Is it fair to rate players based on their first class records ?

[aussie]

Hick is the more talented batsman but I'll always respect Collingwood much more, and I'd also say Collingwood's is the more distinguished career.

True. But look at it this way, if Hick was playing/had played in this 2000s era he would have done better. But if Collingwood was playing the 90s his test career would have been just patchy or slightly worse than Hick.

 

[Richard]

Hick is the more talented batsman but I'll always respect Collingwood much more, and I'd also say Collingwood's is the more distinguished career.

Hick was far more than just more talented - he also enjoyed precious little good fortune while Collingwood enjoyed plenty of it. Even in his relatively brief period of Test success 1992/93-1995/96 he did more than Collingwood has ever done, really. If Hick had been a more straightforward case like John Crawley then I'd say yes there was a case for acknowledging Collingwood as better (and I still considerably hesitate to do so as Collingwood has exactly the same flaws that stopped Crawley being a fine Test batsman, it's just there aren't currently the sort of bowlers around who can exploit it and haven't been for a while).

Hick was also eons ahead of Collingwood in ODIs, as well as in domestic cricket.

Certainly Collingwood is a much more mentally talented player than Hick was and as I've said many times he's a far more physically talented player than a lot of people realise - he has to be very talented to succeed with a technique like his. But Hick's talent was on another scale completely, and however many breaks Collingwood has had than Hick did not enjoy I won't ever consider him comparable. Hick >>>> Collingwood for me.

 

[GIMH]

Collingwood has forged a successful Test career whereas Hick did not. At the end of the day we can point to all the factors in the world, I know whose career I would rather have.

 

[Richard]

I'd say that putting it simply as "Collingwood has had Test success, Hick did not" is a vast oversimplification of the type that simply precludes one from getting the full story. To suggest that Hick enjoyed no Test success is very far from the truth - he had 4 consecutive years where he carved-up some of the best bowlers the game has known. In my book Collingwood would never have had a hope of doing that.

Certainly there is something to recommend Collingwood; there is also much to recommend Hick. Even if domestic cricket did not exist and Tests only did, I'd probably still have no hesitation in placing Hick ahead of Collingwood as a long-form player. In the short-form, as I say, it's a no-contest; Hick's so far ahead it's untrue.

I also know who I'd prefer and under just about any circumstance it'd be Hick. There is nothing which the evidence I know of suggests strongly that Collingwood could do which Hick could not.

 

[bagapath]

There is absolutely no way on Earth that I will ever rank Collingwood as Hick's equal. Not a cat-in-hell's chance.

neither would I. collingwood is a proper test cricketer. hick was just a county cricketer who looked like a clown when he played with the big boys..

 

[aussie]

I'd say that putting it simply as "Collingwood has had Test success, Hick did not" is a vast oversimplification of the type that simply precludes one from getting the full story. To suggest that Hick enjoyed no Test success is very far from the truth - he had 4 consecutive years where he carved-up some of the best bowlers the game has known. In my book Collingwood would never have had a hope of doing that.

Certainly there is something to recommend Collingwood; there is also much to recommend Hick. Even if domestic cricket did not exist and Tests only did, I'd probably still have no hesitation in placing Hick ahead of Collingwood as a long-form player. In the short-form, as I say, it's a no-contest; Hick's so far ahead it's untrue.

I also know who I'd prefer and under just about any circumstance it'd be Hick. There is nothing which the evidence I know of suggests strongly that Collingwood could do which Hick could not.

Cased closed right here...

 

[aussie]

neither would I. collingwood is a proper test cricketer. hick was just a county cricketer who looked like a clown when he played with the big boys..

Ha, clearly you haven't followed of their careers well enough especially Hick. Since this is totally inaccurate sir..

 

[GIMH]

There is nothing which the evidence I know of suggests strongly that Collingwood could do which Hick could not.

The only evidence I'm interested is in what they did do. Fresh in the memory are Colly's Test-saving antics away to arguably the best side in the world and in an opening Ashes Test. He's scored a double century away to Australia, against McGrath & Warne. He scored a century in Nagpur when batsmen were falling all around him (I think he put on a decent stand with Monty freaking Panesar). His career was on the line against South Africa and he bounced back with a ton when the game looked lost (we did go on to lose anyway, but thanks to Colly we had a real chance).

Short-form is of no relevance to this thread because it is talking about Tests/FC. Whilst I take no issue whatsoever with the statement that Hick was the more talented batsman, but Collingwood averages somewhere around 10/11 runs more per dismissal in Tests than Hick did. Averages might not be the be-all, end-all, but ten runs is quite a lot.

 

[bagapath]

There is nothing which the evidence I know of suggests strongly that Collingwood could do which Hick could not.

There is enough evidence to prove Collingwood could play test cricket and Hick could not.

 

[bagapath]

Ha, clearly you haven't followed of their careers well enough especially Hick. Since this is totally inaccurate sir..

may be true. the few times I had seen hick at the test level he would drop everything and run away at the sight of fast bowlers. collingwood i know for sure could handle himself at the highest level with some dignity.

 

[Richard]

There is enough evidence to prove Collingwood could play test cricket and Hick could not.

Not so whatsoever. As I say, that's a vast oversimplification. There is plain and clear evidence that Hick could play Test cricket, and that's all I'll say here as I've said plenty before.

 

[GIMH]

Collingwood is better at Test Cricket than Hick was, though.

 

[Richard]

The only evidence I'm interested is in what they did do. Fresh in the memory are Colly's Test-saving antics away to arguably the best side in the world and in an opening Ashes Test. He's scored a double century away to Australia, against McGrath & Warne. He scored a century in Nagpur when batsmen were falling all around him (I think he put on a decent stand with Monty freaking Panesar). His career was on the line against South Africa and he bounced back with a ton when the game looked lost (we did go on to lose anyway, but thanks to Colly we had a real chance).

Key word - fresh in the memory. Without trying to be patronising, but I'll bet you have no memory whatsoever of Hick's brilliant innings' against Donald, de Villers, Matthews and McMillan in 1994 to lead England to a tumultuous victory, nor his equally outstanding ones in 1995 against Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop and Kenneth Benjamin which played a fair part in keeping England from going behind again in a series they'd fought hard to stay in (innings' came straight after he'd been dropped by a CoS who had a history of being harsh on him), nor his outstanding century at an Indian ground that really did turn against Kumble et al, nor a number of others I could go through.

I can't come to any conclusion other than most recent is best remembered TBH. I'd hazard a guess that most England fans who experienced decent amounts of the careers of Hick and Collingwood would have no hesitation in placing Hick as the better long-form batsman.

As I've said before, I have no time for "all Test cricket is equal". In my book batsmen have it easier now than they did not so long ago and had Hick had it as easy as Collingwood mostly has he'd have done far, far better than Collingwood has. Equally if Collingwood had had it as tough as Hick did I'm very confident indeed that he'd have disappeared without a trace.

 

[Richard]

Collingwood is better at Test Cricket than Hick was, though.

Collingwood has done better in the Test cricket he's played than Hick did in the Test cricket he played. That doesn't in my book mean he's a better batsman.

 

[GIMH]

It's all speculation and ifs and buts. As you know, I'm not a big fan of using stats to prove any kind of point, but when a batsman averages more than ten runs more than another one, both of whom have played enough Tests for the sample to be considered reaosnable, then there can be no choice whatsoever. However much easier people thinking batting is these days than it was in the 90s, it's not eleven runs per dismissal easier.

 

[Richard]

I've said this before as well - there is no "so-and-so runs per dismissal easier". Different things will have different effect on different batsmen - some changes will turn a pauper into a prince, some will turn a decent batsman into a slightly-better-than-decent one. It's possible for the same change to have different effects on different batsmen.

Added to the fact that a career average is a near-meaningless stat in any case and more so in Hick's than ever. Hick had three distinct phases in his career and to treat them as anything but completely separate and unrelated to one another is IMO foolhardy.

I couldn't care less for any comparison involving career averages TBH.

 

[GIMH]

If you're going to use stats to see who was the better Test cricketer, then the overall average is hardly 'meaningless' - I didn't say Collingwood's best year in Test cricket was better than Hick's best, but rather, overall, Collingwood was a better Test cricketer.

 

[aussie]

If you're going to use stats to see who was the better Test cricketer, then the overall average is hardly 'meaningless' - I didn't say Collingwood's best year in Test cricket was better than Hick's best, but rather, overall, Collingwood was a better Test cricketer.

This is so only because he played in an easier era for batting TBF. Richard has already highlighted the instances in the 90s when Hick made runs etc, so i wont go into that.

But Collingwood regardless of how tough he has made, he has tended to look just as bad as Hick when conditions for the fast-men are bowler friendly. If Colly played in the 90s he would have been just a bad as Hick or even worst.

Hick though i strongly believe would have destroyed some of the joke attacks of this era & would have been very nice FTB for ENG.

 

[GIMH]

It's all ifs and buts, I prefer to look at what actually happened than what might have done.

 

[bagapath]

It's all ifs and buts, I prefer to look at what actually happened than what might have done.

second that