so he temporarily recovered for about about a couple of months, failed miserably in both forms(bar the odd game) and then coincidentally decided to take time off instead of playing the champions trophy thereafter? We can clearly presume that he was doing perfectly fine mentally during said period.
Believe it or not random occurences do happen. Occasionally natural talent and brilliance overcome mental frailities and hinderances. We've seen it with billions of players before, even your beloved mark ramprakash had a successful stint in test cricket.
Yes, he did - a sustained period, over a good few venues, too. Ramprakash, like Trescothick, managed to banish his problems.
The two cases are hardly comparable, in any case, as Trescothick has a genuine medical condition, unlike Ramprakash who just had a suspect temperament.
Trescothick was generally thought to have recovered (hindsight revealed it was temporary) in that ODI series.
so if we dropped Andrew flintoff right now it would be the righ decision then? Hey hes only had success for a few years, hes been miserable in his few tests, lets not forget how many years he was rubbish for. He needs to be dropped so that he doesnt take his place for granted. Do you agree?
No, I don't, and maybe I'd not have done in the Hick case had I followed the game so precisely in 1996 as I did now.
and hussain didnt have 3 years of unparalleled success in the england side either.
No, he didn't. And as such, maybe he might've been dropped in 1997 had he scored a massive number of single-figure scores in a row.
Err yes and thats what i argued.The selectors did treat Hick poorly by selecting Butcher(who was clearly not good enough at the time) and even made him bat at 3(which was hicks position). Stewart batting at 3 made no sense, but it clearly proves that it had nothing to do with not wanting him to open the batting and what not, because theres hardly much difference in terms of resting time after wicketkeeping for a keeper to bat either opening or at 3.
There patently is. The
idea of batting three is that you don't come in until the openers have played for a bit. I didn't agree with Stewart batting three, either, for that matter, but it is different to having him open.
and now you've gone full circle and call the same selectors who you said didnt treat Hick poorly as 'stupid' for not selecting hick over butcher? tsk tsk
How have I gone full circle? I've never said they made precisely zero errors.
and you think by bowling 20 odd overs that they put faith in his bowling ability? if they picked him for his bowling then he should have bowled far more than what he did, because the fact is that even hick can turn his arm over and would have probably bowled just as many overs had he played in the same number of tests at the time.
He would - Atherton evidently didn't rate his bowling, understandibly so, but that's different to
the selectors who pick the team having the bowling in mind
before the game.
you are once again using the hindsight for your selection reasoning. Its even more ridiculous than those that claim Pietersen should have played instead of Thorpe in the Ashes in 2005. Logically, when you have 2 players, one averaging 55 in county cricket with 3 years of brilliance in the test match arena, the other averaging 50 with not a single noteworthy international series, i know which one i would pick.
I'm using it to say I was happy enough with what happened. I'm not using it to say it was the right decision. As I say, though - Ramprakash had played a crucial innings in the final match of 1997. That, presumably, was what made the difference. Otherwise, Hick ahead of him would have been the only sensible choice. Yes, I know "so you'd prefer one innings over 3 years of brilliance"? Yes, if that one innings was recent enough and no more chances have been forthcoming recently, I would.
