Geoffrey Boycott vs AB De Villiers

[kyear2]

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.

I don't rate either as elite or even ATGs, both have their caveats.

Depending on the make up of a typical team, either would have a case over the other to be more valuable. If I had to choose one for the current WI team, I can make an argument for both.

Overall I just prefer AB.

We all have our preferences or biases, I have mine for batsmen who can catch, elite new ball fast bowlers, and batsmen who can accelerate an innings or dominate or turn a session.

From my decades of watching cricket, to me that's what wins matches.

 

[kyear2]

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

We can definitely agree to disagree on that.

Let's look at the template left to us by the greatest modern teams, the really dominant ones.

 

[Johan]

I don't rate either as elite or even ATGs, both have their caveats.

Depending on the make up of a typical team, either would have a case over the other to be more valuable. If I had to choose one for the current WI team, I can make an argument for both.

Overall I just prefer AB.

We all have our preferences or biases, I have mine for batsmen who can catch, elite new ball fast bowlers, and batsmen who can accelerate an innings or dominate or turn a session.

From my decades of watching cricket, to me that's what wins matches.

It being preference is a fine stance but saying one is easily better is a bit much imo when they both have reasonable arguments to be qualitatively superior.

 

[kyear2]

It being preference is a fine stance but saying one is easily better is a bit much imo when they both have reasonable arguments to be qualitatively superior.

Easily as it's an easy choice for me as to who is better.

Similar production I'll go with the one who had the ability to accelerate an innings as required or could dominate more.

 

[Johan]

We can definitely agree to disagree on that.

Let's look at the template left to us by the greatest modern teams, the really dominant ones.

Yeah but I'd argue the context of the teams were big enablers, if Greenidge got out then you still had Viv/Lloyd/Richardson, if Hayden got out then you still had Punter/Martyn/Gilly. Geoffrey didn't have that privilege and most openers don't, if Geoffrey got out then England were usually in big trouble, after 1960s the English lower order was guys like Fletcher, an aging Basil, Knott, Dennes, Hayes and Illingworth and thus Boycott/Edrich/Amiss had the responsibility to shield them and being by far the best batters, they also had to score and average high which both of them did.

not to mention, the immense gap in bowling resources often made even a draw a satisfiable result, English bowling of 70s was decent but clearly inferior to the other two.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah but I'd argue the context of the teams were big enablers, if Greenidge got out then you still had Viv/Lloyd/Richardson, if Hayden got out then you still had Punter/Martyn/Gilly. Geoffrey didn't have that privilege and most openers don't, if Geoffrey got out then England were usually in big trouble, after 1960s the English lower order was guys like Fletcher, an aging Basil, Knott, Dennes, Hayes and Illingworth and thus Boycott/Edrich/Amiss had the responsibility to shield them and being by far the best batters, they also had to score and average high which both of them did.

not to mention, the immense gap in bowling resources often made even a draw a satisfiable result, English bowling of 70s was decent but clearly inferior to the other two.

I understand your point.

Boycott though can only do so much from one end and while you can say he shielded the other batsmen, that can only be

1. From one end.

2. He isn't doing anything to relieve pressure of alternatively to place pressure on the opposing bowlers. It almost adds pressure on his own team.

And yes, while Hayden or Greenidge had buffers, they also set the tone for those who came after by responsibly pressing the issue.

Being a bit more assertive also doesn't mean throwing away your wicket. Batting slowly, and seemingly in your own world though can give the impression you're purely playing for yourself, and your average, and there was no lack of such accusations when he played.

 

[Coronis]

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

Bruce Mitchell ftw.

 

[kyear2]

Also, I'm not talking about coming in and going gun ho from ball one, I'm talking about the ability and willingness to adjust your game to the benefit of the team.

Striking in the 30's says you either couldn't or didn't care to.

There's no team scenario where that's consistently required.

 

[Coronis]

Also, I'm not talking about coming in and going gun ho from ball one, I'm talking about the ability and willingness to adjust your game to the benefit of the team.

Striking in the 30's says you either couldn't or didn't care to.

There's no team scenario where that's consistently required.

You mean like Len Hutton?