Is Graeme Hick's career a sucess or a failure?

[Kenneff]

Before you immediately assume failure (because of his mediocore test record) think about it.

The guy has scored 134 first class centuries, on the brink of 40'000 runs and still playing great at 41 years old. Would it be unfair to call someone who has acheived this a failure?

And how do people think he would have done say if he was brought into the England set up now as a young 25 year old now, was his failure down to his inablility to handle pressure or bad management of the day. As I think it would be true to to say England debuants perform much better today then say 10 years ago.

 

[Sanz]

Success.

 

[Xuhaib]

Disappointing considering the amount of talent he possesed.

 

[Kenneff]

I agree but I think now that his test career is long over its unfair to keep mentioning his test career and just appreciate what he has acheived in first class cricket.

On a different note I was actually surprised to see how similar his and Flintoffs batting records are......

 

[silentstriker]

Dissapointing at the Test level, but quite successful as a professional cricketer.

 

[stumpski]

Obviously he under-achieved for England, but his Test record isn't that bad ... to average almost 35 against some of the bowlers he played against - Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Kumble, Ambrose, Walsh and others was a creditable effort. It would probably be 40+ if he were starting out now, because of the lack of world class bowlers. I think maybe people's expectations were too high - the long qualifying period spent slaughtering county attacks didn't help.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Dissapointing at the Test level, but quite successful as a professional cricketer.

Quite successful?.

 

[silentstriker]

Quite successful?.

Yes.

 

[Richard]

Hick is obviously a superb batsman - the thing most often overlooked about him is that he's probably England's 2nd-best ODI batsman of the modern era (after Nick Knight). That alone says he's had a hugely successful career - would people call Michael Bevan a failure? I think not. And Hick's just a slightly lesser version of him.

It's also easily overlooked that he had a period of 3 years where he scored runs pretty well without fail against, as already mentioned, some superb bowlers (his play against spin was never in doubt all his career, and his success in the subcontinent in 1992\93, which started it all, was never really in doubt) - Warne and Hughes in 1993; Ambrose, Walsh and Benjamin in 1994; Donald, Matthews and de Villiers in 1994; McDermott and Warne in 1994\95; Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh in 1995; and Donald and Pollock in 1995\96.

And at the domestic level, clearly, he's been virtually peerless. Though obviously he's played far more than most of the best batsmen of his generation (the Athertons, Smiths, Hussains, Stewarts, Thorpes et al were all playing Tests most of the time).

It's only initially in Tests (due to problems against the short ball) and later in Tests (due to various combinations of factors, not insignificantly poor selectorial treatment) that he's been a failure.

 

[Richard]

And how do people think he would have done say if he was brought into the England set up now as a young 25 year old now, was his failure down to his inablility to handle pressure or bad management of the day. As I think it would be true to to say England debuants perform much better today then say 10 years ago.

As to that... it's a complicated one. If he was 25 right now and brought in, I think he'd tear most stuff to pieces, because bowling at present is generally so poor, pitches so flat and balls so difficult to get anything out of. If he and the bowlers and pitches of his day were transported forwards now, I think he'd be an initial failure, then turn successful as he did in 1993 due to an improvement in technique, and probably be more likely to continue in the successful vein as selectorial treatment might be more sympathetic today than between 1996 and 1999.

 

[Chubb]

What if he'd stuck with Zimbabwe? Would he have rivalled Andy Flower? Would we even mention Andy Flower in the same breath as Hick?

I think it is more than possible Hick would have had a more successful Test career with Zim than he did with England, due to a combination of factors, namely security of selection and exposure to Test cricket before the age of 25. However, he would obviously not have been as successful in First-class cricket, though there probably would have been some absolute monster scores in the Logan Cup. I wonder if Hick ever thinks he made a mistake?

 

[Richard]

What if he'd stuck with Zimbabwe? Would he have rivalled Andy Flower? Would we even mention Andy Flower in the same breath as Hick?

I think it is more than possible Hick would have had a more successful Test career with Zim than he did with England, due to a combination of factors, namely security of selection and exposure to Test cricket before the age of 25. However, he would obviously not have been as successful in First-class cricket, though there probably would have been some absolute monster scores in the Logan Cup. I wonder if Hick ever thinks he made a mistake?

Eh? Zimbabwe's Test debut was after Hicks UIMM?

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Eh? Zimbabwe's Test debut was after Hicks UIMM?

Did you just invent that acronym?

 

[Richard]

Nah, have been using it for ages TBH.

It's unless I'm much mistaken IYC.

(That's if you're confused FCS)

((That's for clarification's sake ICYDK))

(((That's in case you don't know - all right, I'll stop now)))

 

[DCC_legend]

Without a doubt he had an Excellent First Class career. His test performances were still decent, and probably people put a bit too much expectation on him, to have a blistering test career after playing awesomely in FC. His ODI performances were pretty good too, so maybe he was more suited to ODIs than Test Cricket(the stats seem to suggest it anyway).
To still be going strong at 41 and nearing 40000 FC runs is an excellent acheivment for what i see as an excellent cricketer.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Nah, have been using it for ages TBH.

It's unless I'm much mistaken IYC.

(That's if you're confused FCS)

((That's for clarification's sake ICYDK))

(((That's in case you don't know - all right, I'll stop now)))

I guessed "Unless I'm Mistaken", but I couldn't find the first M.

 

[jammay123]

he has been a huge sucess in county but overall test is the ultimate level in cricket and well lets just say he didnt set the test arena alight so overall failure. same can be said for ramprakash

 

[Chubb]

Eh? Zimbabwe's Test debut was after Hicks UIMM?

Meant ODI cricket, unfortunately I made a dumb oversight. Hick could have played in the 86 and 92 World Cups for Zim (I know he played for England in the latter, after his test debut for them), then played tests. This exposure might have had the same effect on him as it did on the other Zim batsmen, i.e. making them reasonably ready for tests. Obviously if he hadn't gone to England he wouldn't have had the pro culture around the game, so ODIs would have helped- by the time Zim got Test status he'd almost certainly have been established alongside Houghton as the leading player in the country. This surely would have helped him adjust to test level- also there would have been nowhere near the level of expectation he experienced in England if he's been a part of the Zim side when they first came into test cricket.

Thus, I believe there is a strong possibility Hick would have averaged 40+ in test cricket for Zimbabwe. Although even if he averaged 31 he'd still be one of the best players Zimbabwe ever had.

 

[Richard]

Well... I believe there's a strong possibility that he'd have averaged 40+ in Tests for England had the management of 2000-2007 been in place in 1994-1997 TBH.

That's not to say he wouldn't have had he stayed in Zimbabwe, of course.

 

[Perm]

Sucess, just not at the highest level.