'Shahid Afridi has no brain; he can't think' © AFP

Akhila Ranganna: Hello and welcome to Bowl at Boycs. I have with me Geoffrey Boycott to answer all your queries.

The first question is from Kiran and he wants to know, now that Ricky Ponting has entered the elite club of batsmen with more than 10,000 Test runs, do you consider him alongside Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara? He says he doesn't, as he feels that Ponting struggles to score against spin and quality swing bowling, and he hasn't scored against the kind of attacks that Lara and Tendulkar have. What is your opinion?

Geoffrey Boycott: Well, I think Ponting is the best batsman in the world at the moment. He is a top-class player and I think most people would vote him as the best player over the last couple of years - he has scored very heavily in both one-day and Test cricket.

But Lara and Tendulkar are iconic figures, which is about more than being just a terrific player. They have captured the imagination of the public. They haven't just scored runs: Lara twice got the record of most Test runs and he still holds the record of the highest score in Test cricket. Those are huge figures. And the way he bats is just very special. Sachin is technically correct against all kinds of bowlers and the way he took Shane Warne apart when he came to India makes him more than just a terrific player. Sorry, I don't think Ponting is in the same league as Lara or Tendulkar.

AR: The next question is from Hrishikesh from India and he says that over the years he has seen left-handed batsmen scoring heavily against the Indian team. Be it Sanath Jayasuriya or Shivnarine Chanderpaul or Andy Flower or Matt Hayden or Saeed Anwar or even Jimmy Adams - all these left-handers have dominated the Indian attack. Do you see any specific reason for this?

GB: I will have a stab at what I think is the reason. Of all the Indian bowlers that I have seen, none of them are very good at bowling around the wicket. Most bowlers are right-handed and as they are growing up, left-handers get used to 90% of the bowlers bowling over the wicket to them.

I think what you have to do is take them out of their comfort zone. They are used to bowlers bowling over the wicket and the ball slanting across them. They are good at judging their off stump; they are good at hitting through the off side - once they can free their arms, they hit you through the off side very well. I think what you have to learn to do - seamers and spinners - is bowl around the wicket and tuck them up. Give them very little room.

For instance, you take Harbhajan Singh - he is an excellent bowler over the wicket but not a great bowler around the wicket. Muttiah Muralitharan doesn't like bowling around the wicket as much as he does over the wicket. Those are the two offspinners who have done well in India, where the ball turns. Look at the seamers: how many of them are really good around the wicket? A lot of times, when they go around the wicket their line and length goes all over the place and they bowl easy balls. You take Glenn McGrath. He was a brilliant bowler around the wicket. He would go around the wicket and be spot on, around off stump and tuck the batsmen up and give them nothing to hit. I think a lot more bowlers should try bowling around the wicket to left-handers and not give them room, but bowl straight.

AR: The next question is from Abhishek and he says that in the famous Trent Bridge Test between England and South Africa in 1998, he remembers Allan Donald bowling a bouncer to Mike Atherton from around the wicket which was almost unplayable. Was it because the around-the-wicket angle made the approaching ball visible only through the corner of his [Atherton's] eyes, and would it have helped if he had a more open stance? And staying with Atherton, Kunal would like to know what you made of Atherton as a Test batsman.

GB: Atherton was a good player but I think he could have been better. If you watch his footwork, his back foot would slide towards the leg side and then he would play forward towards the ball which meant that he was playing at an angle instead of going back and across and playing straight. I remember doing a bit of work with the England players in Yorkshire when Atherton had hardly started his Test career. I told Michael about this but then as he got into the England side I had nothing to do with him because they had their own coaches there. Also, I was with the media and I think the players don't like working with the media people; they seem to think that we will find out some personal traits and use it in our commentary or our articles. So although I was always friendly with Michael, I didn't have anything to do with his technique. I think he lapsed into that and got caught on the crease too often.

But the great thing about Atherton's batting was that he had lots of other qualities: patience, great temperament, wonderful concentration, and a bloody-minded determination to bat for long periods and wear the bowlers down. And he had another lovely asset: he would play the ball late. He let the ball come to him and he played the ball under his nose, and that is a wonderful trait to have.

Now that incident at Trent Bridge. It's the same principle that applies to a left-handed batsman that I just spoke about. For most of our careers, the bowlers would bowl over the wicket so when a bowler goes around the wicket it's different, as we don't come across it too often. It's only now in the modern game that people have started to bowl around the wicket just a little bit more. For instance, when left-arm seamers bowl over the wicket to right-handed batsmen, it causes problems as we don't see them very often. So when a right-arm fast bowler goes around the wicket and bowls it well - that's the key thing - then it becomes a different, awkward angle. So when Donald bowled that fierce and fantastic bouncer, it caught Atherton in trouble. He gloved it. He didn't walk. And that made Donald mad and he bowled faster and faster, trying to knock his block off. It was great theatre.

AR: The next question is from Huzafa and he wants to know: who did you think was the best performer in the IPL, and who do you think the best find of the IPL has been?

GB: I think the best find were people like Shaun Marsh and David Hussey. They weren't the biggest names - they were known as good players in Australia but they weren't renowned Test players. But the best performer was Shane Watson for his hitting and his bowling.

I think Warne was really smart. He didn't spend as much money on players but he picked quality Twenty20 players, whereas in Bangalore they made a right mess of it, picking Test players for a lot of money.

AR: The next question is from Naseeh, who asks: why do you think Shahid Afridi - who he thinks is one of the greatest hitters of the ball ever in the history of the game - is not performing? Do you think he should be dropped from the team? Or should he change his game or quit trying to hit the ball for six in all directions?

	'Ricky Ponting may be the world's best player right now but he is not an iconic player like a Sachin Tendulkar or a Brian Lara' © AFP

GB: He can't change his game because he is a hitter of the ball. He is a wonderful hitter and I think he is one of the biggest hitters that the game has seen. He has a wonderful physique and is a strong lad. But he has no brain. He can't think. He can't stop swiping even if you stood on his shoulder and told him not to hit the ball before the bowler bowled.

I love him to bits and I think he is a smashing lad. He has the gift of natural hand-eye co-ordination to hit the ball, but I am sorry, God didn't give him a cricket brain to think his way through cricket situations. He doesn't have a cricket brain to play technique cricket, so he cannot change. I think he has a natural skill at bowling. But I am afraid, Naseeh, that you and I, and lots of his fans have to love him for what he is, not for what we'd like him to be.

AR: The next question is the one that you have picked as the best one that has come in for you and it's from Kamran Wasti from Pakistan. He would like you to shed light on the use of rollers. He has played 25- and 30-over cricket and rollers did not have much to do. How does a heavy or a light roller affect the behaviour of the pitch?

GB: He is dead right, there is a lot of nonsense talked about rollers. When you are talking about 25- or 30-over cricket, the roller - light or heavy - will not make much of a difference. The game will not alter much in 20 overs.

When do rollers affect the pitch? Test cricket in the early days was played on uncovered pitches; you didn't have covering like you have today. The rain got on the pitches and then the roller was important. If you had rain on the pitch and you rolled it with a heavy roller, that would pancake it and it would go straight through on some of the types of soils in England - the soil is different in the various counties in England.

Sometimes, if you get a dusty, dry pitch that is turning, it might be wise to use the light roller. You shouldn't get a heavy one on it. That might break it up a bit more.

There is a lot of rubbish talked about rollers. Today, all over the world the pitches are better than ever. They are protected by some of the best covering that people have worked out, so they don't change that much because of atmospheric conditions and the rain doesn't get onto it. So the roller was more important years ago when there were uncovered pitches.

AR: Kamran, hope that answers your question. That's a wrap on today's show. Don't forget to send your questions to Geoffrey using the form given below and he will answer them right here in a fortnight. Until then, it's goodbye.