bobbins Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Graeme Hick should be the No.3 for England. Â They really fucked Hick's career by constantly carting him up and down the order and dropping him. If they'd have left him alone at number 3 and not arsed around with him he would have scored over 10,000 runs for England, no doubt about it. In an alternative universe where all of the world's fast bowlers were wiped out by a mystery virus, all of the world's test pitches were drained of their pace and life and England gave every opponent a 6-0 headstart to every series so that every match was a dead rubber, then yes Hick along with Rob Key and Owais Shah would be the all-time leading run-scorers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Why pick on Bopara, a man who has recently scored three test centuries in a row and looked really good in the 1st innings until he got a corking slower ball? He played a few good shots, but looked pretty iffy overall although I'm sure it was just first morning nerves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) Graeme Hick should be the No.3 for England.  They really fucked Hick's career by constantly carting him up and down the order and dropping him. If they'd have left him alone at number 3 and not arsed around with him he would have scored over 10,000 runs for England, no doubt about it. In an alternative universe where all of the world's fast bowlers were wiped out by a mystery virus, all of the world's test pitches were drained of their pace and life and England gave every opponent a 6-0 headstart to every series so that every match was a dead rubber, then yes Hick along with Rob Key and Owais Shah would be the all-time leading run-scorers.  That's harsh. I don't think anyone with even a tiny amount of knowledge of the game could deny he was a fantasically gifted player. Indeed, no less an authority as Peter Roebuck said  Hick's fate to be given an ability that did not suit his temperament  which I think is far more fair. Being 6'4" never helped him against the short ball either. It's worth noting as well that he wasn't just in the England set up for his batting. He was known as an fine 2nd Slip (a level behind Jonty Rhodes in the field but who wasnt?) and an under used bowler of Off-breaks which is why he was so handy to take to the subcontinent. Half the reason he could never really play the short ball well is because he'd be dropped after a single poor score. With his well known mental fragility it knocked his confidence terribly, and also didn't really give him the chance to improve against World Class seamers and take his 1st Class form into the Test Arena. The way Ray Illingworth treated him was pretty shitty as well. When players like Shane Warne, Steve Waugh, Allan Donald and Beefy sing your praises from the rooftops you're not shit. Alex Stewart swore by him as well during his captaincy.  He was a quality ODI player as well.   I'd say Ramps suffered from England's 1990's "We want Results now!" ethos as well. Edited July 9, 2009 by FrankSidebottom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricc1PW Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I do really. I like cricket. thats why I'm here talking nonsense. I just don't see how the current England team can match up and beat The Aussies this year. I have my doubts that the bowling attack can take 20 wickets, Strauss will probably forget how to declare again even if the front line batsmen do manage to build a big lead.  The Aussies might be weaker than previous years, but when all we can boast is Monty Panesar (god love him) and Ravi Bopara, things don't look great.  Who said 'all we can boast' is Panesar and Bopara? Why pick on Bopara, a man who has recently scored three test centuries in a row and looked really good in the 1st innings until he got a corking slower ball?  The fact is that you went on a knee-jerk reaction after 2 hours of play and England posted well over 400 as a result. The two teams are evenly matched and there is clearly no gaping chasm in class between the two teams any more.  yeah okay, so we built a good 1st innings total. Thanks to KP, Colly and Prior anyway.  I still don't think we're gonna be able to take 20 wickets to win a test match. The Aussies openers haven't been threatened by anyone other than Fred today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted July 9, 2009 Author Paid Members Share Posted July 9, 2009 It's pretty much widely acknowledged that Hick vastly improved against the short ball as his career advanced. After his first test century against India, he averaged well over 45 for the rest of his test career and the bowling attacks around the world were no slower or less challenging. Â His ODI career is worth pointing out too. He had an excellent one day record and I'm pretty sure it wasn't all a coincidence that he earned that record by batting at number 3 for the vast majority of those matches and not being dropped nearly as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 Pat Patterson is probably my favourite quicky ever. Him or Merv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_the_Lion Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Pat Patterson is probably my favourite quicky ever. Â I believe Steve Lombardi shares that view. Â Hick's career was destined to be an anti-climax. The countdown to the great man's debut as an England test player created a frenzy, well as close as cricket gets to a frenzy, of expectation that he was never going to be able to cope with given his weakness in the mental department. There are many sports where you can overcome/disguise psychological weaknesses but I'd guess cricket isn't one of them given how long you spend with nothing to do other than think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) He was the cover of the Radio Times the test he debuted, poor sod. I don't think anyone could live up to that. Â EDIT - And here it is. Â Edited July 9, 2009 by FrankSidebottom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I once saw The Mighty Hick play in an exhibition match at the Cov & North Warks cricket club on the Binley Road in Cov, also playing were Beefy and the beguiling seamer Steven Ogrizovic. The sight of Hick actually pushing children away from him on his way back to the pavilion cemented his legendary status for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Hick was the finest English batsman of his era, and woefully underused. For many years after they gave up on him, he continued to thump half- and whole centuries against world class bowlers in the county game whilst England struggled internationally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Hick was English? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted July 9, 2009 Moderators Share Posted July 9, 2009 LOL! Â Rhodesia's finest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 He's as English as St George, Allan Lamb and Zola Budd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 He's as English as Pietersen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 It's pretty much widely acknowledged that Hick vastly improved against the short ball as his career advanced. After his first test century against India, he averaged well over 45 for the rest of his test career and the bowling attacks around the world were no slower or less challenging. I figured this was impossible, and because I'm sad, I worked it out. His test average for the period after that dead rubber 178 in Mumbai, including that innings was 34.32 Â In a career that spanned 10 years he only averaged above 30 for the year 3 times. Only one of his hundreds came in a match-winning effort and that was against Zimbabwe. I'm not denying that he was talented, but if a guy is capable of making 10,000 runs then he's got to have the mental strength to cope with being dropped occassionally. Batting order doesn't really mean much, if he was good enough to make 10,000 runs at 3, then he's got to be good enough to average more than 31 anywhere in the middle order when you're given 65 Tests. It's not like it's easier batting at 3 than 5 or 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.