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

[Richard]

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

I don't. I think that blindly placing all Test cricket as equal and saying that if someone outperformed someone at one point then they were bound to do it regardless is idealistic.

If you want to look at it as vague ifs and buts that's your choice; personally I look at it as pretty clear and obvious substantial differences that pretty clearly and obviously gave one person a different set of advantages and disadvantages than another.

I wrote up a 15-or-so-line post in reply to your last post and my network failed to post it so I CBA writing it again but I'll repeat this - are you familiar with Hick's case? Or have you just heard of him as a name from the past who near enough everyone trashes as a soft underachiever?

 

[aussie]

Why?. People always complain in this day & age about how players (FTBs) are prospering due to a lack of quality fast bowling present. So why cant we argue in favour of FTBs like Hick who struggled overall againts some very good attacks in 90s. That they (Hick) was unlucky that he didn't get the chance to cash in on the decks or poor attacks of this era gone??

 

[Richard]

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..

I have to ask, did you watch a single England Test between 1992/93 and 1995/96? If so, you couldn't have watched with much attention-to-detail.

 

[GIMH]

I don't. I think that blindly placing all Test cricket as equal and saying that if someone outperformed someone at one point then they were bound to do it regardless is idealistic.

If you want to look at it as vague ifs and buts that's your choice; personally I look at it as pretty clear and obvious substantial differences that pretty clearly and obviously gave one person a different set of advantages and disadvantages than another.

I wrote up a 15-or-so-line post in reply to your last post and my network failed to post it so I CBA writing it again but I'll repeat this - are you familiar with Hick's case? Or have you just heard of him as a name from the past who near enough everyone trashes as a soft underachiever?

Firstly, nowhere did I state that all Test cricket was equal.

Ifs ands buts are just that, whichever way you dress it up. Stating that things would have happened differently is fine, but stating what would have happened had those ifs actually happened is speculation - that is a fact.

As for Hick, of course I'm familiar with him. He had his moments, and was in and out a bit much. But when 'near enough everyone' trashes someone Richard, there is normally good reason for it.

 

[GIMH]

Why?. People always complain in this day & age about how players (FTBs) are prospering due to a lack of quality fast bowling present. So why cant we argue in favour of FTBs like Hick who struggled overall againts some very good attacks in 90s. That they (Hick) was unlucky that he didn't get the chance to cash in on the decks or poor attacks of this era gone??

I don't complain about it, tbh I think our contemporaries are very harshly denigrated on the basis of these flatter pitches, it is somewhat tedious in fact.

Hick succeded far less than his contemporaries, Collingwood has been a regular in a much better England team (IMO) than the one Hick played in. Got no more to say on this.

 

[fredfertang]

Graeme Hick was appallingly badly managed - with hindsight he was never going to be the saviour of English cricket that some believed him to be but he was a much better batsman, and bowler for that matter, than he is described as being by those who didn't see him play

 

[GIMH]

Graeme Hick was appallingly badly managed - with hindsight he was never going to be the saviour of English cricket that some believed him to be but he was a much better batsman, and bowler for that matter, than he is described as being by those who didn't see him play

I don't think this is aimed at me but just FTR I haven't attacked Hick at any point, just stated that as a Test cricketer I prefer Collingwood, I think that's reasonable enough

 

[aussie]

I have to ask, did you watch a single England Test between 1992/93 and 1995/96? If so, you couldn't have watched with much attention-to-detail.

Indeed. Well i'll admit i didn't start watching cricket then, but in the past since way back i have studies Hick's career & my conclusion is similar to yours.

The general cricket public have been brought up unfortunately on the spoon fed reasoning that blokes like Hick & Atherton where totally inept againts very good fast-bowlers - which is true. Any less than perfect player would have failed in the 90s.

But people tend to forget especially when looking at how blokes like Bell & Cook have struggled in the FTB era gone, how good Hick & Athers really where. Atherton OMFG he would have been averaging around 45-50 if he played now, what a player..

 

[GIMH]

Indeed. Well i'll admit i didn't start watching cricket then, but in the past since way back i have studies Hick's career & my conclusion is similar to yours.

The general cricket public have been brought up unfortunately on the spoon fed reasoning that blokes like Hick & Atherton where totally inept againts very good fast-bowlers - which is true. Any less than perfect player would have failed in the 90s.

But people tend to forget especially when looking at how blokes like Bell & Cook have struggled in the FTB era gone, how good Hick & Athers really where. Atherton OMFG he would have been averaging around 45-50 if he played now, what a player..

Yeah that's right, Athers would average 45-50, and if Strauss played in the 90s he'd average 12 whilst Dale Steyn would have averaged 4 with the ball in that golden age of greentops.

In other news, if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.

 

[G.I.Joe]

 

[aussie]

Yeah that's right, Athers would average 45-50, and if Strauss played in the 90s he'd average 12 whilst Dale Steyn would have averaged 4 with the ball in that golden age of greentops.

In other news, if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.

Nah actually i think Strauss would have gone quite ok & Steyn would have just as effective as he is now. I wouldn't take it your extremes though

 

[GIMH]

So hang on - Strauss would go just as well as he does now, and Steyn wouldn't get any better, statistically?

Something doesn't add up mathematically.

Uppercut, where art thou, this is your favourite topic, please take over from me as my head hurts

 

[fredfertang]

I don't think this is aimed at me but just FTR I haven't attacked Hick at any point, just stated that as a Test cricketer I prefer Collingwood, I think that's reasonable enough

It wasn't, nor indeed anyone else specifically, 'cept Ray Illingworth I suppose

 

[BoyBrumby]

Maybe Graham Thorpe would be a more like-for-like comparison to Hick. Played in pretty much the same era, has an inferior FC record (although @ better than 45 RPI it's certainly a good record itself), but was far more successful than the big fella in tests.

Would anyone claim Hick as the better bat?

 

[fredfertang]

Maybe Graham Thorpe would be a more like-for-like comparison to Hick. Played in pretty much the same era, has an inferior FC record (although @ better than 45 RPI it's certainly a good record itself), but was far more successful than the big fella in tests.

Would anyone claim Hick as the better bat?

It would depend on the task in hand but if winning/saving a Test match was involved then definitely not

 

[BoyBrumby]

It would depend on the task in hand but if winning/saving a Test match was involved then definitely not

Yeah, I don't think Thorpey would win too many marks for artistic merit but was the man for a fight. Hick easier on the eye and looked a far more gifted batsman, but I'd have Thorpey in tests without question.

It's a lazy thing to say of Hick, but I'm going to anyway: he was a great player of average bowling, but did struggle against the very best bowlers.

 

[fredfertang]

It's a lazy thing to say of Hick, but I'm going to anyway: he was a great player of average bowling, but did struggle against the very best bowlers.

That is undoubtedly what his obituary will say although I certainly remember some days, all too few, when he looked as good as anyone against the very best

 

[Richard]

Yeah that's right, Athers would average 45-50, and if Strauss played in the 90s he'd average 12 whilst Dale Steyn would have averaged 4 with the ball in that golden age of greentops.

In other news, if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.

Silly exaggerations do no-one any favours. It is however quite conceivable that Atherton for example would average 45-50 had he played a decade after he did.

As I say, there is no nice-and-simple it-would-apply-drastically-for-all-players facet to be applied to 1990s-vs-post-2001/02. The change has indeed made a large difference for some players and only a relatively moderate one for others.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That is undoubtedly what his obituary will say although I certainly remember some days, all too few, when he looked as good as anyone against the very best

Rarely in tests from my memory; particularly when up against pace. I vaguely recall him dismantling a test-strength Windies attack at New Road (just before his test bow, perhaps?), but couldn't replicate it in the main event.

The big lad was clearly a diffident soul and, as you rightly state, might've done better with more sensitive handling. Raymond obviously wasn't a fan (had some peculiar ideas, did Illy; never rated Gus Fraser either) and Athers leaving him stranded on 98* just seemed cruel. Can think of one or two English batsmen who might've had to be physically restrained after that.

 

[Richard]

That is undoubtedly what his obituary will say although I certainly remember some days, all too few, when he looked as good as anyone against the very best

Hick was quite capable of playing very well against the best bowlers; his problem was that, later in his career, he hardly ever did it. He still performed well against top-class bowlers more times than Collingwood ever has or is ever likely to.

The flat-track-bully-easily-found-out-by-the-best-bowlers part only applies early on, right at the very start of his career.