Geoffrey Boycott vs AB De Villiers

[Johan]

The most stubborn grafter of all time vs the most talented quiter of all time

 

[Johan]

Who is more selfish?

 

[Srinath P]

AB was a better batter easily IMO.

 

[kyear2]

AB was a better batter easily IMO.

Easily.

 

[Johan]

AB was a better batter easily IMO.

Easily.

what's the argument for AB being an easily better Batsmen than Boyc?

 

[Coronis]

what's the argument for AB being an easily better Batsmen than Boyc?

Struck faster and played in a more modern era

 

[sayon basak]

Who is more selfish?

Boycott imo.

 

[kyear2]

what's the argument for AB being an easily better Batsmen than Boyc?

This is probably singularly a product of my thought process, and mine alone. But if you're striking in the 30's in the era that Boycott played, it's not a feature of your game, it's a limitation.

Not every game was a precipitously perched, where a rescue knock was required.

When most writers, historians, critics and others generally rate players who score faster, higher. It's not based on entertainment value, it's because they're capable of impacting the game at different levels, adjusting, accelerating as required.

That's without even getting into the impact and benefits of being able to do so, and how it is the more difficult skill, especially on difficult surfaces.

 

[Johan]

This is probably singularly a product of my thought process, and mine alone. But if you're striking in the 30's in the era that Boycott played, it's not a feature of your game, it's a limitation.

Not every game was a precipitously perched, where a rescue knock was required.

When most writers, historians, critics and others generally rate players who score faster, higher. It's not based on entertainment value, it's because they're capable of impacting the game at different levels, adjusting, accelerating as required.

That's without even getting into the impact and benefits of being able to do so, and how it is the more difficult skill, especially on difficult surfaces.

If you're a great Batsmen who can smash the ball outside the park, there's no reason to hide at 5 your whole career frankly, De Villiers at 3 and 4 has 1,041 runs @ 43.3 while Boyc was opening, he also had a reason to play slow, sure he had his limitations but his strike rate is nowhere near as big of a issue as De Villiers being incapable of adapting to positions where the best Batsmen usually play.

having an extra gear is not going to exclude De Villier's fallings, especially since one is a number 5 behind a strong batting being compared to an opener (in England) with weak partners bar Edrich.

not to mention Boyc just plain played greater bowlers, played Windies at age of 40+ and averaged 41 with a ton and 4 fifties, had success both at home and away against the Quaret, also a good record against Lillee and even Hadlee I think.

 

[DrWolverine]

Boycott. 2nd best opener to debut post war.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

If you're a great Batsmen who can smash the ball outside the park, there's no reason to hide at 5 your whole career frankly, De Villiers at 3 and 4 has 1,041 runs @ 43.3 while Boyc was opening, he also had a reason to play slow, sure he had his limitations but his strike rate is nowhere near as big of a issue as De Villiers being incapable of adapting to positions where the best Batsmen usually play.

having an extra gear is not going to exclude De Villier's fallings, especially since one is a number 5 behind a strong batting being compared to an opener (in England) with weak partners bar Edrich.

It's fair enough to mark de Villiers down for having an easier batting position at 5 for most of his career, but kinda wild to say he was 'hiding' or 'incapable of adapting'. His team had Amla at 3 and Kallis at 4, he wasn't forcing some kids to shield him from the new ball, it was the batting order which made most sense for the team. He also had stints opening the batting and as wicketkeeper, so it wasn't like he wasn't prepared to take on difficult jobs for his side.*


*Apart from not quitting early.

 

[DrWolverine]

Why is ABD better other than his ability to score quickly?

 

[Johan]

It's fair enough to mark de Villiers down for having an easier batting position at 5 for most of his career, but kinda wild to say he was 'hiding' or 'incapable of adapting'. His team had Amla at 3 and Kallis at 4, he wasn't forcing some kids to shield him from the new ball, it was the batting order which made most sense for the team. He also had stints opening the batting and as wicketkeeper, so it wasn't like he wasn't prepared to take on difficult jobs for his side.*


*Apart from not quitting early.

Amla was finished by 2015-16, Kallis was gone in 14, He did spend time batting behind a very much finished Amla and Faf when he was easily a greater Batsmen then both, and this did help him, even in the final series of his career he was aided by Amla and Elgar blocking away the new ball. A Batsmen with a questionable record in the top 4 is certainly a far bigger caveat for me than an opener being defensive and rigid (that's how I prefer openers mostly, honestly) and that was Kyear's sole point against Boycott from what I saw.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

It's fair enough to mark de Villiers down for having an easier batting position at 5 for most of his career, but kinda wild to say he was 'hiding' or 'incapable of adapting'. His team had Amla at 3 and Kallis at 4, he wasn't forcing some kids to shield him from the new ball, it was the batting order which made most sense for the team. He also had stints opening the batting and as wicketkeeper, so it wasn't like he wasn't prepared to take on difficult jobs for his side.*


*Apart from not quitting early.

ABD would obviously average low 40s playing his entire career at #4

 

[Johan]

ABD would obviously average low 40s playing his entire career at #4

How do you move in so quick with strawmans?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I think both of these guys could have had higher strike rates if they really wanted to. 40 for Boycott and 60 for de Villiers.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Why is ABD better other than his ability to score quickly?

 

[Johan]

having a higher strike rate would make Boyc a worse Batsmen tbh, slower openers = better

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Amla was finished by 2015-16, Kallis was gone in 14, He did spend time batting behind a very much finished Amla and Faf when he was easily a greater Batsmen then both, and this did help him, even in the final series of his career he was aided by Amla and Elgar blocking away the new ball. A Batsmen with a questionable record in the top 4 is certainly a far bigger caveat for me than an opener being defensive and rigid (that's how I prefer openers mostly, honestly) and that was Kyear's sole point against Boycott from what I saw.

Yeah I understand if you want to rate the opener ahead of the #5, I just think your assessment of de Villiers isn't very fair.

You said that there was no reason for a great batsman to be batting 5 - but having Amla/Kallis in your side is a pretty good reason to bat 5 and de Villiers keeping wicket is another obvious one. He also did move up to 4 for most of his final few years.

(Not to mention, he was just very suited to the #5 role. Unlike certain other players with pretty averages per dismissal batting down the order, de Villiers was scoring at 52 RPI, so contributing to his team and not just to his resumé. And he was adaptable to game state, able to accelerate the scoring to push for a win or completely shut up shop and block out an innings for a draw as required - perfect for a number #5. That might not be enough to bump him high up your rankings, but it also isn't hiding or showing a lack of adaptability.)

 

[Johan]

Yeah I understand if you want to rate the opener ahead of the #5, I just think your assessment of de Villiers isn't very fair.

You said that there was no reason for a great batsman to be batting 5 - but having Amla/Kallis in your side is a pretty good reason to bat 5 and de Villiers keeping wicket is another obvious one. He also did move up to 4 for most of his final few years.

(Not to mention, he was just very suited to the #5 role. Unlike certain other players with pretty averages per dismissal batting down the order, de Villiers was scoring at 52 RPI, so contributing to his team and not just to his resumé. And he was adaptable to game state, able to accelerate the scoring to push for a win or completely shut up shop and block out an innings for a draw as required - perfect for a number #5. That might not be enough to bump him high up your rankings, but it also isn't hiding or showing a lack of adaptability.)

I agree that the first half of his career he'd be suited at 5 but immediately after Kallis retired he was still batting after Faf when it was increasingly obvious he and Amla were the two best saffer bats and should've immediately used the 3 and 4 spot.

He did come at 4 at the end of his career but did not really achieve much in the timeframe and his output was clearly below his standard imo (I think even his 126* against Australia was from 5).

Not really questioning De Villier's output volume but it's quality should be up for a debate, as you pointed, for most of his career he had some really strong support from the top order to fight out pacers and it's just fundamentally easier to bat at 5 then to bat in the top 4, and AB's numbers in the top 4 are genuinely just not impressive enough, in such a comparison I reckon your output being enhanced by some really strong support and not really a stellar record in top 4 is more of a negative than slow strike rate.