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

[fredfertang]

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.

That's right - took him to his 1000 in May IIRC - the rod was already created but that didn't help

 

[Richard]

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

You've done a pretty good job of trying to claim that the idea that someone who had a good career average has to be better than someone who didn't have a very good career average.

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.

Of course it's speculation, but it's well-founded speculation. Using the "ifs and buts" terminology is generally for the purpose of suggesting that speculation is wild and very imprecise. I consider it nothing of the sort here - I consider it equable to the speculation that for example global warming is going to be bad for the planet; it's certainly not a foregone conclusion but more evidence than not points that way.

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.

There is indeed good reason for it - but as found in the last few posts, some people don't actually understand and give inaccurate reasoning; the masses mis-educate the masses. I wonder if you are among them. Hick had more than just "his moments", he had a 4-year period where he performed as some of the best batsmen in history have performed. He was diabolical either side of that. But that wasn't because he couldn't play and lacked capability; it was because he was mishandled and that this mishandling heightened the effect of his temperament which was not ideally suited to the intensity of Test cricket.

 

[fredfertang]

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.

Atherton would have averaged 45-50 anyway if he'd only played when he was fit

 

[Richard]

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

I feel I should probably re-say this; was going to say it in said aforementioned non-post. I don't have any objection to the idea that Collingwood was a better Test cricketer than Hick because he's tasted far less failure at the Test level than Hick did. I merely object to the idea that Collingwood's considerably higher Test career batting average means that he was a better batsman in the long-form format of the game than Hick.

It's as simple as, for me, all things being equal in any form of three, four or five-day First-Class or Test match, I'd take Hick over Collingwood. I believe there is virtually no chance Collingwood would be likely to perform better under any given set of circumstances.

 

[Richard]

Atherton would have averaged 45-50 anyway if he'd only played when he was fit

I'm not sure he'd have averaged quite that high in the time he played in; obviously "when fit" for him is a bit of a difficult question as strictly speaking from 1990 onwards he was never truly fit. But when he played, between 1990 and 2000, when not a rank cripple, he averaged 41, despite the fact that he virtually never faced a weak attack in that time. That to me makes it quite conceivable that he'd have averaged ~50 when reasonably fit had he played exclusively post-2001/02.

 

[GIMH]

I feel I should probably re-say this; was going to say it in said aforementioned non-post. I don't have any objection to the idea that Collingwood was a better Test cricketer than Hick because he's tasted far less failure at the Test level than Hick did. I merely object to the idea that Collingwood's considerably higher Test career batting average means that he was a better batsman in the long-form format of the game than Hick.

It's as simple as, for me, all things being equal in any form of three, four or five-day First-Class or Test match, I'd take Hick over Collingwood. I believe there is virtually no chance Collingwood would be likely to perform better under any given set of circumstances.

Fair enough. FWIW you know I don't really use averages as evidence in general I jsut think the gap is rather large here. I think part of this disagreement here is borne out of the fact that I clearly rate Colly a lot more than you do.

Brumby's Thorpe comparison is indeed a better one though, where do you stand on that€?

 

[bagapath]

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.

have been watching as much cricket as i could since 84, including the time frame you have mentioned. hick was very poor against genuine pace bowling. he was not good enough to succeed at the highest level. if he were, he would have. he could plunder the medium pacers and dibbly dobblers in county cricket. but international cricket was one step too high for him, like it is for mark ramprakash now.

 

[Richard]

Fair enough. FWIW you know I don't really use averages as evidence in general I jsut think the gap is rather large here. I think part of this disagreement here is borne out of the fact that I clearly rate Colly a lot more than you do.

Possibly. These days I rate Collingwood as a decent, Test-standard batsman (only have rated him as such since that century on comeback in 2008; before then he was just someone who scored so big when the going was really easy that it disguised the fact that he barely did a thing when it was tough) but he's only been that for a year and a bit to my mind and I obviously don't, like anyone, know how long he's going to be that for - my guess is no more than another year or two as he's not getting any younger. Hick was a Test batsman of excellence for 4 whole consecutive years between 1992/93 and 1995/96 however - and he was also so far ahead of Collingwood at domestic level it's untrue.

Brumby's Thorpe comparison is indeed a better one though, where do you stand on that€?

Love the random Euro sign. In terms of the longer game, I'd rate Thorpe ahead of Hick any day myself TBH; good batsman at the domestic level, good one at the Test level for a number of years then excellent one for a number of years thereafter as well. Hick on the other hand was excellent in Tests for only a few years and awful aside from that.

Hick >> Thorpe in OD cricket.

 

[Richard]

have been watching as much cricket as i could since 84, including the time frame you have mentioned. hick was very poor against genuine pace bowling. he was not good enough to succeed at the highest level. if he were, he would have. he could plunder the medium pacers and dibbly dobblers in county cricket.

But he was good enough to succeed, and did - just not for all that long. If he was a no-hoper against bowling of the highest pace he'd not have stood a chance of massacring bowlers like Hughes, Reiffel, Donald, de Villiers, McDermott, Ambrose, Bishop, Walsh, Kenneth Benjamin and Pollock (who was certainly fast in 1995/96 if not for very long thereafter). Yet for 4 years he did little but. He'd also never have had a hope of scoring 188 or whatever it was in 1988 against Marshall, Ambrose, Winston Benjamin and Walsh.

There is truth in the notion that Hick was vulnerable to top-class seam (not neccessarily of the highest pace, it was just top-class seam bowling) early in his Test career - he struggled against Ambrose, Marshall, Walsh and Patterson in 1991 and Wasim, Waqar and Aaqib in 1992. But if one had watched Hick's career and read-up on him, they'd realise that he then modified his technique - he subsequently as I say smashed heaps of runs against top-class bowlers. He disposed of his vulnerability to top-class seam at high pace in about 1993.

After his period of success he then fell down and from 1996 onwards did next to nothing of note at Test level. Yes, this does count as a mark against him and does mean that he cannot be described as having anything but a pretty poor Test career. But the idea that he could not and did not succeed is plain wrong. Because he did, and he did so for long enough to show beyond all reasonable doubt that he had what it takes technically. What held him back was temperamental failings and abysmal handling from selectors. To group him with the likes of Nick Knight and John Crawley, excellent batsmen against lesser-quality bowling and no-hopers against the best, is plain wrong, because he was so much better than that.

but international cricket was one step too high for him, like it is for mark ramprakash now.

Also the notion that international cricket was a step too steep for him is plain wrong - even the most arrant Hick-hater couldn't possibly deny that in ODIs he was a consistently quite superb player. Only mastery of Test cricket was beyond him - as it was for his Australian equivalent Michael Bevan, who like Hick really didn't get a fair crack of the whip.

 

[aussie]

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

Strauss between WI 04 to IND 07 would have struggled in the 90s for sure, given how he was techincally exposed. The improved Strauss since Napier 08 probably would have gone allright i reckon if he played in 90s.


On Steyn i reckon his record would probably been the same. Given that he has technically bowled on some pretty pace bowler friendly tracks since he became test quality vs NZ 06. Which is what it was like in the 90s generally.

 

[aussie]

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?

A few of our best English players have tended to have moderate FC records but have been able step it up in tests, Trescothick & Vaughan immediately come to mind.

Thorpe>>>>>Hick clearly. Since in the 90s was an era when only quality batsmen could succeeded over a long period of time & Thorpe did that, while Hick didn't since overall he wasn't good enough.

The argument with Hick vs Collingwood. Is basically if Hick if he played in this 2000s era whether he would have been more successful than Collingwood now. I personally think there is enough evidence to suggest Hick would have been TBF.