Possibly a very unfair accusation when applyed to Boycotts technical breakdown of a player.
Yes I may be being unfair to Boycs. Let me just run with the ball for a second, though, and suggest that his ulterior motive may have been to prove that (a) he was a greater player than Botham, (b) Botham was a bit of a coward against quick bowling, (c) he (Boycs) had to face fast bowling in every innings he played and did so without taking a backward step and therefore (d) Boycs is the greatest living Englishman, although a sorely under-rated one.
I have no doubt that Geoffrey thinks, and would dearly love to prove, that his oranges are greater than Botham's apples.
True.
I was refering to potential.
****. Never realised that he was that good in that period. I knew he was very good, but not out-of-this-world during that era.
He would have got in eventually with hs attitude and hewould have probably got a better cricketing background were it not for apartheid
It's very debateable that Mark Waugh's potential at the longer game was higher than Stephen's. Mark got bored far too easily - it was commented during Brad Haddin's march to 72 (that was where he got when Flynn dropped that sitter) that he could easily have got himself out purely through boredom - not being able and willing to sit on Vettori bowling over-the-wicket and feeling compelled to try to make something happen.
The Mark Waugh 'boredom' is a myth. He played some silly shots to get out, as do most batsmen. But he also went out a lot playing away from his body and beaten by genuinely good balls he was unable to combat. I tire of hearing how much talent he wasted. For many years of his career he continued to make statements that he wanted to average fifty. He tried all right (as he often was at pains to tell us); maybe he just wasn't as good as some people thought. Talent is all about proving you can do it- putting the runs on the board. Potential, as we know, is a dirty and overrated word.
Graceful attacking players often run the risk of being criticised for laziness / boredom. Gower was another great example. If you live by the waft, you die by the waft. Doesn't mean you're lazy though.
I was referring to potential in general. Like what we've all said, Steve was a much better player in tests than Mark.
I don't think so. Perhaps it might be a truth the extent of which is somewhat exaggerated, but I don't think it's a complete myth.
The idea that boredom would affect him at the international level and not at the domestic level seems far fetched. Personally, with Steve Waugh, much like with Nasser Hussain, it was hard to see where he was going to get his next run from at the crease because he batted with hardly any grace and looked completely ill at ease for the most part. I dont know what he looked like when he made his debut but Im sure many wrote him off at the start. Nonetheless, it is testiment to his skills that he succeeded.
The point I was making was more along the lines that some international bowlers were cut from the right cloth to bore him out, while most domestic ones weren't.
