I've never watched a minute of cricket (doesn't get much TV time in Canada), but I still enjoyed that post immensely. This guy sounds like a real character. I'm probably glad I'll never have to associate him, but he's certainly interesting to read about.

Mr Micklethwait,

If you would like to read an absolutely great book about sports, and all that it requires for success, I'd recommend When Pride Still Mattered. It's a biography of the most famous and revered coach in American sports history, Vince Lombardi.

I loved how the book showed how a man going into coaching slowly builds up his knowledge of the game, his way with players, and his overall philosophy about coaching.

He turned a small town NFL team that almost ceased to exist, the Green Bay Packers, into one of the legendary teams in American sports history.

A truly great read.

Speaking of people still ruined after being unfairly accused of sex offences, is there a better example than TV presenter John Leslie?
The small-screen lothario was in the wrong place at the wrong time when his fellow presenter Ulrika Jonnsson was trying to sell her autobiography - she claimed he had raped her many years before.
A noisy police investigation followed and a court case in which Leslie was vindicated. The judge cleared him of any wrongdoing and told him he could leave the court 'without a stain on his character'.
Nevertheless he never worked in TV again.

A highly enjoyable and profound book review. Thanks

Great review Brian, I really enjoyed this.

I did not realise Boycott was so bad at getting colleagues run out to protect his own position, but his selfishness at the crease was legendary. Of course, selfishness, when allied to great intelligence and team ethic, is a powerful and positive force. Take the case of a great forward at football, like Maradona, George Best or Pele. They were "selfish" in wanting the ball, wanting to score rather than always pass to a colleague, but that certain arrogance was vital to the team. The same applies to Ronaldo now, whom I hope does not make a nob of himself by flouncing out of Manchester United.

I think the problem with Boycott is that he crossed the line in not aligning his own near-fanatical desire to score lots of runs with winning. If you look at Don Bradman, or Jack Hobbs, or for that matter, Gordon Greenwich, Clive Lloyd and Steve Waugh, you see men who were certainly "selfish" in wanting to rack up big scores but who always understood that they were in a team game first and foremost.

Boycott's commentary is great. I live the way he pronounces cricket, like "creeekit"; it makes me laugh every time I hear it.

I don't normally read long posts, but I enjoyed that immensely. I've always had a soft spot for cricket, although I'd hardly call myself a fan (following English test matches is about my limit, and even that's tricky now they're no longer on terrestrial TV), and Boycott's definitely one of the characters that makes it so much fun. Unlike his fellow Yorkshireman Fred Trueman, who was similarly sure of himself in the commentary box, he's almost always right in his reading of the game and his analysis of what should be done by the respective teams. Not that Fred was always wrong, mind you, but the words that spring to mind when I recall his commentaries are "impotent rage"; Boycott can be scathing, but he's always able to provide a considered diagnosis and a coherent plan of action. I have no doubt that if he were better able to get along with people, he'd be one of the best coaches who ever lived.

For me, what Boycott's life illustrates, among much else, is that people who are "selfish" are just as likely, in among all the inevitable bumps and bruises and resentments, to do favours for the rest of us as are the more altruistic souls who think only of others all the time, never of themselves, and whose reaction to someone like Boycott is to back away in horror.

I think what it illustrates is that genuine generosity and kindness have nothing to do with surface appearance - the "act". Indeed, there may even be a slight inverse correlation: the most uncaring people often feel a need to play up their altruistic side.

>Speaking of people still ruined after being unfairly accused of sex offences

What is interesting here is that Boycott has not been ruined by the accusation and conviction. He still works endlessly as a commentator and is undoubtedly paid very well for it. I had actually wondered why this was, as that sort of affair often does end a media career.

After reading Brian's review, this is starting to make more sense to me. Clearly nobody who knows Boycott believes that the accusations against him are true.

Excellent read, although I would quibble with one minor point:-

"...while the bowling of Boycott's time was as formidable as test match bowling has ever been..."

There were outstanding bowlers during the Boycott era, but remember firstly that the weaker Test nations of the time (NZ, Pakistan, India, SA) were far, far weaker in bowling terms than they are today, and also that Boycott was absent from the England team during they years that they faced both Lillee and Thompson's peak years, and the terrifying four-pronged West Indian pace attack of 1976.

"Boycott, far from shirking it, as was said at the time by some, was actually one of the best batters against super-fast bowling there has ever been"

Boycott played the best innings I've ever seen against two great and extremely fast bowlers. I vividly remember watching it on TV - he made 100n.o. out of a team total of 199 (for non-cricketers, that score is extraordinary - opening batsemen just do not survive right throughout an innings, which is what the "n.o." signifies). It was a truly ferocious wicket somewhere in England and Lillee and Thomsonboth bowled beautifully. As a cricketer he was always at his best when things were really tough - ie the match fitted his paranoid worldview.

And yes, he's a very good commentator. thy still have trouble finding people willing to sit in the commentary box with him, though.