Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by Ollinshe » Mon, 05 Aug 1996 04:00:00


Did anyone see Mr Hick's latest bating performance against Pakistan? A
quick delivery well pitched up - gone!!! He really is not up to it at the
international level. It's a shame as his county performances are superb,
but he is not test level material and it's about time the selectors
realised this.

Let me know what you think.

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by Stev » Mon, 05 Aug 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>Did anyone see Mr Hick's latest bating performance against Pakistan? A
>quick delivery well pitched up - gone!!! He really is not up to it at the
>international level. It's a shame as his county performances are superb,
>but he is not test level material and it's about time the selectors
>realised this.

They have...Hick has been replaced in the squad by Nasser Hussain.

Even his century in the first county match back after the Test was not
enough to save him

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by John Hal » Tue, 06 Aug 1996 04:00:00



Quote:

>says:

>>Did anyone see Mr Hick's latest bating performance against Pakistan? A
>>quick delivery well pitched up - gone!!! He really is not up to it at the
>>international level. It's a shame as his county performances are superb,
>>but he is not test level material and it's about time the selectors
>>realised this.

>They have...Hick has been replaced in the squad by Nasser Hussain.

well, Hussain has returned after injury and Crawley has also been
included. That gives England the option of going in with 6 batsmen if
they so choose.
Quote:

>Even his century in the first county match back after the Test was not
>enough to save him

He almost always looks good at county level, but so often seems to
"freeze" in Tests.
--
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
 Wernher von Braun

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by J.W. McCr » Thu, 08 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Yep its time for Hicky to play for zim.

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by Ian Didda » Thu, 08 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Did anyone see Mr Hick's latest bating performance against Pakistan? A
>quick delivery well pitched up - gone!!! He really is not up to it at the
>international level. It's a shame as his county performances are superb,
>but he is not test level material and it's about time the selectors
>realised this.

Hick is a member of that small band of "Englishmen" that somehow seem
to have been given a golden nod in terms of international selection;
that is, it would appeat that those at the top (whoever "they" may be)
have decided that player X will play for England, no matter how long
it takes for him to succeed (or not, as the case may be).

Another example of this trait was Gatting, who it must be said did
eventually succeed, and quite spectacularly, despite it taking almost
30 tests (or was that 30 test innings?) before scoring his first
century.

Other players, not benefitting from the selectors' golden pen, have
often only had one or two tests to make their mark before being
rejected back to the oblivion of county cricket.  Players to
especially suffer from this seem to be those selected after an injury
to an accepted test player - "score a ton/take 5 wickets, or you are
out" seem to be the message, with the double-whammy of "oh, he failed
last time so we won't pick him again" should that player's name ever
crop up again.

In Hick's case, he was seen as the new golden boy of English cricket,
that would provide the mountain of runs England's midlle order needed
to provide; he had to wait seven years to qualify for England and I
feel that the England selectors felt they had to give him as many
opportunities as it took in order to repay him (and themselves?) for
the long wait.

Didds.
Devizes RFC.
Disclaimer : The opinions expressed are solely those of the author.
             And are probably wrong anyway.

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by Geoff Leonar » Thu, 08 Aug 1996 04:00:00


m.isw.intel.com> writes

Quote:

>>Did anyone see Mr Hick's latest bating performance against Pakistan? A
>>quick delivery well pitched up - gone!!! He really is not up to it at the
>>international level. It's a shame as his county performances are superb,
>>but he is not test level material and it's about time the selectors
>>realised this.

>Hick is a member of that small band of "Englishmen" that somehow seem
>to have been given a golden nod in terms of international selection;
>that is, it would appeat that those at the top (whoever "they" may be)
>have decided that player X will play for England, no matter how long
>it takes for him to succeed (or not, as the case may be).

>Another example of this trait was Gatting, who it must be said did
>eventually succeed, and quite spectacularly, despite it taking almost
>30 tests (or was that 30 test innings?) before scoring his first
>century.

>Other players, not benefitting from the selectors' golden pen, have
>often only had one or two tests to make their mark before being
>rejected back to the oblivion of county cricket.  Players to
>especially suffer from this seem to be those selected after an injury
>to an accepted test player - "score a ton/take 5 wickets, or you are
>out" seem to be the message, with the double-whammy of "oh, he failed
>last time so we won't pick him again" should that player's name ever
>crop up again.

>In Hick's case, he was seen as the new golden boy of English cricket,
>that would provide the mountain of runs England's midlle order needed
>to provide; he had to wait seven years to qualify for England and I
>feel that the England selectors felt they had to give him as many
>opportunities as it took in order to repay him (and themselves?) for
>the long wait.

On the other hand, some seem to have a threat of removal from the team
permanently*** over them. Jack Russell is one of them and I suspect
he will be axed whatever his performance if England lose the next test.
He failed with the bat in the second innings of the last test (as did 6
or seven others) but it's always "Russell must go".   Please don't hand
back the gloves to Stewart.  He's starting to bat well again!
--
Geoff Leonard
 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by drvl » Thu, 08 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Easy.  Greame Hick is the third highly rated English batsmen in the Coopers & Lybrands rating.  
Only Mike Atherton and Greame Thorpe is above him.

For the current test match starting tommorow, they have dropped greame Hick.  Strangely this is
what they are going to do;

      - Open with Atherton and Stewart.  Fair enough.

      - Then they are going to have Hussian and Thorpe.  Fair enough.

      - At No.5 replacing Hick would be Nick Knight.  Now this is what I can't understand.

Throughout his test and county career Knight has played as opener or at No.3.  Isn't it bit
silly to expect someone who has no such experience to bat at no.5.

There is no doubt the No.5 spot should be Hick's.  O.K. he's had a bad few matches, but you get
that with players.  They have bad times, but the idea is to stick with you choice and show the
confidence.  You can not keep chopping and changing your team unless it's due to injury.  What
would good would this do to a players confidence.

Rus.

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by Mad Hami » Sat, 10 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Easy.  Greame Hick is the third highly rated English batsmen in the Coopers &

Lybrands rating.  >Only Mike Atherton and Greame Thorpe is above him.

And how many of the other batsmen have qualified for the ratings?
Stewart would have but has suffered from his time as a keeper.

Knight, Crawley and Hussain are still finding their ways at the top level,
although Hussain may have found his against India.

Quote:
>For the current test match starting tommorow, they have dropped greame Hick.  Strangely this is
>what they are going to do;
>      - Open with Atherton and Stewart.  Fair enough.
>      - Then they are going to have Hussian and Thorpe.  Fair enough.
>      - At No.5 replacing Hick would be Nick Knight.  Now this is what I can't understand.
>Throughout his test and county career Knight has played as opener or at No.3.  Isn't it bit
>silly to expect someone who has no such experience to bat at no.5.

Not really, they can adjust to 5 pretty easily. The real question is whether
he should be opening and Stewart coming in later as Stewart is suspect against
the ball moving in based upon his dismissals against India. OF course they may
figure that against W &W he's safer against the new ball than the old one.

Quote:
>There is no doubt the No.5 spot should be Hick's.  O.K. he's had a bad few matches, but you get
>that with players.

It's more accurate with Hick to say that he's had a few reasonable matches.

Quote:
>  They have bad times, but the idea is to stick with you choice and show the
>confidence.

Yep, keep playing the people who don't perform and drop those who do.

Quote:
>  You can not keep chopping and changing your team unless it's due to injury.

 What >would good would this do to a players confidence.

here's his career record before this summer
GA Hick            45   78   6  2664  178   37.00   4  15   60  -

so with 43 runs from 6 completed innings his average is now 34.70 if I recall
correctly (with flu that may be a bad bet though.

He's over 30 isn't he (after a 7 year residential period he'd have to be now)?
Is he really going to improve from here out?

He is a proven non-performer at test level and has always looked out of his
depth, unlike Hooper who is a proven test non-performer (or rare performer)
and always looked like he should be scoring massively.

****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by M.J.Ratcli.. » Sat, 10 Aug 1996 04:00:00

I think that another interesting question is "Why can't Hick play when
he's playing for England?". He clearly has so much ability and not many
people score 80-odd fc hundreds (or is he pushing up towards the 100 100s
by now?).

There is probably something in the "Flat-track bully" comment that IIRC
John Bracewell and others made, but Hick has destroyed top quality
bowlers at county level - remember the 172 or so against West Indies in
'88 when he needed a big hundred to get to 1000 runs in May.

I suspect that it is all to do with confidence, in a very similar way to
the way that we mortals who play at pub/village/club level can never play
as well in the middle as we do in the nets.

Max

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by Rod Sta » Sat, 10 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Seems to me that Hick responds well to being dropped every once in a while.  
Didn't they drop him for a game against WI last year and then he came back
much better?  (My memory may be wrong.)

England really need Hick, but, oddly enough, more for his bowling!  What I
mean is that in a situation where there's probably not much to choose between,
say, Hick, Crawley, etc., at least you get the extra bowling dimension with
Hick.  Without that (and in the sad absence of any other batting candidates
who could be called "useful" bowlers), you're always going to have the problem
of balancing the team.  The current test match is a case in point.  Only four
bowlers all of much the same type, and absolutely nothing else to try if
they're not being effective.  (I see Thorpe did bowl three overs--what does he
bowl?)

Rod

Quote:


>Subject: Re: Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 08:25:29 GMT
>I think that another interesting question is "Why can't Hick play when
>he's playing for England?". He clearly has so much ability and not many
>people score 80-odd fc hundreds (or is he pushing up towards the 100 100s
>by now?).
>There is probably something in the "Flat-track bully" comment that IIRC
>John Bracewell and others made, but Hick has destroyed top quality
>bowlers at county level - remember the 172 or so against West Indies in
>'88 when he needed a big hundred to get to 1000 runs in May.
>I suspect that it is all to do with confidence, in a very similar way to
>the way that we mortals who play at pub/village/club level can never play
>as well in the middle as we do in the nets.
>Max

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by J.W. McCr » Sat, 10 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Hicky is gone.

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by Nagesh Bhatc » Sat, 10 Aug 1996 04:00:00

: Another example of this trait was Gatting, who it must be said did
: eventually succeed, and quite spectacularly, despite it taking almost
: 30 tests (or was that 30 test innings?) before scoring his first
: century.

I think that even Graham Gooch can be included in the group. If I remember
correctly, Gooch had a pair on his debut against Lillee and the Aussies.
If one sees his record at the end of his career, it can be described as
extremely good.
I used to follow, Hick's performances over the years and had thought
that he would be one of the world's topmost batsman. I had always thought
that he should have played for Zimbabwe, which was then not full fledged
Test playing country. I sincerely hope though that he shows his true
colors some time in the near future.

Nagesh

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by John Hal » Sat, 10 Aug 1996 04:00:00



Quote:
>Seems to me that Hick responds well to being dropped every once in a while.  
>Didn't they drop him for a game against WI last year and then he came back
>much better?  (My memory may be wrong.)

>England really need Hick, but, oddly enough, more for his bowling!  What I
>mean is that in a situation where there's probably not much to choose between,
>say, Hick, Crawley, etc., at least you get the extra bowling dimension with
>Hick.  Without that (and in the sad absence of any other batting candidates
>who could be called "useful" bowlers), you're always going to have the problem
>of balancing the team.  The current test match is a case in point.  Only four
>bowlers all of much the same type, and absolutely nothing else to try if
>they're not being effective.  (I see Thorpe did bowl three overs--what does he
>bowl?)

Right-arm medium. The fact that England were reduced to bowling him
certainly tends to support your argument.
--
Three o'clock is always too late or too early for anything
you want to do.
 Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by Shankar Un » Sat, 10 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> I suspect that it is all to do with confidence

Or, as the guy in "The Gods must be crazy" said: "It's just an interesting
psychological phenomenon!"..

--

Chromatic Research                            (408) 752-9488

 
 
 

Why is Graham Hick still playing for England?

Post by Ian Didda » Wed, 14 Aug 1996 04:00:00

somebody wrote :

Quote:
>England really need Hick, but, oddly enough, more for his bowling!  What I
>mean is that in a situation where there's probably not much to choose between,
>say, Hick, Crawley, etc., at least you get the extra bowling dimension with
>Hick.

And IMHO its not much of a bowling option...  Hick can hardly be said
to add a dimension to the England bowling attack; he never ooks like
he's going to take wickets (hmmm...  same for some other England
bowlers!!) and I'd hate to thionk what his test bowling average is.

If Hick IS being selected as an all-rounder, then England are in a
worse state than I thought.

Didds.
Devizes RFC.
Disclaimer : The opinions expressed are solely those of the author.
             And are probably wrong anyway.