Talk:Geoffrey Boycott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Alec Stewart is now England's leading Test scorer, not Graham Gooch as previously mentioned on the page. Have made the change.

No. Gooch is still the highest scorer. See [[1]]

Gooch has 8900, Stewart 8463 and Gower 8231

Tintin1107 13:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ==

A couple of questions

>> His average of 47.73 runs over 193 innings is a unique achievement amongst players playing since 1970.

What is unique about this ?

>> Boycott's ability to occupy the crease come what may is reflected by the fact that he is the only England player to bat in all five days of a Test match

Not the only one. Lamb did it against West Indies at Lord's 1984. Leaving the change to the author.

Tintin.

---

[edit] 100+ Batting Average

I placed this stat without checking my facts/sources - it seems erroneous, so I'll place it here for now.

One of Boycotts more unusual records is that he was the first English batsman to have a batting average of over 100 in a county season in the post-World War II ear, which he acheived in 1971 and 1979. (Australian Bill Johnston acheived this in 1953, Graham Goochin 1990; Mark Ramprakash is looking on course to do this in 2006).

Mdcollins1984 16:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is definitely true. This should be part of a new paragraph discussing his county career (maybe I'll work one up soon...)

Drwhapcaplet 16:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refused to go?

Anybody know which game is being referred to in the comment about him once refusing to go when given out, and then continued playing? I followed his career pretty closely and have never heard this one before. Seems to me there needs to be more info (like which match, date) so the fact can be checked, or this comment should be removed...

Drwhapcaplet 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It happened in the second innings of the Golden Jubilee Test but I don't have a source at hand to quote from. Tintin (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not confusing it with the famous incident in that match when Bob Taylor was given out caught behind, and the Indian captain made the umpire reconsider, and Taylor continued his innings? I've read match reports of that game and there's no mention of the incident you describe, one that would surely have been a major incident... Drwhapcaplet 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this is a different incident. Give me time till Monday, I'll quote a reference. Tintin (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is from The Director's Special Book of Cricketing Controversies (1992) by Ravikant Shukla, p.75. This section comes just after the discussion of the Taylor-Viswanath incident :

Incidentally, the same umpire (Hanumantha Rao) was involved in another controversial decision later in the match. In the "second innings, Boycott was the batsman also given out caught behind but the batsman just about chose to ignore the umpire's raised finger and incredibly, the game continued as if nothing has happened. Kapil Dev was the bowler and his appeal was strongly echoed by 'keeper Kirmani. Strangely, none of the fielders appeared unduly perturbed by this rare happening and the finger went down and behind the umpire's back.

The book is written for an Indian audience and hence has a pro-India tone. But I assume he would have got the facts right. Tintin (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, the writer seems to show some doubt by saying "just about chose to", and I still find it very difficult to believe that such a serious incident could have occurred without (as far as I'm aware) receiving any mention in contemporary accounts. A batsman refusing to go in a Test match would be a massive incident. If you can corroborate the story from a contemporary newspaper account or from the Wisden account its fair game to recount it here, but it seems like this could well be a case of a writer exaggerating (or making up) an incident to fill out a book. At the very least you should include the source for the story, but in my opinion it should be deleted until it can be verified from an alternative, independent source (you might want to take a look at the wikipedia rules at the top of this page about negative material in biogaphies of living persons...).Drwhapcaplet 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the person who included it in the article. It was added by an IP editor here. I got involved only because I am familiar with the story. The book that I have quoted the text from reads like a collection of bits and pieces of information from various sources. So I wouldn't bother to defend it.

There is no standard procedure for handling this but my suggestion (since we have atleast a weak source) would be to add a {{fact}} tag to that line, leave it there for a couple of weeks, and then remove it if no one adds a better source. Or if you want more visibility, you can leave a comment in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Tintin (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you had put it in, the IP number makes it impossible to know. I'm new to Wikipedia, but it looks like it needs a {{verify source}} tag for for "doubtful but not too harmful" information, according to this document. I did that and we'll see if someone will back it up. I did have the relevant Wisden (1981), but threw it away a few years ago, if someone can check a copy or look at newspaper accounts from back then it would clear it up. Drwhapcaplet 14:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not in the Wisden match report. It would be difficult to check newspapers. The easier option would be to lookup Boycott's biographies. Tintin (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my tagging. However, given that its doubtful information it does seem that "verify source" should be used instead of "fact": quoting from the page I cited above "Do not use this tag in order to label text which appears doubtful or false, especially in the case of biographies of living people", but I guess it doesn't really matter. If its not mentioned in the Wisden account it sounds like its an unsubstantiated rumour, but maybe someone can back it up... Old newspapers are available in major libraries (maybe even online for a fee?). Drwhapcaplet 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the lines "On one occasion he stayed on the pitch after being given out by the umpire and played on. The umpire did not confront him about it.^{[citation needed]} Boycott said "He was a very good lad" recently when he was commentating and was asked about this subject. " [2]. If anyone has a good reference for it, they can add it back. Tintin (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)