From: Roger Ingham, Aldersley Avenue, Skipton.
IS rugby league legend Neil Fox a more deserving candidate for a knighthood than Geoffrey Boycott? Most certainly yes!
Indeed, Fox is a far more deserving candidate than numerable sportsmen already knighted.
Meanwhile, regarding the credentials of Boycott and Fox amid their chosen sports, Boycott was a classic batsman, but – as a team player – alas, he only played for Boycott. His batting average was seemingly more important than the success of the team.
Boycott invariably failed to co-operate on run chases; he was one of the worst offenders of all in running out his own team-mates, and his fielding invariably fell way below elitist test standard.
By stark contrast, Fox – despite his truly phenomenal and never likely to be beaten world record tally of 6,220 points – was first and foremost a team player.
He was a creator as well as a finisher, while his defensive qualities in all aspects were consistently of the highest order.
Playing in the potentially purple patch decade – the 1960s – of his quarter-century top class career when, due to the near farcical rules which then existed, attacking options were substantially limited, Fox then also suffered perennially as a prime target for unscrupulous hit-man opponents.
There have been some outstanding career achievements by sporting stars in other codes such as Sir Don Bradman in cricket, Sir Gordon Richards in horse racing and Sir Chris Hoy in cycling, but rugby league legend Fox, forever a fine ambassador and one who has also returned considerable favour to the grass roots of both sport and charity, possesses the statistical credentials to top the lot.
Arise then Sir Neil, a true sporting great!
From: Malcolm Taylor, Easingwold, York.
FOR the first time in my 53 years as a proud Yorkshireman I feel compelled to respond to Tom Richmond’s comments concerning Joe Root (The Yorkshire Post, January 24).
Through hard work and dedication he has become a talented cricketer and is a first class role model to a generation of young people.
He has shown maturity beyond his years to an extent that he is being widely tipped as a future captain of his country.
To suggest that he is immature for suggesting a practical solution to an increasing problem in the game is disingenuous and contradictory.
Engaging in the debate on the future of cricket I would suggest indicates maturity beyond his years and a desire to maintain the dignity of the game.
Claims and counter claim
From: Mr AB Collier, Burlington Court, Gordon Road, Bridlington.
JUST what is taking out car insurance all about? On March 29 last year, my car, while parked and unattended, was damaged by means of a scratch mark along the whole length of the rear bumper. This was witnessed by a fellow resident of the complex.
The repair cost amounted to £200 quoted by a local repairer, which was subsequently completed via my insurer.
In the meantime, my insurance premium arrived showing an increase of £161.74 from the previous year.
On contacting my insurer, I strongly pointed out that the claim was against the guilty party.
Oh, I was informed that’s how the insurance works!
It seems most unfair to me. No wonder insurance companies make vast profits.
I then received a cheque for the £200, almost 10 months after the incident.
Needless to say I found another insurer with a slightly lower premium.
They took into account my claim which upped the premium.
Again, I reiterated that the claim was against the guilty party. Again, the same words: “Oh, that’s how the insurance works!”
I know the terms state “any claim”. That needs changing.
Over to you, Mr Ombudsman.
From: Arthur Quarmby, Underhill, Holme.
ON re-reading Robert Graves’ celebrated autobiography on his time in the First World War trenches Goodbye to All That, I came across his comments (Chapter 23) on the Armistice supposed to have been offered by Germany in 1915, the terms of which were “a return to the status quo ante bellum”.
I have Googled histories of the First World War and can find no reference to any Armistice offer prior to 1918, but Graves goes on to say that “Asquith was willing to consider the matter but his colleagues’ opposition had brought about the fall of the Liberal Government and its supersession by the “Win the War” coalition government of Lloyd George”, which believed that Germany must be given the most severe lesson, lest they try again in a few years’ time.
Is this another example, one wonders, of a proposal too dangerous to be revealed to the public, who might well have come to the “wrong” decision?