Darren Lehmann and Graeme Hick - who is better?

[Richard]

Now why would I want to do that?

Ruins all my fun.

And...

 

[dass]

its about impact on the team, in my opinion Hick was better in the oneday format because he had more impact on English ODI team then Lehmann had on the Aussie ODI team. In tests however Lehmann was far better.

 

[Richard]

Well TBF it is harder to make a noticeable impact when you've got other impact-makers like Bevan, Mark Waugh, Gilchrist, Ponting, Martyn, Symonds and Clarke playing with you.

Makes it easier when you have 1 or 2 at best other good ODI batsmen in the side with you (Fairbrother and Thorpe are the only ones who played much with Hick).

 

[aussie]

I am tempted to say Lehmann based on his superior test & OD record. But then FC wise both were equally devastating.

Hick yea overall was a failure at test level & had his struggles againts top quality pace bowling in the 90s where they a lot of top bowlers were around & not so many flat decks, but when Lehmann got his chance at test level the majority (if not all) the top class bowlers were gone & flat tracks were plenty.

So for me if you balance out the fact that they were equally devastating in FC cricket, Lehmann slightly better in ODI's & the quality of bowling they faced in test cricket respectively. I'd say overall they are about equal.

 

[aussie]

Lehman - No Contest. Hick is highly overrated like every other English cricketer in the 90s.

ok, just explain to me how Gough, Fraser, Caddick, Stewart, Atherton especially were overrated during the 90s & i'll be on my bike?

 

[dass]

Sanz is wrong, English team of the 90's was much better then the one's today, atleast they won a lot of games back then.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

ok, just explain to me how Gough, Fraser, Caddick, Stewart, Atherton especially were overrated during the 90s & i'll be on my bike?

Atherton was definitely overrated. The guy averaged well under 40 in test cricket, which is a poor career by any stretch.

Fraser and Caddick were servicable test bowlers, certainly not poor, and I think that's about how they are rated. Gough and Stewart were a little better. I wouldn't all any of them overrated aside from Atherton, but I wouldn't say any of them were particularly great either.

 

[Richard]

Atherton was definitely overrated. The guy averaged well under 40 in test cricket, which is a poor career by any stretch.

Fraser and Caddick were servicable test bowlers, certainly not poor, and I think that's about how they are rated. Gough and Stewart were a little better. I wouldn't all any of them overrated aside from Atherton, but I wouldn't say any of them were particularly great either.

Fraser and Gough suffered badly from injuries. That alone accounts IMO for them being less successful than they could've been.

Stewart is only one of the best wicketkeeper-batsmen of the modern era.

Atherton is undoubtedly one of the most under-rated batsmen of recent times. Seriously, just dismissively saying "he averaged under 40 in Test cricket so he was poor by any stretch" is just crazy.

 

[Sanz]

Atherton was definitely overrated. The guy averaged well under 40 in test cricket, which is a poor career by any stretch.

Fraser and Caddick were servicable test bowlers, certainly not poor, and I think that's about how they are rated. Gough and Stewart were a little better. I wouldn't all any of them overrated aside from Atherton, but I wouldn't say any of them were particularly great either.

Considering the fact that the English compare Stewart to Gilchrist(there was a thread where some of tehm argued that), He definately was overrated. Caddick and Gough as a bowling pair were definately over-rated. Fraser - okay there I am wrong. Cork, Butcher, Hick, Ramprakash, Tufnell etc etc all were massively over-rated.

 

[Sanz]

Stewart is only one of the best wicketkeeper-batsmen of the modern era.

Yeah Right !! And MArk RamPrakash is one of the best batsman of modern era along with John Crawley.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Fraser and Gough suffered badly from injuries. That alone accounts IMO for them being less successful than they could've been.

Stewart is only one of the best wicketkeeper-batsmen of the modern era.

Atherton is undoubtedly one of the most under-rated batsmen of recent times. Seriously, just dismissively saying "he averaged under 40 in Test cricket so he was poor by any stretch" is just crazy.

Why? He was a decent, gritty batsman and played some wonderful innings but overall he didn't make enough runs to be considered a successful test opener. Aside from Carl Hooper he'd be around the worst player ever to play 100 test matches. Stephen Fleming would probably be around that group as well. None of them were terrible (though Hooper in tests was decidedly average) but certainly you wouldn't call them particularly great players.

 

[Craig]

Why? He was a decent, gritty batsman and played some wonderful innings but overall he didn't make enough runs to be considered a successful test opener. Aside from Carl Hooper he'd be around the worst player ever to play 100 test matches. Stephen Fleming would probably be around that group as well. None of them were terrible (though Hooper in tests was decidedly average) but certainly you wouldn't call them particularly great players.

And Atherton noted that himself in his autobiography when he said his record only was that of a good Test player because his innings at Jo'burg where he batted for nearly an entire lifetime was what he described as being his one innings where he was in the 'zone'.

As for Fleming, I can only think it was technique/mental because by rights he should have more Test tons then Martin Crowe. The talent is there, especially when he is on song and in form. As for Hooper, I have no respect for the guy as a cricketer, if you wanted 'oversized egotisical prima donna', then he is your man.

 

[Craig]

Yeah Right !! And MArk RamPrakash is one of the best batsman of modern era along with John Crawley.

Well if we go from 1990 onwards, Adam Gilchrist aside, go on name names then if you know more...

 

[Richard]

Considering the fact that the English compare Stewart to Gilchrist(there was a thread where some of tehm argued that), He definately was overrated.

How exactly is comparing the two overrating Stewart? No-one in their right mind would say the former is as good as the latter, but they're certainly not in completely different leagues.

Cork, Butcher, Hick, Ramprakash, Tufnell etc etc all were massively over-rated.

So how exactly is that? Almost everyone in England who knows anything about anything believes that none of them (except Tufnell) came close to fulfilling their potential, and that had there been less turbulance in the private-lives of every single one they'd have had a better chance.

 

[Richard]

Yeah Right !! And MArk RamPrakash is one of the best batsman of modern era along with John Crawley.

No, they're not.

Stewart is what I said he is, though.

 

[Richard]

Why? He was a decent, gritty batsman and played some wonderful innings but overall he didn't make enough runs to be considered a successful test opener. Aside from Carl Hooper he'd be around the worst player ever to play 100 test matches. Stephen Fleming would probably be around that group as well. None of them were terrible (though Hooper in tests was decidedly average) but certainly you wouldn't call them particularly great players.

Tell me - how is a whole decade of excellence (except for when your back's so rigid you can barely bend) against some of the finest new-ball bowlers ever to have played the game just "being a decent gritty batsman"?

Honestly, Atherton couldn't be more harshly thought of if he tried.

 

[Sanz]

How exactly is comparing the two overrating Stewart? No-one in their right mind would say the former is as good as the latter, but they're certainly not in completely different leagues.

They are in deifferent leagues, there simply is no comparison whatsoever. And Yes there is another guy with name sounding like Sangakkara, he is also in a different league. First there is the likes of Gilchrist, then there is Kumar and then comes the level of Stewart, Tilekratne etc etc.

So how exactly is that? Almost everyone in England who knows anything about anything believes that none of them (except Tufnell) came close to fulfilling their potential, and that had there been less turbulance in the private-lives of every single one they'd have had a better chance.

And almost everyone outside of England knows that they were all hyped up by the English Media and fans (something we see in India a lot now a days esp with its pace bowlers)..Ad how the the hell a guy(Tufnell) who averaged close to 40 in test cricket and with a strike rate in mid 90s is considered as 'Fulfilled potential' is beyond me ? IF that was his potential - Then you really prove my point. Tufnell was over-rated, Highly.

 

[God Jayasuria]

Darren Lehmann and Graeme Hick - who is better?

Is this supposed to be a trick question or some sort of sick joke? Either way it isn't funny.

Errr let's see, on one hand we have a bottle job, choker flat track bully, who was embarrassingly easy to psyche out by seemingly any bowler, or a world class under rated, Lehman who was one of the unluckiest cricketers of his era.

Whatever next,

 

[Sanz]

Well if we go from 1990 onwards, Adam Gilchrist aside, go on name names then if you know more...

Gilchrist, Sanga, Tilekratne just to name a few. Besides I would take guys like Healy (on combined Batting/Keeping Skills) ahead of Stewart any day, throw in Healy there in that list as well.

 

[Richard]

They are in deifferent leagues, there simply is no comparison whatsoever. And Yes there is another guy with name sounding like Sangakkara, he is also in a different league. First there is the likes of Gilchrist, then there is Kumar and then comes the level of Stewart, Tilekratne etc etc.

Err, Sangakkara's career overlapped only by a year or two with Stewart's. Even now, Sangakkara is still being relieved of the gloves because he's much better as a specialist-batsman.

Yes, Sangakkara and Gilchrist (who are roughly equal - there's not a lot between them) are better than Stewart. But there's no league between them. Stewart played at a time when bowling-attacks were far better than those Gilchrist and Sangakkara by-and-large faced. Compared to his contemporaries he was without peer.

And almost everyone outside of England knows that they were all hyped up by the English Media and fans (something we see in India a lot now a days esp with its pace bowlers)..

Err, just because Media hype players up (is certainly no worse in Britain than in Australia) doesn't mean they're overrated by the end of their careers. Anyone but anyone will tell you that the likes of Cork wasn't nearly the bowler he looked like being at one point.

Ad how the the hell a guy(Tufnell) who averaged close to 40 in test cricket and with a strike rate in mid 90s is considered as 'Fulfilled potential' is beyond me ? IF that was his potential - Then you really prove my point. Tufnell was over-rated, Highly.

Not by me he wasn't. I don't think he was that good. Though there are some who'd have you believe he could've done more.