is much
better away than May was. They both have a few memorable knocks, May has
more knocks that resulted in England wins. This invariably results in
tilting the scales for many non-Indian cricket fans. Gavaskar though has
some huge series, more than May. Both faced some great bowlers, and some
meek ones. I am biased in this, but the WIPQ that Gavaskar played was
better than any bowling that May did. And Gavaskar did well against them.
Cursory look Part II: May's reputation is probably built more on his run
scoring prowess in the UK county system. He scored 2000+ runs some
half-a-dozen times, 1000+ runs some dozen times, and those are no mean
feats. That, I guess is what makes his teammates and other England fans to
rate him so high. They saw him do those things like no one else had done in
the 1950s (right after the war), and I bet that weighs heavily for them.
More than what Barrington could or did do. Of course, lots of prose helps
embellishing those exploits. Not as many care that Gavaskar scored a 340
against Saurashtra or Baroda or whatever. Clearly the UK county system was
better, is the argument. See the arguments for Surrey today, and I think
it'll provide a good idea.
So some deeper looks at May's career.
The 1954/55 series was his stepping stone to greatness. Look at the series,
and you will note a rather unimpressive 351 runs in 5 tests at 39 per in
Australia. What's the big deal? The big deal is that his 104 in the T2I3
squared the series after Australia had been pounding the tourists. The
first test was an innings defeat, and May's knock turned it around. (One can
almost forget Cowdrey's effort in the first innings.) He then followed it
with an almost similar knock (91) in T3I3. Both were largely single-handed
batting efforts, and both were backed with some superb bowling by England to
make 'em count. So after a thrashing in the first test, May looks like he
single-handedly produced the killer blows. England won the Ashes, so no one
cares that May averaged only 39.
He scored them when they counted. It is a mere detail that England has
Tyson and Statham to finish off the Aussies. A 3-1 series win in Australia?
I'll take it :-)
(Think Astle's 221 being treated differently than Botham's 149* although
both were scored under similarly desperate situations. Willis made it great
for Botham.)
Wins have that impact.
Now follow that with the return trip in 1956. This one May scores, and
scores big and England win again.
So, you perform stupendously in the decade in the county system, for a
strong side (still called Surrey), beat your arch-rivals away and at home,
with significant contributions in each series, and it is not hard to see why
someone from England will focus on that alone and draw conclusions over his
career.
BTW, the match in which he scored his 285* to me has a very familiar feel to
it with India against Australia 2001 T2. The only difference was that
England did not have a shrewd dude like Ganguly to time their declaration
:-)
Check it out and see if you agree (I have no idea how the pitch played):
In comparison, many of Gavaskar's knocks were either in vain, or helped
stave off defeat.
So if you go by how many of their performance resulted in wins for their
sides (ignoring contributions of others), Gavaskar finishes second.
FWIW, I rate Gavaskar higher. I rate Barrington higher. May simply does
not have the test numbers to back him up, and no I do not believe that the
numbers are misleading in this case. The 47 to 51 against Gavaskar and the
47 to 58 against Barrington are too big to ignore when you consider their
away performances. (I see that Raghu has posted some stats on this). Both
have some monster series, and some incredible knocks. Gavaskar has a lot
fewer in India wins. But he did, as you said, was responsible for the
transformation of Indian batting.
Gavaskar will never get the credit he deserves, he simply wasn't on many
winning sides, and he wasn't the aggressive stroke-maker (by choice) that
others were. He and Border share the same fate. As Uday has detailed many
times before, they spent most of their careers saving matches. The
misfortune of having played with little or no supporting cast for most of
their careers weighs against them. Unfairly, in my opinion. I am not
lobbying for bonus points for Gavaskar for that, just that when considering
*his* batting performance against May's, I would not credit May for what his
teammates - Compton, Hutton, Statham, Tyson, Cowdrey and Laker also did to
get those wins. So all Gavaskar did was accumulate runs -- some helped
India win, some helped India stave off certain defeats, and some did little
to help India. But we are considering individual performances in a team
sport, so I am loath to give credit to the individual for what the rest of
the team did.
I rate Compton much higher too, and he was a teammate of May's for a while.
Some criterion makes sure to exclude him and Hutton when it comes to post
WWII bats.
--
Shripathi Kamath
Shishir Pathak
news:5Y3Va.21597$Je.12528@fed1read04...
<snip>
> Barrington isn't regarded higher than him. The most common answers have
> been "May hit the ball hard - he was a man amongst boys", and "May was
Even Flintoff hits the ball really hard, check some of his shots from
yesterday. Too bad he got a rather unplayable delivery towards the end of
the day.
<snip>
> Cursory look Part II: May's reputation is probably built more on his run
> scoring prowess in the UK county system.
Apparently Uncle Boycs too was prolific in county cricket, almost
Bradmansque as some posters have reminded us. Gavaskar sucked when he
decided to get off his high horse and play county cricket.
<snip>
> FWIW, I rate Gavaskar higher. I rate Barrington higher. May simply does
> not have the test numbers to back him up, and no I do not believe that the
> numbers are misleading in this case. The 47 to 51 against Gavaskar and
the
> 47 to 58 against Barrington are too big to ignore when you consider their
> away performances. (I see that Raghu has posted some stats on this).
Ah, the old rsc habit of comparing stats across generations. Next you'll
tell us that Bradman was 56% better than Tendulkar just because Bradman's
batting average is 56% higher than Tendulkar's. Don't you statrats (tm)
even get tired of this nonsense?
How about sticking to Larry King (not to be mistaken for Larrikin) Live and
NBA dude?
Cheers,
Shishir
Shripathi Kamath
--
Shripathi Kamath
"Shishir Pathak" <shishir_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bg2l4g$kdphh$1...@ID-134415.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Shripathi Kamath" <shripat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5Y3Va.21597$Je.12528@fed1read04...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Barrington isn't regarded higher than him. The most common answers have
> > been "May hit the ball hard - he was a man amongst boys", and "May was
>
> Even Flintoff hits the ball really hard, check some of his shots from
> yesterday. Too bad he got a rather unplayable delivery towards the end of
> the day.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Cursory look Part II: May's reputation is probably built more on his
run
> > scoring prowess in the UK county system.
>
> Apparently Uncle Boycs too was prolific in county cricket, almost
> Bradmansque as some posters have reminded us. Gavaskar sucked when he
> decided to get off his high horse and play county cricket.
>
Some would say *because* he played county cricket.
> <snip>
>
> > FWIW, I rate Gavaskar higher. I rate Barrington higher. May simply
does
> > not have the test numbers to back him up, and no I do not believe that
the
> > numbers are misleading in this case. The 47 to 51 against Gavaskar and
> the
> > 47 to 58 against Barrington are too big to ignore when you consider
their
> > away performances. (I see that Raghu has posted some stats on this).
>
> Ah, the old rsc habit of comparing stats across generations. Next you'll
> tell us that Bradman was 56% better than Tendulkar just because Bradman's
> batting average is 56% higher than Tendulkar's. Don't you statrats (tm)
> even get tired of this nonsense?
>
> How about sticking to Larry King (not to be mistaken for Larrikin) Live
and
> NBA dude?
First, can we avoid personal abuses while stressing a point.
That will make the discussion more pleasant and long-lasting.*
Yes, I did consider that by comparing them to others in the era, though.
Richards, Greg Chappell, Border, and Miandad were probably the closest peers
of Gavaskar. They all averaged about the same.
Not so for May. Weekes, Sobers, Walcott, Worrell, Harvey, Compton, and even
Barrington etc. who were some of his contemporaries averaged more.
Unless someone goes and does a pitch by pitch analysis on an innings by
innings basis with some PwC degree of difficulty ratings, no reason to
believe that they were not comparable *just* because they were in separate
eras. Richards was as good a bat to have come out of the WI, and his
average is lower than Weekes.
No reason to believe that things were not *tougher* in Gavaskar's times.
--
Shripathi Kamath
* Copyright (c) Ram Jaane, 2003. All rights reserved
Raj
> "Raghu Jetley" <jraghu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bg2ame$k5lqj$1...@ID-27262.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>> I don't know much about Peter May, but my namesake (Statsguru) says
>> May averaged 57.30 at home & 36.42 away from home.
>>
>> So it may probably be better to compare him with Azhar rather than
>> SMG.
>>
>> Azhar 55.93 at home & 36.40 away.
>>
>
> Fabulous. I await Mike's response to this one. :-)
Who's this Mike character?
FWIW, May wasn't even the best first-class player of his generation, let
alone Tests.
Some Test averages:
May ave: 46.77
Hutton: 56.67
Compton: 50.06
Dexter: 47.89
Barrington: 58.67
> I also note that May has not played on the sub-continent at all.
> Maybe that would have helped him bump up his away average?
Name Matches (Away) Away Ave
May 27 35.57
Vengsarkar 62 32.73
Azharuddin 53 36.40
M Waugh 64 41.36
Ganguly 37 42.14
The post-war years have evidently been very good for England away from
home, if May is their best post-war batsman.
-Raj-
Raj
> "Raghu Jetley" <jraghu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bg2ame$k5lqj$1...@ID-27262.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>> I don't know much about Peter May, but my namesake (Statsguru) says
>> May averaged 57.30 at home & 36.42 away from home.
>>
>> So it may probably be better to compare him with Azhar rather than
>> SMG.
>>
>> Azhar 55.93 at home & 36.40 away.
>>
>
> Fabulous. I await Mike's response to this one. :-)
Who's this Mike character?
FWIW, May wasn't even the best first-class player of his generation, let
alone Tests.
Some Test averages:
May ave: 46.77
Hutton: 56.67
Compton: 50.06
Dexter: 47.89
Barrington: 58.67
> I also note that May has not played on the sub-continent at all.
> Maybe that would have helped him bump up his away average?
Name Matches (Away) Away Ave
Ramakrishnan G
<snip>
>
> Cursory look Part II: May's reputation is probably built more on his run
> scoring prowess in the UK county system. He scored 2000+ runs some
> half-a-dozen times, 1000+ runs some dozen times, and those are no mean
> feats. That, I guess is what makes his teammates and other England fans
to
> rate him so high. They saw him do those things like no one else had done
in
> the 1950s (right after the war), and I bet that weighs heavily for them.
> More than what Barrington could or did do. Of course, lots of prose helps
> embellishing those exploits. Not as many care that Gavaskar scored a 340
> against Saurashtra or Baroda or whatever. Clearly the UK county system
was
> better, is the argument. See the arguments for Surrey today, and I think
> it'll provide a good idea.
>
Sorta like Ashok Mankad, what?
<snip>
Mike Holmans
>> "Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:cao8iv8ri4ce5990n...@4ax.com...
>> > Which brings me back to the rather surprising observation that most
>> > discerning observers would regard Gavaskar as superior to Peter May. I
>> > take it that Anil heads the list of these discerning observers.
>
>I was being a little provocative in my May statement,
Oh, really?
> but now that
>May has been brought up, let me confess to some degree of puzzlement
>about his career. That his peers and other contemporary observers
>thought him peerless is not in doubt. Account after eyewitness account
>talks of his powers as a batsman. But he had slumps in his career that
>I don't understand. Between his first and second test hundreds
>he made around 500 runs in 17 innings. Prior to his great 285
>against the West Indies, he had made around 350 runs in 14 innings,
>without a hundred. For someone who was as good as everyone says he
>was, he appeared to lose his way rather more than he should have,
>and I think his impact on English cricket was, as a result, less than
>that of Hutton before the war.
I rather thought that too until recently.
I haven't got Alan Hill's biog of him with me, but as I recall, the
first slump is explicable by some uncertainty as to his role, which
ended when Len Hutton had a long talk with him about what he was going
to have to do if he wanted to be the next England captain as Hutton
thought he should be, and the second had a great deal to do with him
being England's talismanic batsman and effectively pressured into
playing when he wasn't really fit.
His career was also cut short by illness.
>May's impact on cricket, in general, was, in my view, less than that of
>Gavaskar, who came to symbolize the transformation of Indian cricket
>from the consistently third-rate to the inconsistently so. Gavaskar
>was influential. He started us off on the road that's led to Tendulkar
>and Dalmiya. To directly compare batting skills is hard to do across
>generations, but even in this narrower comparison, I think that
>Gavaskar's mastery stands up well.
I think you underestimate the peculiar situation during May's
captaincy. He was a genuine amateur: he was an insurance broker
outside cricket (and a good one), and paid his membership subscription
to Surrey so that he could play for them. However, his attitude was
ultra-professional, at a time when the distinction between amateur and
professional not only meant something but was the subject of intense
debate - the distinction being abolished just after his career ended
prematurely. Hutton had been the first professional appointed as
England captain, and had not won universal approval for his methods.
That May's style of captaincy was just as uncompromising as Hutton's,
while being determinedly classless, was an important factor in easing
a huge transition for English cricket.
He was captain for the 1956 Ashes, a fact often forgotten in the hype
which makes Jim Laker solely responsible for England's retention of
the urn. As captain, he won twice as many games as he lost, which is a
pretty good ratio by anyone's standards. And he was the inspiration
for the Dexters, Cowdreys, Graveneys, and Barringtons who formed the
backbone of what was a pretty fine side in the early 60s.
I see that a number of people have weighed in with statistical
comparisons to which I say Pshaw! and Ptui! Since every one of the
English batsmen listed with better statistics would unhesitatingly say
that Peter May was far better than they were, the Holy Scriptures can
go stuff themselves, because they lie.
Cheers,
Mike
Uday Rajan
> >
> > Actually, May's away average is already bumped up by playing in NZ
> > when NZ were a useless team. In other countries he averages 32.69.
> >
> > Maybe he played some epic innings - so maybe he should be annointed
> > great.
>
> I'd have said his dig against WI at Edgbaston in 1957 was more of a cameo
> myself.
Oh, I thought that was an exhibition of soccer on the cricket
field.
Arvind Borde
news:3F2534E8...@andrew.cmu.edu...
> Oh, I thought that was an exhibition of soccer on the cricket
> field.
To give May his due, he padded the ball harder in that innings
than anyone in post-war England.
Arvind
p masud
> discuss at great length whether Boycott or Gavaskar was the finest
> current example of classical opening batting, and no-one ever really
> coming to much of a conclusion either way.
>
Come on Mike, isn't it obvious, at least to some of us who were around
at that time that neither of them were the best "at that time", yes
that is correct neither of them, if you recall, it was either Gordon
Greenridge or Barry Richards, I am not saying that these too legends
are not the finest we have seen, it's just simply "not at the time"
and of all people you should know that, granted, Richards was not
playing "Test cricket", never the less, he was the #1 opening bat of
the 70's followed by Eddie Barlow, Majid Khan, GM Turner,
Gavasakr after his sensation Test debut, faded out for a while Boycott
was simply boring and selfish. However, I loved watching John Edrich
instead.
Now, you can compare the two as the greatest of past but not "at that
time". Sure, Gavaskar became the highest scorer and so on and
overshadowed Boycott, however, all that at a price, simply boring, and
just like Kapil Dev and Miandad and many others struggling "old farts"
– just would not go away, if you what I mean., the trend continues
even today with De Silva, Stewart and Waugh that is why I have the
greatest respect for Sir Richard Hadlee., who knew when to quit, sorry
I went off topic, thanks..
yeskay
SMG could've walked into the Indian team for the next 2-3 years after he
retired.
I think even he falls into the 'retired-in-prime' category.
Tambi_Dude
"yeskay" <yes...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3F2550D3...@nowhere.com...
>SMG could've walked into the Indian team for the next
>2-3 years after he retired.
>I think even he falls into the 'retired-in-prime' category.
I think this is a stretch. He retired-in-time.
By 1987 his best days was years behind him.
rk-
Ramakrishnan G
Does that make Jimmy Padams the best footballer in post-war Jamaica?
> Arvind
>
Mike Holmans
>Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> And I remember at the time, effectively in the 70s, that people would
>> discuss at great length whether Boycott or Gavaskar was the finest
>> current example of classical opening batting, and no-one ever really
>> coming to much of a conclusion either way.
>>
>
>Come on Mike, isn't it obvious, at least to some of us who were around
>at that time that neither of them were the best "at that time", yes
>that is correct neither of them, if you recall, it was either Gordon
>Greenridge or Barry Richards
Please read what I actually said. I did not say "the best opening
batsman of the day", but "the finest current example of classical
opening batting". I chose my words extremely carefully.
Cheers,
Mike
Shripathi Kamath
"Ramakrishnan G" <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg2pj6$k6cf0$1...@ID-188547.news.uni-berlin.de...
I think that it would be grossly unkind to drag May into that company. But,
imo, May's performances outside of tests count a lot more in his favor than
Mankad's.
<snip>
--
Shripathi Kamath
yeskay
I was not indicating that SMG was at his best when he retired.
Going by the quality of other openers, he would have been still a shoe-in.
That says a lot about the quality of other openers rather than of SMG.
R. Bharat Rao
RK, his last Test knock was one of the best he ever played.
I agree he was not anywhere near his prime, but the old
master could still play -- he would certainly have been
first choice opener for at least 2-3 more years, if not
longer, had he stayed on..
He followed the Vijay Merchant dictum of "better to retire
when they ask 'Why' rather than wait until they say 'Why not?' "
To those of you newbies who wonder why Gavaskar is held in
such stead by us OF's, a typical scenario would be: India
have to bat the better part of 1.5 days, 500 runs behind,
to save the Test.. No problem, as long as Gavaskar was
there -- there was an unerring belief that he would save
the Test...
The new lot -- faugh -- the times we've battled through
to save a Test in the last decade can be counted on one hand.
(Lets see, against SL in SL, against England T2-2002, and
soon after against WI -- I'm sure I'm missing a few more
back to the wall performances, but not many...)
With SMG these were semi-routine..
Bharat
Raghu Jetley
Probably because the scenario of having to bat the better part of 1.5 days,
500 runs behind to save the test was also semi-routine in those days.
The current lot perform much better in the first match innings as compared
to SMG's time, hence there are a far less times, when this needs to happen,
hence far less times, that it has happened.
If you do a
(No of times achieved/No of times needed), I don't think it will be all that
much different.
Bob Dubery
> Please read what I actually said. I did not say "the best opening
> batsman of the day", but "the finest current example of classical
> opening batting". I chose my words extremely carefully.
And your words are correct. Gavaskar and especially Boycott were
textbook opening batsmen. Both were very good against the new, moving
ball when the bowlers were fresh. Both men were extremely good at
judging line and length and knowing when they had to play and when
they didn't. Both men, and again this is even more so for Boycott, had
worked very hard at eliminating error from their game. Both men were
very sound against fast bowling.
Arlott, writing in 1983, described Boycott as the best example of the
classical opening batsman in his (Boycott's) time.
Bob Dubery
passage from The Zen Of Cricket by Tony Francis (Stanley Paul, ISBN
0091746485)
Another Englishmen stood out in this huge spiritual battle against
four rampaging speedsters: Geoff Boycott. He has not had to suffer it
as long as Gooch and Lamb but his method was as effective as anyone's.
Boycott did not desert his principles. Sound defence was the
foundation and his back-foot technique gave him ample opportunity to
counter-attack square on the off-side. Boycott's century in Antigua in
1981 was a model innings, contrasting as it did with Willey's more
savage approach. He would have been devastated to hear the theories
propounded by Willey, Gooch, Willis, Botham and seconded by Gower, the
captain of the 1986 expedition, that the long-handle method was the
only way to resist. he was (almost) speechless when some of the newer
members of the Stewart/Gooch school of 1990 threw caution to the wind.
"It's vital when you're defending a big total like 450 to put the
accent on defence, not scoring runs. You have to stay there against
these boys. Leave things outside the off-stump and be very good at
playing the ball off your body around the rib cage where the fast men
come at you. Not like Wayne Larkins did in Barbados. After one and
half days in the field watching Carlisle Best score 100, he gets out
in the first over. That's demoralizing to the rest of the team."
Boycott, of course, did that very same thing at the same ground nine
years earlier when Holding whipped up his sudden frenzy. Holding,
however, is very complimentary. "He was such a good technical batsman,
a very good judge of line and length. He wouldn't play at most balls
others would play at. That put pressure back on the bowler because you
had to think about control. You had to bowl straight at Boycott. A
ball pitched outside off-stump and moving away would get many batsmen
pushing at it. Not Boycott. With him you've wasted all that energy for
nothing. You couldn't stray on to his leg-stump either because he was
very strong there. You had to be as consistent as he was.
"Gavaskar was a great batsman, but when I bowled against him in he
didn't seem to have the spirit he had years before. In the early 1980s
if the wicket had some life in it, he didn't seem to be that
interested. Having said that, if Gavaskar didn't want to get out you
couldn't get him out. I remember his mammoth innings in Madras.
Brilliant. He seemed to be batting with the entire stadium. You
couldn't pass the test - you had to just bowl as tightly as possible
as hope he'd make a mistake. With other batsmen you know their
weaknesses and play on them. Not so Gavaskar. He just takes charge and
you hope he doesn't score too many runs off of you. There aren't many
batsmen in that category."
Boycott didn't take charge in that sense because, apart from that
famous 146 in the 1965 Gillette Cup Final, his game was about reducing
risk to an absolute minimum. However, rumours that he had no stomach
for the heavy artillery were scotched on his last Caribbean tour.
Holding has this to say.
"You were never worried about Boycott embarrassing you. I only
remember him hooking me once, but he wasn't easy to intimidate. A lot
of people said he didn't like fast stuff, didn't want to face Lillee
and Thomson, but I never saw him look like he wanted to back off. Not
once."
Who will know the secrets of Boycott's psyche? Even Gavaskar, to whom
he has been misleadingly compared, does not begin to comprehend his
slavish devotion to batting. Boycott had the same drive and desire to
collect runs whether he was playing in a Test match or a charity game.
Admirable and disquieting at the same time. Gavaskar was not so
obsessed:
"First-class matches on tour didn't interest me. I kept my
concentration for the tests. I admired Boycott for his single-minded
determination. He'd score a test hundred one day and be at it again on
the county circuit the next. Tremendous self-motivation when hardly
anyone was watching him. I could never be like that."
Bob Dubery
> Pondering some of this nonsense about who qualifies as an all-time
> great and who doesn't, I am led to muse about the relative status of
> Sunil Gavaskar and Geoffrey Boycott.
>
> I know most people would say Gavaskar goes in the pantheon and Boycs
> doesn't, but why is that?
>
> You'll take it as read that I don't take a difference of 47 to 51 in
> career average as convincing, so don't try trotting that one out. I
> don't propose going down that road, though my argument in favour of
> basically ignoring the difference would be based on the relative
> difficulty of opening on the slow Indian pitches and English greentops
> of the 70s.
Mike, just for my interest, where you following the game at that time.
Or did you, like me, take an interest in the game later and learn your
Boycott and Gavaskar from the history books?
I'm not taking issue with anything you've said here, or trying to
reduce your argument on the grounds that you didn't see the two men
play in their prime. I ask the question out of pure curiosity.
Mike Holmans
>Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<44s5iv4j440jlp064...@4ax.com>...
>> Pondering some of this nonsense about who qualifies as an all-time
>> great and who doesn't, I am led to muse about the relative status of
>> Sunil Gavaskar and Geoffrey Boycott.
>>
>> I know most people would say Gavaskar goes in the pantheon and Boycs
>> doesn't, but why is that?
>>
>> You'll take it as read that I don't take a difference of 47 to 51 in
>> career average as convincing, so don't try trotting that one out. I
>> don't propose going down that road, though my argument in favour of
>> basically ignoring the difference would be based on the relative
>> difficulty of opening on the slow Indian pitches and English greentops
>> of the 70s.
>
>Mike, just for my interest, where you following the game at that time.
>Or did you, like me, take an interest in the game later and learn your
>Boycott and Gavaskar from the history books?
It depends what you mean by "following". I first became interested in
cricket when I had several weeks off school with a broken bone and the
only thing that was on TV during the day back then was Test cricket.
Which means that my introduction to Boycott was his 246* against
India. And as a small boy, later to become a spotty teenager, and
Boycott played for Yorkshire and Yorkshire were the best team, I
worshipped him and his marvellous statistics - after all, I understood
statistics. I could quote reams of statistics and averages by the age
of 11, but obviously that didn't give me any insight into the game or
appreciation of players.
I don't think I'd got to the point of seeing what I was looking at, if
you like, until about 1976, so I don't have any clear recollections of
Boycott's play until the end of his exile in 1977, and I first really
saw Gavaskar in 1979. I presume I saw some of the 1974 India series on
TV, which was Gavaskar's first appearance in England and the one which
prompted Boycott's exile, but it would be dishonest to claim that I
knew what was going on then.
Viewing their careers as plays, I knew the plot of the first half of
"Boycott, Prince of Yorkshire" but only went into the auditorium for
the second half, whereas I only missed Act 1 of "The Gavaskar of
Bombay" (a sequel to "The Merchant of Bombay").
Cheers,
Mike
Uday Rajan
>
> Mike, just for my interest, where you following the game at that time.
> Or did you, like me, take an interest in the game later and learn your
> Boycott and Gavaskar from the history books?
I'm not Mike, but I've followed cricket since ~1971, and more or
less regularly since 1974-75. I read the original message on this
thread as an out-and-out troll. Someone else (net_head?) had a
response I agree with completely; Gavaskar had a solid defence,
but, in his prime, always put the bad ball away for four. I've
seen Boycott defending away to bad bowling as well. Of course,
I've seen rather more of Gavaskar than Boycott, since most of
England's matches weren't on TV in India back then. But I've
listened to Boycott bat, as it were, for many, many hours. And I
have seen him bat, just not seen him as much as I've seen
Gavaskar.
Attitude---that's something else again. Boycott was always a
little unpopular with his team-mates, because he would do
whatever he felt like regardless of whether it benefitted the
team or not. This included refusing to tour Australia in 1974-75,
where Lillee and Thomson decimated the English batting. And it
included going off to play golf rather than field on the last day
of a Test match, with England having an outside chance to win the
match (Calcutta, 1980-81).
Mad Hamish
wrote:
I forget who it was, Miller I think who commented that Boycott was as
good a defensive player as Hutton "but for chrissakes don't tell him I
said so."
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
p masud
> pma...@aol.com (p masud) decided to say:
>
> >Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>
> >> And I remember at the time, effectively in the 70s, that people would
> >> discuss at great length whether Boycott or Gavaskar was the finest
> >> current example of classical opening batting, and no-one ever really
> >> coming to much of a conclusion either way.
>
> Please read what I actually said. I did not say "the best opening
> batsman of the day", but "the finest current example of classical
> opening batting". I chose my words extremely carefully.
>
Admittedly I see my mistake and your clever selection of word. That
is exactly what's make's you the most unique poster in rsc, and it's
always a pleasure and challenge for me to debate with you, thank you
for taking the time to reply.
Your choice in selecting the title indicates your defense for Boycott
as being as good as Gavaskar is justified, at least to some extent,
then later it dawned on me that you are from Yorkshire, what else can
I say.
Back to Gavaskar v Boycott, lets use another reference, the mother of
them all, ‘Ali v Frazier', I'm sure you know the year 1971, we all
know Ali lost that fight and we also know now that Frazier is no way
nearer in Ali's class, despite in defeating Ali.
So, in the same way Boycott was just as good as Gavaskar at that time,
however, we know now that he is not in the same class.
Boycott only played for averages and Gavaskar was class act till the
very end.
Just for reference, I watched all of 246* by Boycott in 1967 and was
privileged to be at The Oval in 1979 for Gavaskar 221, No comparison
what so ever.
Cheers
pervez
rkusenet
"Uday Rajan" <ura...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message news:3F26758A...@andrew.cmu.edu...
> I'm not Mike, but I've followed cricket since ~1971, and more or
> less regularly since 1974-75. I read the original message on this
> thread as an out-and-out troll. Someone else (net_head?) had a
> response I agree with completely; Gavaskar had a solid defence,
> but, in his prime, always put the bad ball away for four.
I posted this in 1998:
==============================================
From: Ravi Krishna <srkr...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Boycott (Re: Allrounders of the 80s)
Date: 1998/09/04
In article <01bdd7f8$5b14e840$0100007f@testsamm>, "Simon says...
>I'd rather watch 30 from Gower than 250 by Boycott anyday......
Provided Gower scores 30 against top class attack. :-)
From whatever I have seen of Gower, he was an very stylish batsman, but his
style was such that it can never succeed against fast bowlers, specially
WI bowlers.
Take it from me, England is yet to get a better batsman than Boycott in the last
many decades, though Gooch was very good.
I however agree Boycott was very boring. Once someone asked what's the
difference between Gavaskar and Boycott. Brealey (or was it some one else)
said that "while SMG will definitely dispatch a bad ball to the boundary,
Boycott will defend it". The only thing interesting about Boycott is the
techniques he displays. Very perfect.
A question to Britishers: Why was Boycott so hated in England. ? I mean things
like "probably his mother likes him" just shows the dislike many people had.
Of course Boycott was no saint. I read reports that he was so selfish that if he
had even a iota of doubt that he will get run out, he will simply return to his
crease. I saw this in the 1979 Oval test against India. Boycott started running
and seeing that he had no chance of completing the run, simply returned back to
the crease, leaving Botham high and dry. Botham's remarks while going back to
the pavilion was unprintable.
Actually Boycoot and Brealey had a love hate relationship. I once read something
very funny. They both were playing some exhibition match on a Sunday. Boycott
shouldered arm to all the deliveries of the first over. At the end of the over,
Brealey told him "Geoff,I think the crowd has come to see the match to have some
entertainment, not to see your technique". Not to be outdone Boycott replied,
"Mike, you don't know what it means to be a test class player, you see no test
player will ever play to balls pitched 3 feet outside the off stump".
HA HA HA HA. I would love to see the expression on Mike's face. Brealey, as we
all know was a great captain but a lousy bat.
Boycott's commentary during the WC 1996 was very cynical. He had nothing good to
say about England.
RK-
Tansen Varghese
In one of Imran's books he does say every team (or at least Pakistan)
needs someone like Boycott, who can keep one end safe. The other thing
is that Imran didn't play any Test cricket against Boycott.
> Have not seen Boycott bat enough to have an opinion on this but
> someone who has bowled to both these batsman surely does. In Marshall
> Arts and you will find a less than complimentry opinion of Boycott's
> skill and abilities. In contrast, Marshall heaps buckets of praise on
> Gavaskar. IIRC there was no mention of Geoff Boycott in the list of
> great batsmen in Imran Khan's biography either. However, there was a
> lot of praise for both Sunil Gavaskar and Viv Richards
>
> There was a line in the movie "Tommy Boy" that went something like
> this,"You can have a good look at a T-Bone by sticking your head up a
> bull's arse but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it..."
>
> These two qualify amongst the greatest bowlers of all times and their
> assessement of a player should give us a pretty good idea about their
> talent and ability
>
> Shariq
Mike Holmans
>Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<thmaiv41imigqh64p...@4ax.com>...
>> pma...@aol.com (p masud) decided to say:
>>
>> >Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> And I remember at the time, effectively in the 70s, that people would
>> >> discuss at great length whether Boycott or Gavaskar was the finest
>> >> current example of classical opening batting, and no-one ever really
>> >> coming to much of a conclusion either way.
>
>>
>> Please read what I actually said. I did not say "the best opening
>> batsman of the day", but "the finest current example of classical
>> opening batting". I chose my words extremely carefully.
>>
>
>Admittedly I see my mistake and your clever selection of word. That
>is exactly what's make's you the most unique poster in rsc, and it's
>always a pleasure and challenge for me to debate with you, thank you
>for taking the time to reply.
>
>Your choice in selecting the title indicates your defense for Boycott
>as being as good as Gavaskar is justified, at least to some extent,
>then later it dawned on me that you are from Yorkshire, what else can
>I say.
I don't know whether I didn't say it right or whether some people were
reading things they wanted to read, but I wasn't actually trying to
say that I thought Boycott was Gavaskar's equal. I did say that I
wasn't going to accept a mere presentation of career Test averages as
any kind of conclusive proof, but I did not actually disagree with the
generally-held opinion that Gavaskar was Boycott's superior.
>
>Back to Gavaskar v Boycott, lets use another reference, the mother of
>them all, ‘Ali v Frazier', I'm sure you know the year 1971, we all
>know Ali lost that fight and we also know now that Frazier is no way
>nearer in Ali's class, despite in defeating Ali.
>So, in the same way Boycott was just as good as Gavaskar at that time,
>however, we know now that he is not in the same class.
*That* was the point. It seemed *at the time* that they were just
about equal, but *now* we don't even regard it as much of a debate.
What was it about them, I pondered, which had led to that divergence
of opinion?
Bharat partly answered it by pointing out what Gavaskar went on to do
after Boycott had retired.
But the other replies point at the manner in which they scored their
runs, the importance of the runs they got to their team's efforts, and
their attitudes to the game in general.
Of course, none of these actually get recorded at Statsguru, or at
least, not unless you are prepared to go into extremely detailed
analysis to get an idea of how fast they scored relative to other
players and stuff like that. But they are, I think, major factors in
why we nowadays hardly pause when asked which was the greater player:
because of them, looking back over their whole careers, the sum of
Gavaskar's achievements is much greater than Boycott's, even if you
can perform various statistical shenanigans to try and make the case
far less clear.
Uday and others who decided I was trolling were partially correct, as
this was an exercise designed to point out another reason why drawing
lines across tables of figures doesn't do the necessary when it comes
to identifying Great Players.
>Boycott only played for averages and Gavaskar was class act till the
>very end.
I think it's unfair to say "only", although he was indeed conscious of
them. He learned his cricket in the tough Yorkshire of the 60s, where
they didn't mess about with flashy shots, they just got on with
winning. But unlike Close or Illingworth, he didn't have any kind of
attacking instinct, so his tactics were invariably ultra-conservative.
It did help his average, no doubt, but the Yorkshire of the 70s really
did rely on him for any runs they were going to get, and he made it
his job to get them. And hang the rest - unfortunately, even more so
because he was skipper.
And the problems he had in that role were far more important than Uday
allows when he trots out the bit about Boycott refusing to tour with
Denness because he was afraid of Lilian Thomson.
Yorkshire cricket is pretty serious stuff. When I started going to
cricket regularly in the early 80s, the bunch I hung around with
simply banned Boycott as a topic of conversation because we didn't
want our afternoon to turn into a fist-fight: we each had our various
opinions about the bloke, but expressing them inevitably led to an
argument which got more and more heated.
Yorkshire won six championships out of seven in the 60s. Then the
idiotic committee drove Close and Illingworth out, Trueman retired,
and Boycott was left as senior player and obvious captain. Success
eluded him, as was actually pretty likely with the loss of so many
senior players and the huge influx of overseas stars at other
counties, but the natives were getting restless.
Yorkshire finished 13th (out of 17) in 1971, 10th in 1972, and 14th in
1973. 1974 started poorly too - and the only batsman who got any runs
early-season was Boycott.
When Boycott went off to play for England and the results got worse,
the barroom chatter about him only being interested in going off and
lining his pockets as an England player and not being interested in
Yorkshire became more of a general roar in favour of a change of
captain.
In those pre-Packer days, lining your pockets playing for England was
a virtual impossibility, and a cricketer like Boycott depended utterly
on his county contract.
I think he genuinely believed that if he didn't do something to shore
up his position with Yorkshire, which certainly meant staying in
Yorkshire to fight the political wars in the winter of 74-75, he would
come back from Australia unemployed. And even if he had been able to
find a county, none would have made him captain, and he needed to be a
county captain to pursue his ambition of being England captain. He may
well have been right, but even if he wasn't, he couldn't get it out of
his mind, so he'd have been useless on the tour anyway.
The ploy worked, after all. In 1975, Yorkshire were just pipped at the
post for the Championship, with Boycott being an essential pillar of
the revival. His self-denial in placing Yorkshire above England was
duly noted. His position was secured.
Cheers,
Mike
Amol Cricketwallah
Now *thats* a name we havent seen for a while! I suppose a good old
fashioned SMG vs Boycs thread draws all the old hands back :-)
> shariq...@yahoo.com (Shariq A. Tariq) wrote in message news:<fe23ec8f.0307...@posting.google.com>...
>
> In one of Imran's books he does say every team (or at least Pakistan)
> needs someone like Boycott, who can keep one end safe. The other thing
> is that Imran didn't play any Test cricket against Boycott.
>
Yus. Also Shariq's Tommy Boy line works both ways in this regard,
actually - because if you read Michael Holding's Whispering Death,
IIRC he has much more praise for Boycott than Gavaskar, and in fact
says quite frankly than in his opinion (and, according to him, in
the opinion of his WI cohorts - probably of the late 70s and early
80s before Marshall) Boycott was actually better and harder to
get out than Gavaskar was, and deserving of somewhat more respect,
that they always prized Boycott's wicket the most out of those two
guys. (But then Holding IIRC also says that they prized Chappelli's
wicket more than Chappellg's, because Chappelli was the better
player of fast bowling and fought harder etc :-)
>
> > Have not seen Boycott bat enough to have an opinion on this but
> > someone who has bowled to both these batsman surely does. In Marshall
> > Arts and you will find a less than complimentry opinion of Boycott's
> > skill and abilities. In contrast, Marshall heaps buckets of praise on
> > Gavaskar. IIRC there was no mention of Geoff Boycott in the list of
> > great batsmen in Imran Khan's biography either. However, there was a
> > lot of praise for both Sunil Gavaskar and Viv Richards
> >
> > There was a line in the movie "Tommy Boy" that went something like
> > this,"You can have a good look at a T-Bone by sticking your head up a
> > bull's arse but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it..."
> >
> > These two qualify amongst the greatest bowlers of all times and their
> > assessement of a player should give us a pretty good idea about their
> > talent and ability
> >
Note what Tansen said above about Imran - never played against Boycs
at all. Kind of hard to form a valid opinion, considering.
Marshall did, of course - he played against both Gavaskar and Boycs.
But there *was* a slight difference there - Marshall only played
Boycott when he was in his younger days (and not that good - he was
4th paceman of the WI side in those days, and then was dropped for
a couple of seasons immediately after his last test against England;
he really became "Marshall" only in his 2nd coming, a good 2 years later),
and Boycott was already quite old. The first time Marshall ever played
against Boycott, for example, Boycott was *already* over 40 years old
(note that Gavskar was already retired for more than a couple of years
by the time he reached this age).
When he was 40 years old, Boycott played 10 tests against WI in 1980
and 1981 (5 each home and away). Of these 10 tests, Marshall only
played 5 - he was dropped for the remaining tests (as I said above,
he was 4th paceman for WI in those days). In those 2 series combined,
at age 40 (I repeat), Boycott made 663 runs at 41.42 - not exactly
shabby against Holding, Roberts, Garner and Croft (and occasionally
Marshall too). Marshall, in his 5 tests over these 2 series, took
18 wickets at 27.8.
OTOH Marshall played Gavaskar somewhat more often. He started his
career against Gavaskar (when he "wasnt Marshall" IMHO) - with
Packer-less teams playing. Then he played 5 more tests against
Gavaskar (when he "was Marshall"), in 1983 in WI. Then another 6
tests against Gavaskar in India in late 1983. They didnt play
again after that in test matches - but Gavaskar's career lasted
another 4 years after his last test-meeting with Marshall (and they
did play each other in the odd ODI along the way).
With Marshall and Boycott, their careers did overlap - but it was
a very transient thing, really. Boycott began his test career in 1964,
and ended it in January 1982. Marshall began his career in about 1979
when he was forced into the WI side having played 1 first-class match
in his career because of the Packer situation - but again IMHO the
"real Marshall" emerged after he was dropped and returned to the
side in February 1983, by which time Boycott was already gone.
[ Note that Marshall was dropped in 1981, with a test record of
12 tests, 34 wickets, avg 31.88 - 0 5-fers. He returned to the
side in February 1983, and stayed till the end of his career. In
his "second coming", he had 69 tests, 344 wickets, avg 19.74,
22 5-fers in 69 tests - a 5-fer just about every 3 tests and a bit).
Given all that, IMHO it is not all that surprising at all that Marshall
doesnt have a major opinion of Boycott - he just didnt have anywhere
near as much exposure to him, in some ways. (Holding, it could be
argued, had a somewhat better perspective in this respect - since
Holding had played against Boycott from 1976 to 1982 at least, a
somewhat longer length of time).
Sadiq [ Boycott has better views on Pakistani roads than SMG, too ] Yusuf
> > Shariq
Shripathi Kamath
"Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a374a779.03072...@posting.google.com...
> tan...@yahoo.com (Tansen Varghese) wrote in message
news:<c41f1589.03072...@posting.google.com>...
>
<snip>
> Given all that, IMHO it is not all that surprising at all that Marshall
> doesnt have a major opinion of Boycott - he just didnt have anywhere
> near as much exposure to him, in some ways. (Holding, it could be
> argued, had a somewhat better perspective in this respect - since
> Holding had played against Boycott from 1976 to 1982 at least, a
> somewhat longer length of time).
>
>
> Sadiq [ Boycott has better views on Pakistani roads than SMG, too ] Yusuf
>
And if one went by the 100 ex-cricketers and experts who rated the Wisden's
greatest of the 20th century, Gavaskar was chosen the 12th greatest.
Neither Boycott, nor May appears on that list. Then again, Larwood and
Kapil Dev appear ahead of Marshall.
http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2000/APR/028626_AFP_05APR2000.html
I am pretty certain that those voters did not consider anything but batting
in Gavaskar's case.
--
Shripathi Kamath
Arvind Borde
> And if one went by the 100 ex-cricketers and experts who rated the
Wisden's
> greatest of the 20th century, Gavaskar was chosen the 12th greatest.
> Neither Boycott, nor May appears on that list. Then again, Larwood and
> Kapil Dev appear ahead of Marshall.
>
>
http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2000/APR/028626
_AFP_05APR2000.html
>
> I am pretty certain that those voters did not consider anything but
batting
> in Gavaskar's case.
There's the small numbers problem on this list. There are
Bradman and Sobers (with 100 and 90 votes, respectively)
and there are the rest (30 or fewer votes each). Among the
rest we have the best of the rest (positions 3 to 15),
with double digit support, and the rest of the rest.
A full third of the people on it have just one vote apiece.
All you had to do to get on the list was to befriend or bribe
one voter. Gavasker did have double digit support, though, so
that does say a little about how he was viewed.
Arvind
Shripathi Kamath
Precisely. So what does that say about folks who could not even manage that
one vote?
BTW, I am not posting the list as proof of Gavaskar's greatness. I am only
pointing out that if we are to go by what a specific player said about
another, and counting that to somehow have more value that what another
cricketer said about him, because of x y & z, then we can similarly go about
looking at what a 100 cricketers and experts said about them just as well.
I don't know if Holding's cricketing accomplishments make his opinion any
more valid than that of those 100 cricketers. Not that I know of the names
of those 100 cricketers, either.
It is just a list. Coming from Wisden, a respected rag, it has a lot of
credence, especially if it was done by cricketers and experts with suitable
credentials.
<soapbox>
Part of my beef with such lists is kinda like my beef with the PwC ratings.
I think there is very little issue with how the very best are rated. I am
sure that PwC gives a fair picture of Don Bradman vs. Vivian Richards. When
it gets down to the lesser mortals, it has as much subjectivity in it as
some bare stats or the jaundiced eye of the beholder.
Does it accurately reflect Kapil vs. Larwood, or Ian Chappell vs. Lloyd?
How about Richards vs. Denis Compton, or Lillee vs. Hadlee? Those are
murkier, and will remain so.
Earlier this year, Hayden had crept within earshot of Bradman's peak on PwC.
Now he didn't overtake the Don, and that's good, because it avoided the
controversy of "Don't tell me that Hayden's peak was really better than
Bradman's". AFAIK, ratings like the PwC are meant to solve a problem --
objectively quantify cricketers across generations. IMO they fail, because
one often encounters anomalies that are hard to justify on plain
observation. So if that is the purpose of PwC and it fails to do so (again,
IMO), we either accept *all* results from it as they are, or we get
selective ("The ratings do indeed reveal the best. Except if Bradman is not
at the top of the list").
It is an impossible job in my opinion to get an assessment that objective.
So why not use combinations of stats, looks, how hard someone "hits the deck
with pace", quality of opposition, home, away, etc.? Each of us can weigh
things differently, and conclude differently.
As I have said before, I am all for someone asking me to rely solely on a
system like the PwC, if they accept every result from it, and not just the
ones they like. You churn out numbers, and if it shows Agarkar to be better
than Pollock, and you accept that, I have no problems accepting that
Trescothick is better than Damien Martyn in ODIs.
Until then, I'll consider Martyn to be a better ODI bat than Tresco today.
Makes for great debates differences in opinion :-)
</soapbox>
--
Shripathi Kamath
Uday Rajan
>
> I don't know if Holding's cricketing accomplishments make his opinion any
> more valid than that of those 100 cricketers. Not that I know of the names
> of those 100 cricketers, either.
I don't know the names of the 100 cricketers either, but,
IIRC, different teams were given votes in proportion to the
number of Tests they had played. So England had the largest
number in that 100, followed by Australia, and the rest. All
of them were former Test (not "test") players too, I think.
Mad Hamish
Cricketwallah) wrote:
> (But then Holding IIRC also says that they prized Chappelli's
>wicket more than Chappellg's, because Chappelli was the better
>player of fast bowling and fought harder etc :-)
>
Ian Chappell averaged 50 with the bat when he was captain. He started
slowly in test cricket and then picked up, I think he averaged about
36 or 37 when he took over the captaincy.
So while Ian's overall stats are a fair bit below Greg's his play at
the time that Holding would have seen him was probably at around the
same level of performance.
Added to which I think Ian Chappell got out of cricket relatively
early while Greg went through a dip against the Windies at the end,
which might well have affected Holding's ratings.
Arvind Borde
news:mj4fiv8jmcgl6stkj...@4ax.com...
> Ian Chappell averaged 50 with the bat when he was captain. He started
> slowly in test cricket and then picked up, I think he averaged about
> 36 or 37 when he took over the captaincy.
>
> So while Ian's overall stats are a fair bit below Greg's his play at
> the time that Holding would have seen him was probably at around the
> same level of performance.
> Added to which I think Ian Chappell got out of cricket relatively
> early while Greg went through a dip against the Windies at the end,
> which might well have affected Holding's ratings.
Holding's first glimpse of Ian Chappell would have been after Chappell
gave up the captaincy, in the massacre in Australia in '75/76. I followed
that series closely (it was the clash of the titans of that era) and
Greg Chappell was by far the premier batsman in it. Ian Chappell
didn't have much of a career after that, and just one post-Packer test
against the West Indies, so Holding may be going more by what people told
him than by direct experience.
Arvind
Arvind Borde
> Precisely. So what does that say about folks who could not even manage
that
> one vote?
The panelists (cricketers plus journalists) were apparently given five
votes each. So, if you're not on the list, all it means is that you are not
on anybody's top-five list, but you may well be the universal choice
for #6. The list is suspect as it is. Apart from the fact that 10 panelists
were moronic enough not to list Sobers in their top five, it also means that
there are people who think that Plum Warner, Colin Bland or Bruce Mitchell
are among the five greatest cricketers of the century. That's even more
confirmation for you that all this listing business is very problematic.
Arvind
Mike Holmans
<cricd...@hotmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
While Plum Warner's personal achievements on the cricket field may not
have been all that stunning, his influence on English cricket over a
fifty-year period was immense. Since the voters were asked to nominate
based on their effect on the game rather than just on their stats,
it's not all that surprising that Warner would make it on to various
people's lists.
I must say his autobiographical works are unintentionally humorous. He
seems to have been the ultimate cricket bore. Get him talking about
cricket, and you could have a highly enlightening and interesting
conversation. But his accounts of conversations with non-cricketers
reveal him, at least to me, as someone who could have made my
great-uncle Alan seem like a witty and interesting conversationalist,
and I have never met anyone who was more boring than great-uncle Alan.
Cheers,
Mike
Arvind Borde
> While Plum Warner's personal achievements on the cricket field may not
> have been all that stunning, his influence on English cricket over a
> fifty-year period was immense. Since the voters were asked to nominate
> based on their effect on the game rather than just on their stats,
> it's not all that surprising that Warner would make it on to various
> people's lists.
As I understand it, Warner's most influential services to the game
came as an administrator and selector, and that would seem outside the
scope of the Wisden poll. I can see, for example, why Shane Warne was
rated as highly as he was -- for his influence on the game, even if he
is not definitively the greatest bowler of the twentieth century -- but
it seems stretching it a bit to include off-field accomplishments.
Arvind
Yuk Tang
>
> I must say his autobiographical works are unintentionally humorous. He
> seems to have been the ultimate cricket bore. Get him talking about
> cricket, and you could have a highly enlightening and interesting
> conversation. But his accounts of conversations with non-cricketers
> reveal him, at least to me, as someone who could have made my
> great-uncle Alan seem like a witty and interesting conversationalist,
> and I have never met anyone who was more boring than great-uncle Alan.
Expand?
Cheers, ymt.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Mike Holmans wrote:
My uncle Alan wazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Wha'? Did someone say something? Oh, ah, er yes, where was I?
I suppose the point in "Cricket Between The Wars" at which this truth
about Warner was confirmed was when he sat next to the Lord Chief
Justice at a dinner. According to Warner, they had an excellent
conversation, the high point of which was when the LCJ told him that
if ever he needed a lawyer, he should go to <name of law firm> because
they were the best even if they were expensive. Had Warner sat next to
Noel Coward, no doubt Warner would have thought that the high point of
the conversation was when Coward gave him the name of a literary
agent.
Warner visited South Africa several times between the wars, mostly
staying with friends. Oddly, never the same friends twice, for it
appears that on each visit, the people whose hospitality had been so
delightfully agreeable on his previous visit were embroiled in some
domestic problems which meant that they couldn't have him back on this
occasion. I can certainly see how the prospect of hearing Warner
spending another couple of weeks telling hopelessly banal tales of how
he and his friends laughed themselves to death when they found Gerry
Weigall lying on the grass outside the back of the pavilion like a
beached whale would prompt a hostess to put her foot down and say we
are NOT having that old bore here again.
However, Warner was one of the very few counter-examples to the CLR
James question about what do they know of cricket, who only cricket
know. Cricket was all that Warner knew, but he did know an awful lot
about it and of it.
Cheers,
Mike
cwe...@mail.beld.com
And this from a man that has been to more than one rsc-meeting, and has
therefore met some doozies. I can only begin to imagine the sense-numbing
tedium of an individual such as your great-uncle Alan.
--
Chris Weston