India Or Pakistan

[Richard]

Some or all, Hype is hype. Hick didn't justify the hype. Domestic performance means ZERO.

Rubbish.
The domestic level is the next level below the international - there is only one level more important in cricket.
To say it means ZERO is wholly ludicrous.

 

[C_C]

Rubbish.

unless you perform at the highest level, any talks about 'the next great thing' is absolutely irrelevant.
Hick was a failure and is an average cricketer at best. Sooner you learn that the better for your troubled mind.

 

[tooextracool]

I dont mean to compare Irfan with Akram, but do you know Akram's domestic records ?

did he fail at the domestic level?
IIRC he was picked without much cricket at the domestic level, and he did a brilliant job from series 1 at the international level

and If Irfan was that bad why did ICC give him Emerging Player of the year award. I bet your logic will be like...'ICC is dominated by Indians and India is where the money in cricket is...and blah blah blah..'

as someone already said, those awards are a joke really.
hick was amongst wisden's top 5 players in 85 or 86, which again is another joke of an award.

 

[tooextracool]

Some or all, Hype is hype. Hick didn't justify the hype.

then how exactly can you say that he was the more overhyped player?
theres obviously relative hype, and hick deserved some of it, pathan deserved none.

Domestic performance means ZERO.

yet it is the standard for picking almost every player at the international level.
domestic performance means zero when you rate a players overall career, but certainly you'd have to be out of your mind if you thought that domestic cricket means nothing.

If he was Destroying attacks, then why was he averaging in 40s, he should have been averaging in 70s.

because so many players average over 70 isnt it?

And you may be right about him one of the Better ODI players (ever heard of Fairbrother, Flintoff, Botham etc) England ever had, because that kinda tells us why England has never won a World Cup. If players like Hick are counted as your best ODI players, then god help this english team. And no Hick never looked like a real thing. His innings were FLUKES, just like he was a fluke.

your knowledge of cricket really is abysmal. to say that every one of his innings are flukes is like saying that everyone of lara's innings or everyone of bradman's successful innings are flukes
and really did you think flintoff is already a better ODI player than hick? given hes had what, barely 2.5 successful years of ODI cricket.
botham who by and large was only half as successful an ODI player as he was a test player.
at least if you were going to get the actual great english ODI players, you might wanna get nick knight and robin smith, both of whom would make the all time england XI along with hick.

 

[tooextracool]

Hick wasn't dropped he went to play for 10 years.

yes because he was for a large part of his career a success.

Pathan has just started his career, and he is going to be there for long time.

he doesnt deserve to be there right now, nor did he deserve to be there in the first place.

And that is poor ??

is it good?

Last time I checked, they were a test nation, recognized by ICC. Now unless you have managed a coup and own the ICC and debarred BD from playing test, I will consider them as TEST NATION.

why? because whatever the ICC does is right is it?
how many times do i have to say it, if a team is rubbish, just because someone stupid in the ICC believes they deserve test status, it doesnt mean we should all assume that scoring runs against them is worth anything. if pathan were good enough, he'd repeat that performance against other teams.

And Mcgill plays for Australia, he is a TEST Player. IMO he is Test Class

thats your fallacy. hes a spin bowler, and even hes been a roaring success against b'desh.

Excuses Excuses, Lee averages 31.67,

since when has he been test class?

Gillespie 15.45, Mcgrath 25, Nitni 17, Hoggard 22.,

and those are all poor averages is it? they've all destroyed b'desh, just because they havent managed to get the same average as pathan it doesnt mean anything. fact is those bowlers have managed to average far less than 55 against other test playing nations.

His average is 33.09, I guess you have a problem in recognizing numbers.

guess you arent smart enough to realise that b'desh arent test class.
his test average to a sane person is over 50.

 

[Richard]

unless you perform at the highest level, any talks about 'the next great thing' is absolutely irrelevant.
Hick was a failure and is an average cricketer at best. Sooner you learn that the better for your troubled mind.

Nope, he's an average Test-cricketer.
The fact that he's an average Test-cricketer doesn't change or remotely devalue the fact that he is one of the best batsmen at the domestic level in the last 50 years and also one of our best ever ODI players.
Test-cricket is not the only form of the game that matters, otherwise no-one would bother playing it at any other level.

 

[Sanz]

did he fail at the domestic level?
IIRC he was picked without much cricket at the domestic level, and he did a brilliant job from series 1 at the international level

Thank You, Now take some time to look at hist first couple of series and tell us in how many of those series Akram's average was above Pathan's 28.X Once again, not a comparison.

as someone already said, those awards are a joke really

Sour Grapes, really.

 

[Sanz]

And if you look at MacGill's record in recent years, once you get rid of Bangladesh matches, you can see he's not Test-class.

Last time I followed a test match where Mcgill played, he took 8 wickets in the test match and that was not against Bangladesh.

I guess you need to define test class first, It seems to me that in your book players like Warne, Murali etc are test class, rest are rubbish.

 

[Sanz]

Nope, he's an average Test-cricketer.
The fact that he's an average Test-cricketer doesn't change or remotely devalue the fact that he is one of the best batsmen at the domestic level in the last 50 years and also one of our best ever ODI players.
Test-cricket is not the only form of the game that matters, otherwise no-one would bother playing it at any other level.

Did you mean English Domestic Cricket ?

anyways TEC has just dubbed Hick's test career as success.

 

[tooextracool]

Thank You, Now take some time to look at hist first couple of series and tell us in how many of those series Akram's average was above Pathan's 28.X Once again, not a comparison.

1984-1985 NZL v PAK 19.42
1985-1986 PAK v SRL 31.38
1985-1986 SRL v PAK 25.50
1986-1987 PAK v WIN 18.67

so 1 out of his first 4 series. and in the other 3 he was absolutely brilliant.

Sour Grapes, really.

you keep wishing, almost everyone has realised that they overrated pathan to a big big extent. even the selectors have realised that.

 

[Sanz]

your knowledge of cricket really is abysmal. to say that every one of his innings are flukes is like saying that everyone of lara's innings or everyone of bradman's successful innings are flukes
and really did you think flintoff is already a better ODI player than hick? given hes had what, barely 2.5 successful years of ODI cricket.
botham who by and large was only half as successful an ODI player as he was a test player.
at least if you were going to get the actual great english ODI players, you might wanna get nick knight and robin smith, both of whom would make the all time england XI along with hick.

Load of Crap.

 

[tooextracool]

Did you mean English Domestic Cricket ?

anyways TEC has just dubbed Hick's test career as success.

seriously, when will you learn to read?

 

[tooextracool]

Load of Crap.

well done in explaining why too.

 

[Sanz]

As if any explaination is going to work

 

[Richard]

Last time I followed a test match where Mcgill played, he took 8 wickets in the test match and that was not against Bangladesh.

Yes, one of his few decent matches since 2001.

I guess you need to define test class first, It seems to me that in your book players like Warne, Murali etc are test class, rest are rubbish.

Test-class players are obviously those who have had success in Test-cricket; Test-class teams are those that aren't humiliated almost every time they play a match.

 

[Richard]

Did you mean English Domestic Cricket ?

What else?

anyways TEC has just dubbed Hick's test career as success.

No, he's dubbed part of it a success, and he's right. Hick in this period here was a big success, against 6 different teams; and the period lasted 25 Tests and nearly 3 years.
No, the fact that he was a success in this period doesn't mean he wasn't an average Test-cricketer, but nor did he never once look like the real thing, because for most people 3 years averaging all but 50 and peforming against every team you face is the real thing.

 

[Richard]

Load of Crap.

No, it's not, it's completely true; like I've said earlier, I have my doubts about your perceptions of English cricket.
Anyone who seriously rates Botham and Flintoff above Knight and Hick doesn't really have too much idea.