Darren Lehmann and Graeme Hick - who is better?

[Craig]

Well it has been something I have been being to as and it is probably one of my controversial threads again (let's face it, you love it), but I ask who is the better player Graeme Hick or Darren Lehmann?

Now it isn't just some random question, otherwise I would have asked Fidel Edwards and James Anderson, but both players have been very dominant in their respective FC competitions in England and Australia (Lehmann very dominant in England as is Hick, I believe Hick got some runs when he played for Queensland, but I could be wrong, I know he did for Northern Districts), both got a raw deal by Test selectors and were fine ODI players in their own right.

I suppose Lehmann might just win out because if he were from any other country IMO he probably would have 100+ Tests, but I hated the way he batted. The way he walked across the stumps in a very arrogant manner and played shots in a similar nature and would get out. I also felt he filled his boots against some of the crappier nations in terms of bowling attacks (surely Liam will agree with this in reference to his belovered West Indies) and Bangladesh (who I thought did well under the circumstances), but played brilliantly in Sri Lanka after the pointless death of his mate David Hookes. Perhaps that is just me though.

[Prince EWS]

Not much contest IMO. Lehmann had a successful, albeit fairly limited, test career, while Hick was a failure of a test batsman who had several chances. Lehmann was also a far more successful and reliable one day bowler. Their first class and ODI records with the bat are fairly comparable but the fact that Lehmann actually made a good test career for himself speaks more than anything else.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Craig

both got a raw deal by Test selectors .

Raw deal?

They had plenty of opportunities

They were both recalled more times than a Daihatsu.

Anyway, Lehmann for mine.

[Zinzan]

On natural ability Hick, on success at international level Lehmann comfortably. I was lucky enough to see Hick play in NZ domestic cricket in the late 80s and he looked as classy as Martin Crowe at that level, in fact in some ways better, but he wasn't half the batsmen Crowe was at international level.

Having said that, Hick was always under used, particurlarly as a ODI batsmen. Surely even at his age now, he wouldn't do much worse than most of the current england ODI batsmen.

[social]

Lehmann by a street - he was comfortably one of the best batsmen in the best cricketing nation in the world at the time but was shafted by selectors for reasons other than performance. The guy shouldve played 100 tests and did well when selected past his peak.

Hick had immense natural talent but flaws in both his technical and mental makeup that are reflected in his test record

[FaaipDeOiad]

Lehmann very comfortably. Actually, I'd rate Lehmann's achievements at FC level quite comparable as well. Both were utterlty devastating at their peak, but nobody could ever accuse Lehmann of being a flat track bully and his record on seaming wickets at Headingley was remarkable. Throw in a fairly good test career played well after his peak and Shane Warne rating him alongside Lara and Tendulkar in terms of playing spin, and it's not even close.

Hick possibly the better ODI batsman, though both were quite good.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by howardj

Raw deal?

They had plenty of opportunities

They were both recalled more times than a Daihatsu.

Anyway, Lehmann for mine.

Lehmann wasn't, really. In fact, he was really only recalled once. He was picked in 98 and played five tests, then was picked again in 2002 and played 22 more tests between then and the end of 2004. The only time he was dropped in that period was at the end of the 02/03 Ashes for two games, and was recalled after the '03 WC when Martyn was injured. He averaged 49.06 in those 22 games.

In ODIs he had an on and off career for a long time, but in tests he basically didn't get an extended opportunity until he was 32. Hick on the other hand played over 50 test matches over a lengthy period of time, including throughout his peak.

[Goughy]

It pains me to say it but Lehmann.

When it comes to pitting the real world against paper, the real world always wins.

A shame really as Ive talked at length on here before about the poor handling of Hicks different personality and his general treatment.

Purely hypothetical, but looked after properly I would guess 9/10 times he would have 100 tests with an average over 50. Simply one of the best batsmen I have ever seen.

However, it was not to be and the plaudits here must go to Lehmann.

[Pratters]

Lehmann quite easily. Was a pretty good player that fellow.

[ripper868]

Boof without question...he did lose to mark richardson in 100 metre race though

[Prince EWS]

So... Edwards v Anderson then?

Anderson by a distance for mine.

[andyc]

Yeah Lehmann for mine. Could contribute with the ball too.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by andyc

Yeah Lehmann for mine. Could contribute with the ball too.

Well Hick has an ODI 5wi which Lehmann doesnt have.

[Poker Boy]

It has to be "Boof" who was superb in FC fricket in two countries (Hick did dominate in NZ for two years but did nothing special for Queensland. I look at it this way. If "Boof" was English he'd have got 100 Tests. If Hick was Australian i'd be amazed if he would have played 20.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

So... Edwards v Anderson then?

Anderson by a distance for mine.

Hardly comparable. Two totally different situations.