Geoffrey Boycott vs Gordon Greenidge

[PlayerComparisons]

Two ATG openers from the 70s and 80s

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Tough one but leaning towards Greenidge because of strike rate

 

[kyear2]

Technique and power.

 

[ma1978]

Greenidge had a horrific decline but for 80% of his career, he was inner circle ATG, compare to Gavaskar. Plus he had pure class when he bagged, style, power, technique. What a stud

 

[The Sean]

Interesting results - Boycott finished a couple of places ahead of Greenidge in CW's most recent openers ranking, but Cuthbert is demolishing Geoffrey here.

 

[Coronis]

Interesting results - Boycott finished a couple of places ahead of Greenidge in CW's most recent openers ranking, but Cuthbert is demolishing Geoffrey here.

SRnation is taking over.

 

[Aidan11]

Greenidge was a better player to watch.

 

[Coronis]

Greenidge was a better player to watch.

Point proven.

 

[ma1978]

He was also a better player. And part of that is contributing much more meaningfully to wins, which is the point of playing cricket. His 214 alone edges it.

 

[trundler]

Greenidge was never dropped after scoring his highest score nor did his teammates ever feel the need to run him out.

 

[BazBall21]

Greenidge was never dropped after scoring his highest score nor did his teammates ever feel the need to run him out.

Second one is a much better example. Refusing to even try and attack when the situation demands it is a red flag. Getting dropped for scoring 246 though was absurd.

 

[BazBall21]

Worth pointing out that Barrington was also dropped for slow scoring around that time. Attacking cricket was in the doldrums and England had a strong but desperately attritional batting lineup. Dropping Boycott was a desperate PR move.

 

[Coronis]

Worth pointing out that Barrington was also dropped for slow scoring around that time. Attacking cricket was in the doldrums and England had a strong but desperately attritional batting lineup. Dropping Boycott was a desperate PR move.

Which is funny because most of the English batsmen at the time were low 40’s striking batsmen - but only certain batsmen are lampooned for it.

 

[BazBall21]

Which is funny because most of the English batsmen at the time were low 40’s striking batsmen - but only certain batsmen are lampooned for it.

Yeah. Cowdrey was very slow.

 

[peterhrt]

Boycott was dropped for ignoring his captain's instructions to accelerate during the first afternoon. Bedi and Surti had hobbled off the field and India, without a win against the counties, were on the ropes. The Leeds weather forecast was changeable.

Instead Boycott carried on blocking until he reached his hundred off 316 balls. By the time he started playing some shots on the second day the decision to discipline him for insubordination had already been taken.

 

[wpdavid]

This is an interesting piece about Boycott's innings against India

Geoff Boycott's Indian bore

As the England opener showed, there are occasions when the score itself is less important than the way the runs are accumulated

www.espncricinfo.com

According to the author, Brian Close, who was captaining the side, never passed on the selector's instruction to Boycott about accelerating on Day 1. So if anyone was guilty of insubordination, it was actually Close, not Boycott. Maybe that's why they used events later in the summer as an excuse to sack Close as England captain.

 

[BazBall21]

Dravid at Trent Bridge 07 was objectively worse than Boycott at Christchurch. It might have been that Dravid was trying though and just couldn't get it off square. Can believe that the intent wasn't there with Boycott.

 

[wpdavid]

Dravid at Trent Bridge 07 was objectively worse than Boycott at Christchurch. It might have been that Dravid was trying though and just couldn't get it off square. Can believe that the intent wasn't there with Boycott.

I'm only going by the scorecard, but the situation looks very different. England had been bowled out for 198 and India, having reached 147 without loss then lost both openers in a couple of overs. I suppose that Dravid wanted to make sure that India built a massive lead instead of throwing it away by seeing their own first innings collapse. Good job from an India pov, as England made 355 in their second innings, so India's 280 first innings lead was vital. And, given how quickly England were bowled out first time around, there was plenty of time, which wasn't the case in Christchurch.

 

[ma1978]

Yeah, and Dravid did score 37 off 94, which while ugly AF isn't awful, and India won the match and the series, which was a rarity back then. So India was pretty thrilled with the outcome.

 

[Boags]

If Greenidge is batting injured, I'll take him over anyone.