I walked past him at Birmingham cricket stadium, just outsideI've walked past sir Geoffrey, he walked like a proud man, taller than expected
I walked past him at Birmingham cricket stadium, just outsideI've walked past sir Geoffrey, he walked like a proud man, taller than expected
You disrespectful f**k. A complete legend and a straight talking man.Hiya - I've seen a few documentaries, read a couple of books about Geoffrey and perhaps the polite term would be to state that he polarised opinion.
He's associated with a particular style of 'old school batting' that was hardly fun to watch and not always the most popular with former team mates and people associated with teams he played for. There are also one or two 'personal episodes' in his life that will cause some to dislike the man. Understood.
Something I remember seeing though was that the young Boycott had a sort of 'breakout innings' in a one day final in the 1960s where, after a slow start akin to that you might associate him with, he proceeded to smash the ball to old parts en route to a match-winning 146 not out (or something like that). I've noticed that there's not a huge amount of footage of him batting on Youtube etc...which might be to do with his style, but from what I've seen it's clear that Geoffrey had all the shots if he wanted to use them. You don't have the success in the sport that he did without tremendous ability.
So...a couple of questions I'd appreciate your thoughts on if poss. Thanks in advance.
1) are there any really 'fun' Boycott knocks to watch that might cause a re-appraisal of him as a batsman? He struck me as someone who played how he played, regardless of the match situation - but said match situation may call for quick runs, playing some shots etc. And he had all the shots to do so, no question.
2) given that ability is there any particular reason why Geoff went about his work in the particular style he did? I often think with more defence-minded batsmen that it's a case of mental toughness triumphing over perhaps having slightly less, albeit some, natural talent (Atherton and Cook would be the modern analogies, certainly in terms of English batsmen). Am I over-stating Geoff's ability here?
Bit of a random thread but not seen much about him on here so thought I'd ask the question. Thanks.
Is that you Geoffrey?You disrespectful f**k. A complete legend and a straight talking man.
This view long precedes Boycott, though he could take it to extremes.Boycott's attitude unfortunately became something of a prevailing one in the English game. Better to not score runs than get out to anything remotely risky or flamboyant. Stonewalling became seen by some in the commentariat and fanbase as the key attribute of a first class cricketer, while fast scoring and the limited over formats were just "not cricket".
i don't think he commented publicly on the scandal and if he did apologies i have missed it, but george dobell said on twitter that boycott had actually been highly supportive of rafiq during the whole affair.I bet Boycott would say he never saw any racism at Yorkshire.
1) are there any really 'fun' Boycott knocks to watch that might cause a re-appraisal of him as a batsman? He struck me as someone who played how he played, regardless of the match situation - but said match situation may call for quick runs, playing some shots etc. And he had all the shots to do so, no question.
This is enlightening . Surprising as wellA short list of batsmen who hit fewer Test boundaries than Geoff Boycott (779 in 108 tests)
Garry Sobers (758 in 93)
Adam Gilchrist (777 in 96)
Ian Botham (668 in 104)
Jonny Bairstow (775 in 100)
I think the modern idea of Boycott as someone whose batting used to empty stadiums is a bit of a revisionism, probably informed by his commentary as much as anything else. The guy wasn't Chris Tavare or Bruce Edgar. He didn't help himself with being very one-paced when the team needed other things but that pace was generally that of a proper world class player for the time, and I think he would have been good enough to adapt to other eras as well.
Cool story, but the listed batsmen all played fewer tests than he did, so it shouldn't be that surprising that they hit less boundaries, no?A short list of batsmen who hit fewer Test boundaries than Geoff Boycott (779 in 108 tests)
Garry Sobers (758 in 93)
Adam Gilchrist (777 in 96)
Ian Botham (668 in 104)
Jonny Bairstow (775 in 100)
I think the modern idea of Boycott as someone whose batting used to empty stadiums is a bit of a revisionism, probably informed by his commentary as much as anything else. The guy wasn't Chris Tavare or Bruce Edgar. He didn't help himself with being very one-paced when the team needed other things but that pace was generally that of a proper world class player for the time, and I think he would have been good enough to adapt to other eras as well.
Only up to a point. I'm too lazy to do the calculations, but their figures for boundaries per test wouldn't be so very different.Cool story, but the listed batsmen all played fewer tests than he did, so it shouldn't be that surprising that they hit less boundaries, no?
Fair point actually, especially Sobers and Glichrist in the sides that they played for.That is a bit of a misleading stat. As well as all playing fewer tests, one would assume they all played quite a lot fewer innings as he was an opener and they spent most of their careers at 5-6-7
Also, it's exclusively lower middle order allrounders/wicket keeper batsmen, so they'll have less time at the crease for that reason as well.Only up to a point. I'm too lazy to do the calculations, but their figures for boundaries per test wouldn't be so very different.
Bairstow and Botham shown to be the insufferable laggards as well though, lol.Boycott 193 innings
Sobers 160
Gilchrist 137
Botham 161
Bairstow 178