"Adam Gilchrist more than made up for the dropped catches with his ability to bat and take the attack to the opposition" © Getty Images

Medini Mangala: Hello and welcome to Bowl at Boycs. I'm Medini Mangala and, as always, I have with me Geoffrey Boycott to answer all your queries.

Hi Geoffrey, how've you been?

Geoffrey Boycott: I've been pretty good. I've been travelling and so I'm a bit tired really. I've arrived now in Auckland, ready for England's series here.

MM: Well, the first question comes in from Robert and he wants your opinion on England's chances in New Zealand. Why do you think England are struggling in the longer version of the game?

GB: I think England's chances against New Zealand are reasonable. I don't think England are a great side at all - they're in flux with various things happening in the side. But so are New Zealand. Their fast bowler, [Shane] Bond, was a big ace for them but he's gone to the rebel Twenty20 tournament in India [the Indian Cricket League], so he's not playing in Tests and one-day cricket for New Zealand anymore. And I see that Scott Styris has retired from Test cricket. He's going to play one-day cricket for New Zealand but he was a very experienced player in the middle order [in Tests]. [Stephen] Fleming has retired from one-day cricket but he'll be available for Tests, and their captain, [Daniel] Vettori, is injured for the moment with a bad ankle.

If you look at the New Zealand batting, it looks pretty vulnerable to me; it doesn't look classy at all. I think England's batting looks a little better on paper, except that it hasn't done exceptionally well.

I don't think there's much to choose between in the bowling. New Zealand have got Vettori, England have got [Monty] Panesar, who I think is quite a good bowler. New Zealand have got useful seamers in Kyle Mills, Chris Martin and Jacob Oram - they aren't special, just decent bowlers. England have got decent bowlers in James Anderson, Stuart Broad and Ryan Sidebottom.

The real reason why England have not done well in Test cricket is because there is no [Andrew] Flintoff. He's a huge performer when he's fully fit. He's one of the best bowlers in the world, and he's a pretty good attacking batsman. He adds balance to the side and he gives a lift to everybody. Then you have [Steve] Harmison, the enigma. He has all the attributes to be a Curtly Ambrose or a Joel Garner, with height, pace, bounce, but he doesn't perform anything like them. He takes his wickets expensively at about 35, and that's not going to win any Tests. So there are the problems for England. [The bowling line-up] looks okay on paper, but it just doesn't cut it without Flintoff and Harmison firing.

MM: The next question comes from Prashant from Kuwait and he says that India's batting collapse in the first one-day game in Brisbane against Australia showed the inexperience of the middle order. Shouldn't the transition from an experienced side to a young side be made gradually and not so abruptly?

GB: In theory, gradually is all right. Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid and [VVS] Laxman were wonderful batsmen in their prime and are still pretty good batsmen. But are they going to be athletic and fit for the Champions Trophy [later this year], for the World Cup [in 2011]? Are they going to be ready for it? You don't have a lot of time to turn things over.

If you try youth, [the fact that] youth knows no fear is a plus, but youth also does silly and stupid things. In other words, it makes mistakes like they did the other night [against Australia] in playing rash and silly shots, when they had time to pick the right ball to hit rather than slashing and carving almost every ball that was bowled.

The key is, are these young players smart enough to learn from their mistakes? Everybody makes mistakes but the clever ones learn from it. Time is not on your side when you're planning for the future. So you might have a few hiccups, a few mistakes and a few poor performances. But what you've got to look for is: are they going to learn from that? If they keep making the same mistakes then you've got to get rid of them because they're not very bright. It's no good having talent and not having a cricket brain - you've got to have talent and be able to think.

MM: Salil wants to know whether the absence of a quality spinner in the Australian team will affect their chances of winning, especially in the subcontinent.

GB: Yes, it will. I think they will come at India strongly with as much seam attack as they can and they'll pack their batting so they're very strong in that. But as we all know, in the subcontinent you do need a spinner or two. It helps. And India usually have done pretty well against Australia in India. So I think they [Australia] have got to find somebody who can cause problems for the Indian batsmen, who are very comfortable in their own country, where there's not much bounce, and spin doesn't bother them.

But at the moment, when I see them playing Brad Hogg, except for [Sachin] Tendulkar, I don't see many of them [the Indian batsmen] reading Hogg well. That's the key. It's not that he's a great bowler, but if you don't read wrist spinners, then it's hard to hit them for runs.

MM: Rudy writes in asking about how much Shaun Pollock's retirement will affect South Africa, because not only was he a very good bowler, he was also a handy batsman down at No. 7.

GB: Look, they'll miss a great performer like Pollock. At one stage he was getting his wickets at 20, which is as good as anybody in recent times in the history of the game. He's done as well as Malcolm Marshall, and [Glenn] McGrath. As he's got a little older and longer in the tooth as we all do, then his wickets started to cost him a little more.

I know from being in South Africa quite a lot that the captain, the coach and the management of the South African team feel that he's lost half a yard of pace. But he's lost nothing in experience, knowledge and ability to move the ball. But on some pitches in the subcontinent or abroad, the ball doesn't move a great deal, so you do need pace. And they [South Africa] are looking for more pace. They feel that although they will lose a bit of batting in [terms of] who they put in his place, what they need is more aggression and more pace. They've got a young bowler called [Morne] Morkel who you will almost certainly see in India. I'm not saying he'll be a raving success, because the subcontinent is not conducive to fast bowling, but he's a very good bowler. He's a tall young kid who gets bounce and he is going to be a cracker in a few years. He's a little bit raw right now, but he's a good bowler and he's got genuine pace and bounce.

MM: Ravi wants to know whether you think the Sri Lankans always get the rough end of the stick from the Australian public, in light of the recent events that happened in Hobart.

GB: Look, it's just bad manners. It's just the people being discourteous. I've done four major tours there and lots of commentating there, and most Australians I've come across have been fiercely competitive on the field but usually, off the field they're very good sportsmen. In recent times they've got too full of themselves, like with the incident with Harbhajan Singh and [Andrew] Symonds. But when I played, most of them were highly competitive but really good sports off the field and you got none of this sort of behaviour.

The police should step in and stop it because I don't think that's normal Australians.

MM: Kyle wants your thoughts on Adam Gilchrist's career as an allrounder.

GB: Brilliant. Outstanding. I feel that he's a lesson for all youngsters who fail to get in a side and fail to achieve their dream. He tried to get in the New South Wales side and he didn't make it because they had somebody who they thought was a better wicketkeeper than him. So he [Gilchrist] moved across to Western Australia to live there - that's a long way, you know [from New South Wales] - and he played for Western Australia and did so well that he got into the Australian side. That's a lesson for everybody: if you don't make it, try again somewhere else. Somebody else might think you're a good player.

	Shaun Tait's decision reflects a lack of desire. I wish he had stayed and showed more committment and character © Getty Images

I think he's been an outstanding batsman and a good wicketkeeper. Yes, he has dropped a catch or two, probably more than a great wicketkeeper like an Alan Knott did. At the same time he's made that many runs that it has offset the odd [dropped] catch. Most wicketkeepers average around 28-32 runs in Test cricket. He averaged about 56 for much of his career, which is up there with the great batsmen like Tendulkar, [Brian] Lara, Vivian Richards and Garry Sobers. So, Australia have had another great batsman - not just a good batsman - coming in lower down the order and murdering the bowling if Australia are on top, or taking the initiative away from the bowling side if the bowlers are on top.

I know in recent times his batting average has dropped from 56 to about 47-48 and he's dropped the odd catch. But he's honest and he said, "When I dropped a catch recently [against India], I thought: 'Hang on, I'm dropping an odd one of these too many, so it's time to go.'" That's what I like about him. He's a great pro: an outstanding cricketer and he's a true sportsman. He's the only person I know in international cricket who truly is a walker - when he thinks he's nicked it, he walks and he doesn't wait for anybody else. I know people who say they are walkers but they walk after they've got a 100 not out, they don't walk when they're on nought. He does.

MM: Now Geoffrey, here's the question you've picked as the best one that has come in this week. It comes in from Shane and he says that Shaun Tait decided to quit cricket indefinitely at the age of 24. Does this send the wrong message to the board about his commitment to the game and also to youngsters who watch the game?

GB: To me, it shows a lack of desire. I've always believed that cricket is about ability to a certain degree, but not everybody is blessed with Tendulkar's or Lara's ability. It is about character as well as ability. I've always believed that your character is tested when you fail and not when you're a raving success. Anybody can bat or bowl when they are doing well, because your confidence is high and everything is going for you. But when you fail and things don't go your way, that's when you've got to pick yourself up. You've got to be mentally strong, you've got to dust yourself down and you have to try again. For me, it shows a lack of character that he's given up. Instead of people saying, "We wish him well and we hope he comes back" (and we all wish that), I wish he hadn't gone away and had shown more commitment and more desire.

MM: Well, Geoffrey, thank you so much for your views. We'll hear from you again in a fortnight.

Don't forget to send in your queries by filling out the form below. Geoffrey Boycott will answer all your questions. For now, this is Medini signing off.