Geocentrism could not explain retrograde motion of inner planets. This alone disqualify it as a serious hypothesis. Galileo may not have had solid proofs but geocentrism made absolutely no sense.
Geocentrism only selling point was dogma: the idea that our planet was important and had to be in the center of the universe. That was the main reason to defend it.
Geo heliocentrism was an attempt to keep this, but really, it makes little additional sense: it is basically a frame substitution for a heliocentric model and required some orbits to cross each other if you wanted to assume the outer planets orbited the Earth.
Galileo had no solid proofs but lots of evidence: respective sizes of Earth and sun (there was an intuition that bigger objects were harder to move) the fact that other planets have moons.
Geocentrism only selling point was dogma: the idea that our planet was important and had to be in the center of the universe. That was the main reason to defend it.
Geo heliocentrism was an attempt to keep this, but really, it makes little additional sense: it is basically a frame substitution for a heliocentric model and required some orbits to cross each other if you wanted to assume the outer planets orbited the Earth.
Galileo had no solid proofs but lots of evidence: respective sizes of Earth and sun (there was an intuition that bigger objects were harder to move) the fact that other planets have moons.