You might have to clarify that with numbers because to me, considering there were periods where Langer ranked top 5 in the batting rankings and, for that 3-year period, Hick (I think) averaged less than 50, I'd say Langer would feel pretty safe with his record.
Nonsense, it's a career that counts not an isolated period in an otherwise poor record
Hick averaged 48, and there was only one attack in there which could really be called "weak". It was rare for Langer circa 1998/99-2006/07 to face, never mind score against, bowlers of the calibre Hick scored against in this time. About the only occasions Langer scored runs against particularly good bowling-attacks were England in 1998/99 and 2005, and one innings against Sri Lanka in 2003/04, plus maybe another two at The WACA in 2004/05.
Langer had the better full career, but Hick's best period (which formed not far short of half his career) was good to a level Langer is extremely unlikely to have been capable of matching.
Yet you completely disregard Langer's performances over a longer time period against all manner of attacks. That's unfair, Richard. Hick had a decent run of form but averaging 48 over a period of 29 Tests was nothing unusual even for the time. No-one is disputing that Hick had rare physical and technical talent but, as so many players over the years have found, it takes more than that to succeed over a long period of time. Cherry picking his best period and using to say he was a better Test player than Langer, especially when he was so very ordinary otherwise, is unfair to Langer. Langer, easily the more accomplished Test player and most people would pick the less talented but far more productive bloke over the other if they actually wanted to win some games.
Why? Because he's less talented? Talent alone isn't enough. There's plenty in Langer's career to suggest he would have done just fine against the same attacks.
Whilst calmly ignoring the fact that Langer maintained an average of almost that for 105 tests
FFS. Langer's career is not being compared to Hick's career. I've already stated, as clearly as possible - Langer's Test career was indeed a better one than Hick's.haha, i can't believe langer is being compared to hick here..
I don't think there is. Langer always had limitations. He could and did on a few occasions conquer high-calibre seam-bowling, but still not as much and not to the extent that Hick briefly did. Langer was also almost always a pretty poor player of spin, like most WAns of his time.
Err - no, I didn't ignore it at all.
Both these statements are complete bull****. I've already shown that Hick was in fact clearly excellent for what amounts, if you can make simple calculations, to 44.6% of his Test career (and he shouldn't even have played the last 5 of his Tests, so it's 48.33% of what should have been his Test career). Hick's success was far more than "at some stage", it was for a very large amount of time. And if you're foolish enough to try to look at his career as one thing, not three separate stages, you will indeed fall victim to camoflauge. If, on the other hand, you understand cricket, you'll see that his career divides into a small first stage where he was technically inept, a considerable second where he was one of the best batsmen going around, and a disjointed third where he had some misfortune but could not work around this and never looked like being a Test-class batsman again.
langer is so ahead of hick that any comparison(peak or consistency or overall or whatever) becomes an utter joke...
That the attacks he faced were 'very powerful', is somewhat open to debate. He came up against India which had Kapil Dev very much at the end of his career and Kumble just starting, Sri Lanka at the time were pretty ordinary, Australia had Warne but were missing McDermott for most of the 1993 series which left them with Tim May, Paul Reiffel, Fleming and Merv; solid Test bowlers but far from greats, the WI which had Curtly and Courtney with the Benjamins for support and sometimes Ian Bishop so they were strong, the Saffies had Donald, Pollock, MacMillan, De Villiers, etc. so were relatively strong when not playing Australia (
).
Disagree that India and Australia weren't particularly strong (and he only played 2 innings against Sri Lanka which make little difference to the record). Kumble was excellent in that series regardless of whether it was his first (bar a one-off Test in England the previous time the two teams met), Kapil was still a pretty decent bowler right to the end of his career; and Reiffel, Fleming and Hughes were all good Test bowlers who could easily have had longer careers but for injury.That the attacks he faced were 'very powerful', is somewhat open to debate. He came up against India which had Kapil Dev very much at the end of his career and Kumble just starting, Sri Lanka at the time were pretty ordinary, Australia had Warne but were missing McDermott for most of the 1993 series which left them with Tim May, Paul Reiffel, Fleming and Merv; solid Test bowlers but far from greats, the WI which had Curtly and Courtney with the Benjamins for support and sometimes Ian Bishop so they were strong, the Saffies had Donald, Pollock, MacMillan, De Villiers, etc. so were relatively strong when not playing Australia (
I did consider the Pakistan attack of 1999/2000 TBH, and maybe that does deserve to be placed alongside the others. I've seen little of it and all I really remember is him getting that double-century where he received possibly the most outrageous let-off ever (not that it was an abnormally poor decision, but because the Umpire was blatantly trying to even-up an earlier mistake), and I also recall Waqar and Mushtaq being very poor.
But you still do Hick a disservice. 29 Tests over 3 years cannot be put down solely to being "in-form". That'd be the stuff of 7 Tests over 6 months.
No, it doesn't matter how far ahead a player is in one respect - comparisons can be offered if they're fair ones.
