Cook gone

[Burney]

England's all tie leading run scorer in test cricket, no? Miles ahead of Boycott presumably?

Boycott played 108 tests. Cook has played 160.

Boycott averaged 47.72. Cook averages 44.8.

Cook's been a fine player for England, but he's not in Boycott's league.

[Peter]

Stoneman had a fair run I thought and Mo was playing poorly, break from the team did him good I would say. Just not convinced by Vince, certainly not as a no 3

I like him technically. Dont know whether it is a judgement thing or a mental thing (or both) but I tend to think players like that are worth persevering with. However, increasingly in the modern game I am proved wrong.

The thing with Mo is that he is never going to morph into a world class spinner. We know he can do it on his day but not consistently and he doesnt really give you control. The depth he gives to the batting is always going to be a barrier tochancing an arm on someone else and sticking with them.

Not convinced by Jennings at all.

[Peter]

Boycott played 108 tests. Cook has played 160.

Boycott averaged 47.72. Cook averages 44.8.

Cook's been a fine player for England, but he's not in Boycott's league.

Uncovered pitches.....

He is in his league. Just not as good.

[WES]

Uncovered pitches.....

He is in his league. Just not as good.

Surely they must keep track of how quickly you score i.e. runs scored per balls faced? Be curious to see how Geoffrey did there. Mind you, one of you experts will tell me something about how cricket has changed and Boycott batted slowly because the game demanded it back then etc etc etc

Or something.

[Luis Anaconda]

I like him technically. Dont know whether it is a judgement thing or a mental thing (or both) but I tend to think players like that are worth persevering with. However, increasingly in the modern game I am proved wrong.

The thing with Mo is that he is never going to morph into a world class spinner. We know he can do it on his day but not consistently and he doesnt really give you control. The depth he gives to the batting is always going to be a barrier tochancing an arm on someone else and sticking with them.

Not convinced by Jennings at all.

Me neither re Jennings but I think he his worth persevering with as they have invested so much in him

[Burney]

I like him technically. Dont know whether it is a judgement thing or a mental thing (or both) but I tend to think players like that are worth persevering with. However, increasingly in the modern game I am proved wrong.

The thing with Mo is that he is never going to morph into a world class spinner. We know he can do it on his day but not consistently and he doesnt really give you control. The depth he gives to the batting is always going to be a barrier tochancing an arm on someone else and sticking with them.

Not convinced by Jennings at all.

I increasingly think it’s a concentration thing. If these guys were totally technically inadequate, they’d be getting out for less than 20. Instead, they’re working hard getting themselves in, getting to 20-30 and then I think they’re mentally relaxing and giving their wickets away. I just don’t know if their concentration levels are where they need to be for test match cricket.

[Luis Anaconda]

I increasingly think it’s a concentration thing. If these guys were totally technically inadequate, they’d be getting out for less than 20. Instead, they’re working hard getting themselves in, getting to 20-30 and then I think they’re mentally relaxing and giving their wickets away. I just don’t know if their concentration levels are where they need to be for test match cricket.

Good point well made imo. Heresy to say it - and could lead to death threats if mentioned to certain cricket writers/fans on Twitter - but an 18 county system really does no favours at all. There is a finite amount of talent spread very thinly - hence you get too many easy periods when you can get away with switching off unlike Test cricket. Of course, you can't say this as obviously one-day and 2020 are to blame totally (which also is a factor of course)

[Burney]

Good point well made imo. Heresy to say it - and could lead to death threats if mentioned to certain cricket writers/fans on Twitter - but an 18 county system really does no favours at all. There is a finite amount of talent spread very thinly - hence you get too many easy periods when you can get away with switching off unlike Test cricket. Of course, you can't say this as obviously one-day and 2020 are to blame totally (which also is a factor of course)

Indeed. I've long advocated a parallel regional competition that takes the best from the various counties and effectively acts as a proving ground for potential test players. The counties would hate it, but it would do players an awful lot of good. At the moment, county cricket is probably weaker competitively than I can ever remember it. It's no wonder batsmen can't concentrate. In county cricket, if you can last to 20-30, the only person who's going to stop you getting to a hundred is you. Test matches are an even bigger step up than ever.

[AFC East]

England's all tie leading run scorer in test cricket, no? Miles ahead of Boycott presumably?

At his peak one of the best openers in the world. Yeah, he's on the slide and has been for awhile, but a class act.

[AFC East]

Surely they must keep track of how quickly you score i.e. runs scored per balls faced? Be curious to see how Geoffrey did there. Mind you, one of you experts will tell me something about how cricket has changed and Boycott batted slowly because the game demanded it back then etc etc etc

Or something.

Boycott scored at around 34 runs per hundred balls. He was at once the dullest, most excruciating thing in sport, and a legend.