Graeme Hick V Mark Ramprakash

[Burgey]

Quite right. I left out the obligatory

 

[Top_Cat]

I disagree with those who claim Graeme Hick was technically unsound, weak against pace and a mere minnow basher. In my opinion, Hick was the Colin Blythe of the 1990s - his failings at Test level were simply the result of an inability to handle the pressure and intensity of Test cricket.

Considering his shy, timid personality, Hick was not helped by a seven year qualifying period in which he was lauded as the best batsman in the world. Upon arrival in the England team, Hick was probably over anxious to justify such plaudits, a factor which undoubtedly contributed to his calamitous baptism against the world's finest bowling lineup. Understandably for such a sensitive individual, this inauspicious start to his career at the highest level caused a crushing confidence blow from which he arguably never really recovered.

The vast majority of Hick's career was played in circumstances that bear no resemblance to the plethora of easy pickings available in international cricket today, and Hick was always aware that his next innings could be his last, being dropped a dozen or so times over the course of his career.

You may be surprised to know that the ability to handle the pressure of merely playing in a Test is part of what makes a decent Test batsman too. Technique isn't the only thing 'tested' and it's a bit of a stretch to stretch to believe that he was ruined by his early experience when he had 65 Tests to correct his record. The sharper end of playing Test cricket was his downfall in the end.

For those who claim Hick was weak against pace, or technically unsound, witness his magnificent, faultless 172 against Ambrose, Patterson, Walsh and Bishop in 1988; or his mauling of Warne at the peak of his powers during a dominant 187 in 1993; both low pressure matches for Worcestershire at a time when touring games were still treated with respect.

The match against Warnie is famous for Warnie being deliberately prevented by AB from bowling all of his variations too.

As for other attacks, he had a pretty nasty weakness against spin too. Witness Mushie tying him up in knots in the 1992 WC final and the way Tim May (of all people!) toyed with him in 1993

I think Hick's biggest problem was that he played the man and not the ball. Aggressive types like Merv Hughes got to him and he got out to blokes like him so many times playing a shot which wasn't on just to release the pressure. Same with Ramps, really.

As for who was better, I'd rate Hick above Ramps. Was great to watch when he was going but it was torture to watch him when he was struggling because you just felt sorry for him.

 

[wpdavid]

(re Aus vs Worcestershire game in 1993) Would never believe that for a second. I know Warne didnt show much variation in that innings but he still tried his hardest.

Not sure about that. I read a piece, by Frank Keating where he described the whole thing as a piece of smart thinking by Alan Border. Warne was instructed to send down gentle leggies all day rather than unleash everything in his armoury. The idea wasn't to get Hick in the side though. It was simply to catch England unawares in the first test, as we'd never heard of the guy before. Of course, it would be interesting to read Warne or Border's take on the matter.

EDIT
Just spotted TC's piece above.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hick came to Australia with a huge reputation, well before he had played tests, to play for Queensland

Within weeks, word had gone out that he couldnt play pace.

Sorry, the guy destroyed mediocre bowlers but was below the top level.

Ramp's problems, on the other hand, seemed all in the mind

Technically, he had it all but cracked under pressure

My favourite memory of Hick is Merv firing up when he came in and bouncing him out.

 

[DaRick]

Would never believe that for a second. I know Warne didnt show much variation in that innings but he still tried his hardest.

He deliberately only bowled his legbreak during that innings, IIRC, under orders from Allan Border (AB). He was basically holding back, in other words.

BTW, I've always thought of Graeme Hick as being superior, in terms of talent and also, ultimately, international results. Sadly, both players, although highly talented, had severe issues with temperament for at least a significant part of their careers. Who knows how good they could've been had either had the temperament to back up their talent?

 

[Son Of Coco]

For those who claim Hick was weak against pace, or technically unsound, witness his magnificent, faultless 172 against Ambrose, Patterson, Walsh and Bishop in 1988; or his mauling of Warne at the peak of his powers during a dominant 187 in 1993; both low pressure matches for Worcestershire at a time when touring games were still treated with respect.

Hick failed, of course, to realise the potential everyone thought he had, in those pre-England days, when he bestrode the cricket world like a colossus, mercilessly putting attacks to the sword in a beautiful fusion of brutality and majestic timing, placement and sheer power.

Jesus Christ!

Are you back from your 'private place' yet?

I'm not sure mauling Warne is an example of his not being weak against pace.

 

[Richard]

Sheeysh, there's some nonsense in this thread.

Completely and totally wrong to say neither Hick nor Ramprakash ever had Test match success - amz has already alluded to Hick's run between 1992/93 and 1995/96. I've done it before, but I'll do it again - Ramprakash averaged just under 37 when not opening in the second half of his career, and was dropped on the only two occasions he had a really bad series, the latter of which was justifiable, the former eminently not so - excluding these two series, both against New Zealand, it's 41.02. Ramprakash's run is not as impressive as Hick's, but he scored runs against everyone he faced except New Zealand, over a period of 29 Tests spanning 4-and-a-half years.

Also find myself getting a little annoyed with suggestions Ramprakash raised his game against Australia - as pointed-out, he had success against everyone except New Zealand after raising his game in 1997. Before his raising of the game, he'd done the hard work and not kicked-on in his debut series (27, 27, 24, 13, 21, 29, 25, 25, 19 against West Indies), then endured the most horrible trot imagineable (14 matches, 24 innings, average of 14.04 against all-comers, with just 2 Tests against Australia). Like Mark Butcher, Ramprakash's career needs to be split chronologically before splitting by anything else.

Hick couldn't play the short, quick stuff? Anyone suggesting this held true over his entire career doesn't have a clue what they're on about. Hick cured this problem in 1994 and scored runs against high-class seam-bowlers aplenty from then on. The problems he had from 1996 onwards were all temperamental - plus a little misfortune, in that John Crawley (someone few would claim worthy of lacing his boots) got into the side and played well enough to hold a spot just when Hick should've been getting back in. Also, it'd probably be good if you were stupid enough to think Hick could never play the short quick stuff all his career to look at his innings at The WACA in 1998/99 - smashed (for just a couple of hours - but that was a damn sight more than most lasted) to the leg-side boundaries the sort of bowling that virtually no-one in that match coped with.

Hick, of course, was a brilliant ODI player, England's second-best of the modern era. Ramprakash was not. It annoys me in the extreme how few people seem to remember just how good Hick was at ODIs, especially when a hell of a lot of distinguished Test batsmen have been nowhere near as good.

One good comparison is Hick and Michael Bevan. Both far, far too good to have technical problems with the short-ball haunt them all their careers, and indeed both got better. England's side was weak enough for Hick to get back in it and show his improvement, which he did. Australia's was not, and Bevan was unfortunate enough never to get another go after 1997.

Ramprakash it's harder to find an Australian to make the comparison with - nearest I could come would be Greg Blewett. And even he was more technical than temperamental. Ramprakash's problems were completely and totally, 100% in the mind.

Very conceivable to me that Hick's problems could have been virtually obliterated had Duncan Fletcher had the England coach's job in 1996 rather than 1999 and had John Crawley had a bad game or two rather than a good game or two in 1996. Ramprakash, as I say, I feel could easily have kicked-on had he simply not been dropped in 1999/2000.

What seems like an ocean can often be a mere creek.

Oh, yeah - who was better? Hick, easily. Who could have been better if they'd both done as they might? Hick, almost certainly.

 

[tooextracool]

Hick came to Australia with a huge reputation, well before he had played tests, to play for Queensland

Within weeks, word had gone out that he couldnt play pace.

Sorry, the guy destroyed mediocre bowlers but was below the top level.

Seems ironic then that Hick managed to average almost 48 while playing for Queensland. It seems to me that his abilities or rather inabilities against pace are grossly exaggerated larhely because of his weaknesses against certain bowlers like Waqar Younis or Mushtaq Ahmad. The basic fact however is that he tonked around some of the best fast bowlers in international cricket for a consistent period of over 3 years, something that Ramprakash and many others could not manage.

 

[tooextracool]

What's more disappointing? Someone like Hick, who on his day could dominate, but clearly wasn't up to it technically when facing the higher class attacks

Thats highly debatable and probably a comment that has very little factual evidence to back it up. If scoring runs against WI, SA and Aus away from home in the mid 90s doesnt count as higher class pace attacks then im not sure what will.

 

[tooextracool]

The match against Warnie is famous for Warnie being deliberately prevented by AB from bowling all of his variations too.

As for other attacks, he had a pretty nasty weakness against spin too. Witness Mushie tying him up in knots in the 1992 WC final and the way Tim May (of all people!) toyed with him in 1993.

Hick was actually one of the best players of spin going around, no buts. Im sorry but he toyed with Warne and Kumble in their prime and he had no problems playing Murali either. As i said earlier, Hick had his own issues against certain bowlers, and many people exaggerated his weaknesses as being a black and white thing, ie if he cant play Waqar's banana swinging yorkers that he is impotent against pace and if he cant play Mushtaq's googly's then he is incapable of playing spin. Hick was a very very fragile personality, heck how many people would cry when they were not allowed to score a 100 in an Ashes game? When you combine that with the fact that he was always one game away from being dropped it would make most players cringe, let alone one that was as delicate in personality as Hick. I have little doubt that if Hick had played in the current era, he would have had little difficulty averaging in the 50s, because put simply he was that good.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hick was actually one of the best players of spin going around, no buts. Im sorry but he toyed with Warne and Kumble in their prime and he had no problems playing Murali either. As i said earlier, Hick had his own issues against certain bowlers, and many people exaggerated his weaknesses as being a black and white thing, ie if he cant play Waqar's banana swinging yorkers that he is impotent against pace and if he cant play Mushtaq's googly's then he is incapable of playing spin. Hick was a very very fragile personality, heck how many people would cry when they were not allowed to score a 100 in an Ashes game? When you combine that with the fact that he was always one game away from being dropped it would make most players cringe, let alone one that was as delicate in personality as Hick. I have little doubt that if Hick had played in the current era, he would have had little difficulty averaging in the 50s, because put simply he was that good.

So on one hand, he's a fragile personality but on the other, he's "that good" he would average 50+ now? I don't care how much people reckon it's easier to bat these days, a fragile personality will still get found out. There are reasons why he wasn't a dominant Test force and they can't all be explained, however debateable the explanation is, by the standard of bowling he faced in the 90's. As for being affected by being one game away from being dropped, surely truly great players remove that problem by doing so well it doesn't exist any more?

 

[tooextracool]

So on one hand, he's a fragile personality but on the other, he's "that good" he would average 50+ now? I don't care how much people reckon it's easier to bat these days, a fragile personality will still get found out. There are reasons why he wasn't a dominant Test force and they can't all be explained, however debateable the explanation is, by the standard of bowling he faced in the 90's. As for being affected by being one game away from being dropped, surely truly great players remove that problem by doing so well it doesn't exist any more?

It doesnt really take much to average 50+ these days, that is fairly obvious in anyones book. The quality of the bats, the flat pitches and various other factors mean that if you are good you should have no problems averaging 50. As far as Hick is concerned, NOONE, and i mean NOONE is capable of scoring runs in every series. The fact that he was often dropped after 1 poor series (sometimes not even that) despite what he had accomplished is beyond stupidity and bordering on conspiracy. Its largely equivalent to dropping Pietersen after his poor series in SL. Heck he was dropped even in ODIs while averaging nearly 40 and consistently being Englands best ODI player period. I do not doubt that Hick had his temperamental weaknesses. But the fact that someone even more mentally fragile as Steve Harmison can consistently mark down his place in the current England setup would inspire me with confidence that someone with far more talent in his little finger than Harmison would get a more consistent run in this day and age.
Hick wasnt a dominant test force? Well how many players averaged more than he did from the period 3 year period referred to by AMZ? If you are the best player in your side for 3 years in a row and you can still be dropped after 4 poor tests, or rather 6 innings, then that alone would dishearten any player, let alone one that came in with the reputation of being near as good as Don Bradman. Without the backing and confidence of your own board and selectors it is always going to be difficult to succeed. We hear day in and day out of the pressure that the likes of Tendulkar had to face as a result of 'carrying the nation on his shoulder' yet most people cannot sympathize with the unnecessary burden that was put on Hick before he had even started playing test cricket.

 

[social]

Before today, I didnt realise how poor Hick's test record is - averaging 31 in 65 tests is simply not good enough

Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists amongst us,nothing can camouflague the fact that he had any number of multiple test series where he average below 20 and quite a few where he averaged below 10.

The real questions should be:

1. 'how the hell did he play as many matches as he did?"

2. "how bad was county cricket?"

 

[Son Of Coco]

So on one hand, he's a fragile personality but on the other, he's "that good" he would average 50+ now? I don't care how much people reckon it's easier to bat these days, a fragile personality will still get found out. There are reasons why he wasn't a dominant Test force and they can't all be explained, however debateable the explanation is, by the standard of bowling he faced in the 90's. As for being affected by being one game away from being dropped, surely truly great players remove that problem by doing so well it doesn't exist any more?

Exactly, Justin Langer was a game away from being dropped for most of his career. He ended up retiring of his own volition. Mind you, Langer had a hell of a lot of guts.

 

[Richard]

Langer was never as close to being dropped as Hick was. In fact, between 1998/99 and 2006/07 Langer was dropped for a sum-total of 4 Tests. Plenty of times there were calls for him to be dropped, and the selectors refused.

 

[Richard]

Before today, I didnt realise how poor Hick's test record is - averaging 31 in 65 tests is simply not good enough

Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists amongst us,nothing can camouflague the fact that he had any number of multiple test series where he average below 20 and quite a few where he averaged below 10.

Yes, he did, and you'd be stupid to suggest the reason remained the same all career.

The real questions should be:

1. 'how the hell did he play as many matches as he did?"

Because he was obviously a highly capable player, and had a whole 3 year period where he showed these capabilities obviously. How the hell anyone can have missed that is beyond me.

2. "how bad was county cricket?"

No worse than domestic cricket anywhere, and better than in some places.

 

[social]

And how anyone could've missed that he failed faaaaaaaaaaar more than he succeeded is beyond me. Hence, the dismal career average

 

[Richard]

No-one has missed this. Some, though, have in fact missed the fact that the reasons for the first lot of failure and the second lot of failure were completely different.

 

[Top_Cat]

Langer was never as close to being dropped as Hick was. In fact, between 1998/99 and 2006/07 Langer was dropped for a sum-total of 4 Tests. Plenty of times there were calls for him to be dropped, and the selectors refused.

Yes but before that period he was barely anywhere near the side and when he did get a game, was dropped after one or a couple of matches so he was just like Hick but obviously Hick got many more opportunities. The only reason he was more difficult to drop in that period was because, unlike Hick, he was doing his job and scoring runs! Even then, when he was scoring, his place was being questioned by some. Had he been as inconsistent as someone like Hick, he would have been promptly dropped and his career between 1992-1999 shows this.

You're acting like 3 years is a short period of time. He had 65 Tests in total so did have an extended run at some stage. That's plenty of Tests to show at least some of the form at county level and guys who knew him and his game better than any of us decided it was enough. I was always very surprised that his results didn't reflect his style because he had the technique and looked the part of a top-class Test player. Obviously he was missing something and it would seem to have been between his ears.

 

[Richard]

But how many times? Hick did show some form, and some damn superb form, between 1992/93 and 1995/96, when he was barely out of the side. This consisted of not too far short of half his Test career. He scored runs, so he stayed in the team, just as Langer did more often than not 1998/99-2006/07.

Too many people - inexplicably so in some cases - seem under the illusion that he was never successful in the Test-match game. Yet he was, solidly, for 3 years. Successful to a level, I don't hesitate to suggest, that Justin Langer could only dream of.