Hick's record
WODGER
including the recent test series vs SA 1994.
Thanks.
Shamim Naqvi
> Although this is excellent news for England and Hick fans, I
> can't help feeling (especially as an Asian in England) that
> people like Nasser Hussein(Essex), Ramparkash (Middlesex) and
> Shahid (??) could also have made something of their careers,
> given (maybe) half the chance Hick got. But then I am a Pakistani
> and this is probably a biased view !! What do you all think ??
>
> Amir
>
> --
> Amir A. Husain
I think you have a biased view.
--
Shamim
THAMILSERAN, SABARATNAM
>This is not what the originator of this thread requested but I
>feel is relevent. According to Richie Benaud on BBC, Hick was
>averaging something like 18-19.0 in his first 20 matches or so.
>Then came the century against India in Bombay. Since then, he has
>been averaging something like 44.
>
>Although this is excellent news for England and Hick fans, I
>can't help feeling (especially as an Asian in England) that
>people like Nasser Hussein(Essex), Ramparkash (Middlesex) and
>Shahid (??) could also have made something of their careers,
>given (maybe) half the chance Hick got. But then I am a Pakistani
>and this is probably a biased view !! What do you all think ??
>
>Amir
Then there was guy named Gihan Mendis who wasn't even given a chance
to play a test match. Though he was used extensively in the
England A teams.
another biased view?
just an observation.
seran
>
>--
>Amir A. Husain
Syed M. Ali
]> This is not what the originator of this thread requested but I
]> averaging something like 18-19.0 in his first 20 matches or so.
]> Then came the century against India in Bombay. Since then, he has
]> been averaging something like 44.
From memory, the stats were as follows:
First phase:
Innings Runs Average
21 397 18.90
Then came century against India at Bombay
Second Phase
Innings Runs Average
28 1328 47.43
(I've included his innings of 81* against SA in the last test...before that his stats
in the second phase were:
28 1247 44.53 )
Finally....if we discount his last series agianst South Africa....his second phase
stats read:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
against SA:
G.A. Hick 3 6 1 110 S2 304 60.80 1 1 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Phase (from first century against India till before the SA series)
Innings Runs Average
23 1024 44.52
]> Amir
So it appears that Hick has been performing quite decently ever since he
scored his first ton against India at Bombay. He constantly maintained an average of
44 or so in his post-maiden-century phase till before the South Africa series, and
has improved it to 47.43 at the end of the series.
Personally I think that Hick's future depends a lot on the Australian
tour...if he passes this test, IMO, it will do loads of good to his confidence, and
then we might, just might, see him perform in test cricket as he's done in the county
cricket :-) Who knows....it's cricket after all.....
Syed
--
© «Syed M. Ali»
Michael-John Turner
> can't help feeling (especially as an Asian in England) that
> people like Nasser Hussein(Essex), Ramparkash (Middlesex) and
> Shahid (??) could also have made something of their careers,
> given (maybe) half the chance Hick got. But then I am a Pakistani
> and this is probably a biased view !! What do you all think ??
>
number of chances he has, based largely on his impressive performances at
County level. But above his lack of runs during his first 20+ Tests, I think he
should have been dropped simply because his technique wasn't good enough at the
top level. Even now, although he is scoring runs, I see problems. Anyone can
make runs when you are being fed long hops and half volleys, as SA consistently
bowled to Hick during the crucial first hour of his innings, but as soon as the
bowling became tighter, Hick looked less impressive. I am still to be convinced
that Hick is anywhere near being a great player, although he is a great talent.
Justin (using a friend's account, so please address any mail to me)
--
\ \ _ ______ |
\ Michael-John Turner \ / \___-=0`/|0`/__|
\ trnm...@uctvax.uct.ac.za \_______\Team OS/2 / | / )
/ University of Cape Town, / `/-==__ _/__|/__=-|
/ South Africa / * \ | |
/ / (o)
Michael-John Turner
> Hick's trademark innings has been a wobbly start, the odd chance here
> or there, one or two great shots off horrible balls in a slow, less than
> deliberate approach to about 40 when he plays a terrible shot and gets out.
As I have pointed out on the network before, Hick is a pretty ordinary player
(by Test standards) against really quality bowling. Anyone can hit wide long
hops and half volleys, which Hick received in abundance in th early part of
every innings he played against SA. But when the bowling became tighter, Hick
struggled, even when his eye was in and he should have been quite comfortable.
My biggest criticism of Hick is that you always think you've got a chance to
get him out, even when he has reached fifty. As you point out, very often this
is due to a really poor shot.
The West Indies showed that if you consistently bowl straight against Hick,
giving him no width, he's pretty clueless!
I still think Gatting and Fairbrother are better choices for the middle order
spots.
Julian Jones
> The West Indies showed that if you consistently bowl straight against Hick,
> giving him no width, he's pretty clueless!
You obviously haven't seen much of Hick batting. He doesn't tend to rely on
width, he prefers overpitched straight bowling that he can drive through
mid-on and mid-off. If it's a spinner, he will try and hit over the top.
Hick averaged 33 against the West Indies. Not brilliant, but hardly
"clueless". There's plenty of great batsmen who have fared worse
in a tour over there.
Julian
Sadiq Yusuf
>Michael-John Turner (trnm...@uctvax.uct.ac.za) wrote:
>
>> The West Indies showed that if you consistently bowl straight against Hick,
>> giving him no width, he's pretty clueless!
>
>You obviously haven't seen much of Hick batting. He doesn't tend to rely on
>width, he prefers overpitched straight bowling that he can drive through
>mid-on and mid-off. If it's a spinner, he will try and hit over the top.
>
Exactly. He's a particularly fine driver of the ball, and hits
amazing straight sixes off the spinners (hit some terrific shots in
India v/s spin, mostly straight).
>Hick averaged 33 against the West Indies. Not brilliant, but hardly
>"clueless". There's plenty of great batsmen who have fared worse
>in a tour over there.
>
Actually, he averaged 35.11 :-) 316 runs in 9 innings. It was
far from clueless - in the first test, for example, he scored 96 out of
267 for England in a losing cause, and was 8th out. And had a crucial 59
in the 4th test at Barbados, with the bowlers firing on all cylinders,
to set up an England win.
There are indeed plenty of great batsmen who have done worse on
WI tours. Anyone know what Gatting's average was in WI ? :-)
BTW, nice to see Richie Beanaud quoting statistics and
expressing opinions that some of us had been brandishing and expressing
2 months ago on rsc :-) Wonder if 'ol Rich has been keeping up with his
newsgroups :-) ( If ya have, how 'bout a prize, eh, Richie ? I'll take
that wonderful cruise for two in the spacious Jeep in the floating barge
:-)
Sadiq [ who, unfortunately, is only paraphrasing 12th man :-) ] Yusuf
>
>Julian
--
Amir A. Husain
>You obviously haven't seen much of Hick batting. He doesn't tend
>to rely on
.
.
> There's plenty of great batsmen who have fared worse
in a tour over there.
>Julian
Yes Julian but the point is how long have we waited for Hick to
come true and how many test match results may have been different
had he found form earlier.
A case in point is Graeme Thorpe or even Devon Malcolm. They may
not be as famous as Hick at the county level but they have
delivered at the test level, where it really counts.
Amir
--
Amir A. Husain
***************
When the finger points at the moon, the idiot looks at the
finger. (Anonymous)
Don Hughes
>>
>>> The West Indies showed that if you consistently bowl straight against Hick,
>>> giving him no width, he's pretty clueless!
>>
>>You obviously haven't seen much of Hick batting. He doesn't tend to rely on
>>width, he prefers overpitched straight bowling that he can drive through
>>mid-on and mid-off. If it's a spinner, he will try and hit over the top.
>>
>
> Exactly. He's a particularly fine driver of the ball, and hits
>amazing straight sixes off the spinners (hit some terrific shots in
>India v/s spin, mostly straight).
>
>
>>Hick averaged 33 against the West Indies. Not brilliant, but hardly
>>"clueless". There's plenty of great batsmen who have fared worse
>>in a tour over there.
>>
>
> Actually, he averaged 35.11 :-) 316 runs in 9 innings. It was
>far from clueless - in the first test, for example, he scored 96 out of
>267 for England in a losing cause, and was 8th out. And had a crucial 59
>in the 4th test at Barbados, with the bowlers firing on all cylinders,
>to set up an England win.
> There are indeed plenty of great batsmen who have done worse on
>WI tours. Anyone know what Gatting's average was in WI ? :-)
The fact of the matter is that since 1992, at which point Hick had
played just 11 tests, he has averaged 47 in test cricket (18 tests) with 2
centuries and 8 50s. This is a pretty good record by anyone's standards (if
still not "god-like"). The opposition during this period has been top class
as well - Windies quickies and Indian spinners, both at home, plus the
Australians and the SA pace attack. The only world rated attack he hasn't
faced is the Pakistanis.
The way in which he dominated the SA bowling in the second innings of the
3rd test might be an indication that he's regained the confidence of old and
that he's ready to play test atttacks the same way he's always played in county
cricket. Time will tell. In any case, with his ability to bowl decent off-spin
and his fielding talents, he should be able to hold his place in the England
side for some time to come. It would be another big boost to his confidence
if he didn't have to look over his shoulder all the time, waiting for the axe
to fall.
If indeed, his technical problems in the 90's relate to the poor quality of
pitches at Worcester, then he really should be ready to make up for lost time
at international level. After all, the more test cricket you play, the less
time you have to spend with your county team!
Michael-John Turner
> The way in which he dominated the SA bowling in the second innings of the
> 3rd test might be an indication that he's regained the confidence of old and
> that he's ready to play test atttacks the same way he's always played in county
> cricket. Time will tell. In any case, with his ability to bowl decent off-spin
> and his fielding talents, he should be able to hold his place in the England
> side for some time to come. It would be another big boost to his confidence
> if he didn't have to look over his shoulder all the time, waiting for the axe
> to fall.
>
statements regarding his increased confidence. One of the problems which has
faced many England cricketers is doubt as to the security of their positions
(remember Botham being offered the captaincy on a game-by-game basis vs
Australia in 1981). Ray Illingworth should tell Hick (and players like Thorpe
and Malcolm, for that matter) look, you are guaranteed a place in the Test
side, so make the most of it and show us what you can do. Hick shouldn't be
restricted by the belief that he HAS to perform to stay in the side - he should
rather be relaxed and encouraged to play his natural game. He still has time on
his side to establish himself as a truly great player.
Jawad Ali
Don Hughes <d...@cfmu.eurocontrol.be> wrote:
>In <33ml24$p...@news.iastate.edu> si...@iastate.edu (Sadiq Yusuf) writes:
>
>The fact of the matter is that since 1992, at which point Hick had
>played just 11 tests, he has averaged 47 in test cricket (18 tests) with 2
>centuries and 8 50s. This is a pretty good record by anyone's standards (if
>still not "god-like"). The opposition during this period has been top class
>as well - Windies quickies and Indian spinners, both at home, plus the
>Australians and the SA pace attack. The only world rated attack he hasn't
>faced is the Pakistanis.
Here is how he did against the Pakistanis in the summer of 92.
[I think you are talking of his streak since then]
c Miandad b. Waqar 51
c Miandad b. Waqar 13
lbw b. Mushtaq 11
b. Aaqib 22
b. Waqar 1
Thats a total of 98 runs at an average of 19.60 [CI]
j n a
Shamim Naqvi
> In article <CvADq...@cfmu.eurocontrol.be>,
> Don Hughes <d...@cfmu.eurocontrol.be> wrote:
> >In <33ml24$p...@news.iastate.edu> si...@iastate.edu (Sadiq Yusuf) writes:
> >
> >The fact of the matter is that since 1992, at which point Hick had
> >played just 11 tests, he has averaged 47 in test cricket (18 tests) with 2
> >centuries and 8 50s. This is a pretty good record by anyone's standards (if
> >still not "god-like"). The opposition during this period has been top class
> >as well - Windies quickies and Indian spinners, both at home, plus the
> >Australians and the SA pace attack. The only world rated attack he hasn't
> >faced is the Pakistanis.
>
> Here is how he did against the Pakistanis in the summer of 92.
> [I think you are talking of his streak since then]
>
> c Miandad b. Waqar 51
This was at Edgbaston. Wasim did not play in this game and Ata was
playing his first test. Waqar was playing his first test after the
back injury that had kept him out of the World Cup. Hick faced exactly
8 balls from Waqar and was out caught in the gully fencing at a short
one.
> c Miandad b. Waqar 13
Lords test match. Hick caught at mid on going for a pull to a ball
that came much too fast from him.
> lbw b. Mushtaq 11
Second innings at Lords. BTW, CI has this wrong. This should read
"caught Moin bowled Mushtaq." Hick went forward to a leg break, the
ball pitched middle and turned, and Hick got an outside edge for a
catch at the wicket. It was Lamb who was LBW to Mushtaq.
> b. Aaqib 22
Old Trafford. Aaqib bowled him off a yorker in the first innings.
> b. Waqar 1
Headingley. Hick did not get into line at all.
Hick was dropped for the 5th test at The Oval.
>
> Thats a total of 98 runs at an average of 19.60 [CI]
>
> j n a
--
Shamim
Michael-John Turner
>
> You obviously haven't seen much of Hick batting. He doesn't tend to rely on
> width, he prefers overpitched straight bowling that he can drive through
> mid-on and mid-off. If it's a spinner, he will try and hit over the top.
>
too many overpitched deliveries!!! Seriously, though, Hick does have the
ability to score through the "V", but I don't entirely agree with your
assessment. From what I've seen of Hick, he prefers driving off the back-foot
or cutting square of the wicket. One would have thought this would be useful
against the West Indies.
> Hick averaged 33 against the West Indies. Not brilliant, but hardly
> "clueless". There's plenty of great batsmen who have fared worse
> in a tour over there.
I'm not sure whether you refer to his overall average, or just to the most
recent tour to the Caribbean. I would have thought his overall average would
have been lower after his disasterous performances against the Windies in
England in 1991. It was this series I was referring to when I said Hick was
clueless - it was really embaressing watching him bat. Incidentally, I would
have said that WI attack was better than the one England faced this year.
Regards
Julian Jones
> Yes Julian but the point is how long have we waited for Hick to
> come true and how many test match results may have been different
> had he found form earlier.
> A case in point is Graeme Thorpe or even Devon Malcolm. They may
> not be as famous as Hick at the county level but they have
> delivered at the test level, where it really counts.
> Amir
I agree that it was a long wait for Hick to start producing the
goods. If you consider that the turning point was his century in
Bombay then it was 14(?) tests. Since then, with an average of 45
in tests, he has more than earned his place in the side. It would
have been nice if he performed from day one but it just didn't
happen. With somw players you just have to perservere - Inzaman of
Pakistan is another example. His series against England in 1992 was
like Hicks against WI in 1991, but now he's become a world-class
batsman.
Julian
Sadiq Yusuf
While posting the Hooper piece ( "A Word in the ear of Carl
Hooper"), I mentioned that I'd like to see Hooper make a lot of runs
against India. In saying that, Iam almost exactly in the same position
as the young Neville Cardus was with regard to Victor Trumper, and
believe I shall adopt his method as a solution :-)
****************************************
Sometimes I got myself into difficult positions with God. There
was Victor Trumper, for example, next to McLaren and Spooner my most
adored. He was an Australian and I was a patriotic English lad. I wanted
him to always score a century, but I also wanted England to get him out
first ball and win the match. Obviously, I realized, it would be
unreasonable to expect God to do for me these two things at one and the
same time; for even He could not make Trumper score a century and be
defeated first ball; there were, I knew, limits to Divine Power, and I
was reasonable enough not to embarrass God, so I reflected carefully
about it, and presented my petition in the most accomodating terms I
could think of : "Please, God, let Victor Trumper score a century today
for Australia against England - out of a total of 137 all out."
********************************************
Good old Cardus. Once again, hits the nail exactly on the head.
Now, replace Trumper with Hooper, add on a further plea that 36 of the
remaining runs be scored by Lara, preferably with 9 cover drives for
boundaries, and you have my daily prayer to the Lord, uttered every
night for the next 4 months :-)
Sadiq [ Neville Cardus groupie ] Yusuf
--
C.Egerton
>played just 11 tests, he has averaged 47 in test cricket (18 tests) with 2
>centuries and 8 50s.
Don, you're playing with statistics here or at least using them to make Hick
look better than he has been. Let me put the reverse over...since he got back
from India (apparently his breakthrough tour), his three Tests against Australia
nd the five against West Indies showed one clear correlation whatever his score
- nervy batting ending in an awful shot to get out.
This is a pretty good record by anyone's standards (if
>still not "god-like"). The opposition during this period has been top class
>as well - Windies quickies and Indian spinners, both at home, plus the
>Australians and the SA pace attack.
The point is though he has consistently failed to produce the high-scoring
innings that he has had the opportunities to, with of course the exceptions of
his India/SA centuries. HIs 80 at the Oval against Australia should have been
a lot more, but as he has done time and time again, he got out to a lousy shot.
People have compared him to Gower in that he always gives the bowler a chance,
but the comparison comes from two diverging sources - Gower played with
confidence at the wide balls thinking he could hit everything for four. Hick's
temperament is all wrong.
Now I grant you now he is suddenly making runs - the number of runs
a man of his Test experience should be making now. But he hs to sustain this
form in Australia to prove beyond reasonable doubt he's a true Test batsman.
Hick's average doesnt indicate how scrappily he's played or for that matter,
how many chances he's been given. He is without doubt the cricketing equivalent
to John Barnes.
The only world rated attack he hasn't
>faced is the Pakistanis.
With respect, he has and W&W made mincemeat of him.
>The way in which he dominated the SA bowling in the second innings of the
>3rd test might be an indication that he's regained the confidence of old and
>that he's ready to play test atttacks the same way he's always played in county
>cricket. Time will tell. In any case, with his ability to bowl decent off-spin
>and his fielding talents, he should be able to hold his place in the England
>side for some time to come. It would be another big boost to his confidence
>if he didn't have to look over his shoulder all the time, waiting for the axe
>to fall.
Hang on a minute, you're over-reacting again. 1. Hick made no big score
in the first innings at either the Oval or Headingley. This is when you
need your batsmen to make runs...there's no point in making tons, if you're
bowled out for 150 first up
2. Two Tests are no sign of any confidence returning, particularly when
you consider the circumstances of the Oval and Headingley big scores. A one-day
style knock at Leeds when the emphasis was on runs not occupation of crease,
and an Oval innings where Gooch and Atherton had done most of the hard work. I
grant you though this Oval innings was a lot better than most of Hick's previous
Test innings.
3. Hick is NOT the all-rounder in the side on a regular basis and
should not be selected on his bowling/fielding talents. The all-rounder will
one of either Lewis, Cork or White. If Hick isnt making any runs, he should
be dropped. End of story
4. Hick got the runs after being told by Illingworth to pull his finger
out and get weaving. Illingworth is playing the right game...telling him to
concentrate on his game and nothing else, but if he cant stand the heat of the
Test arena....
Chris
C.Egerton
Michael-John Turner <trnm...@uctvax.uct.ac.za> wrote:
>One of the problems which has
>faced many England cricketers is doubt as to the security of their positions
>side, so make the most of it and show us what you can do. Hick shouldn't be
>restricted by the belief that he HAS to perform to stay in the side - he should
>rather be relaxed and encouraged to play his natural game. He still has time on
>his side to establish himself as a truly great player.
>
Illingworth has told Hick to sort it out. You cannot say to a player, even one
with problems of temperament as Hick, "you are guaranteed a place in the side".
If he continues with his Oval/Headingley form he's go nothing to worry about.
If not, Hick better take plenty of holiday snaps cause this'll be the last time
he goes abroad with England for a while.
Chris
John M. Yelton
in the team. The philosphy has been, choose your class players and
stick by them. He has been dropped several (3 I think) times, but
always been recalled. The reasons for giving him more chances than
anyone else are:
1. His spectacular first-class average, now down to the high 50's.
Compare with Ramprakash, H.Morris, J.Morris etc. (all around 40).
2. His general usefulness - he still averages well over a catch a match.
Unfortunately his reputation got spoiled on the WI tour, but he seems
back to his best now.
3. His bowling, when England rarely have an off-spinner worth playing,
gives a change of pace. An extra bowler is always useful to
keep the batsmen quiet whilst the quickies are having a rest.
4. And this one seems to have passed netters by, he has been a success
from day one in LOI. Last I saw, his LOI average was around 40 (compare
with other middle order batsmen such as Border and Gower with
averages of around 30). He also has scored his runs fast. This means 2
things. Firstly in picking your tour team you look at the best LOI
team not just the best test team, and Hick has fully earned his place in
that. Secondly, I know the games are different, and some players
are more naturally inclined towards one of them, but it difficult in the
long-term for a batsman to average more in LOI than tests. Lamb
averaged a few more, and I know that there are more, but an average of 40
in LOI over 30 odd games implies to me that he can score runs against
the best players, and he will eventually score runs in tests.
By the same token Fairbrother, who has looked good in LOI could still make
it in tests. His career seemed to take a step back when he took on the
captaincy of Lancashire (a move doomed from the start - when he took
over temporarily from Hughes Lancashire immediately started losing). He
now seems back on the tracks, and I'd like to see him in Australia.
Pity now that he's the wrong side of 30. Fairbrother rather than Gatting,
I hope!
John Yelton