Graeme Hick V Mark Ramprakash

[GIMH]

So, being a sheep and following recent trends, this one is perhaps a little different.

Who was the better Test batsman out of two of English Cricket's biggest disappointments?

 

[Jono]

Maybe we should argue who was the better domestic batsman? That could be more interesting...

 

[GIMH]

You're probably right. In all reality, maybe I should have put first-class, I think Hick would win a one-day poll quite resoundingly.

Would edit my post but can't edit the poll.

 

[Anil]

neither was world class in tests, hick was a pretty good one day player for some time...he also used to be the most overrated player ever...

 

[Goughy]

Ramps could have been a very good Test player, however Hick could have been a great.

Obviously it didnt work out for either but Hick still has a better record.

Hick was a different class to Ramprakash, and Ramps was pretty decent as well.

I cant see how its possible to make any conclusion that Ramps was better on any level.

 

[Jono]

Both great surnames I might also add.

 

[Isaac C]

Sorry I didn't realise that this was the best test batsman thread. Neither Hick or Ramprakash did anything in test cricket. Hick was given far to many opportunities to perform; Ramprakash has been a consistently high scorer in domestic cricket but like Hick hasn't transferred it to the test arena and has found the step up to high.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Hick....and yes i would say that even if it wasnt true

 

[chasingthedon]

Zola Budd

Maybe if Hick had the benefit of the Zola Budd treatment, i.e. 30 days to citizenship or whatever it was, he would have been a great Test batsman.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's interesting, actually. Both clearly extremely talented players who debuted in the same test (Ramprakash with somewhat less fanfare) & who never quite made it at the highest level; test averages of (from memory) 31 & 27 don't do justice to either. I voted for Hick, because he did slightly better overall. One can't help but wonder if the diffident Hick would've faired rather better under his fellow Rhodesian Fletcher a few years later than he did during the rather less sympathetic Illingworth regime. Whatever his virtues as a captain & tactician, Raymond had some very odd ideas about cricket at times (inexplicably preferring Joey Benjamin & Martin McCague to Gus Fraser for our 94/5 Ashes squad, for instance) and clearly had little truck with the "arm-round-the-shoulder" school of man-management. One suspects that for a lot of his career Hick felt one innings away from the arse.

Ramps's failings are, if anything, rather harder to explain. He seems possessed of a self-confidence that Hick lacked and his defensive technique against the very best bowlers was sounder. It's worth noting that he averages 42 against Australia, so he obviously has the requisite class. If I were to venture an opinion, he possibly became too obsessed with survival almost to the exclusion of scoring (his strike rate of 36 is considerably slower than the 48 of Hick) and was unable to cash in against the weaker attacks.

 

[social]

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

 

[Jono]

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

What's worse though?

 

[Isaac C]

I think technically Hick didn't have the answers to world class bowlers.

 

[social]

What's worse though?

Probably a toss up!

There are times when I've watched Hick and thought that this guy is an absolute destroyer

On the other hand, it's not all about how you look

Based on test quality attacks, Ramps was probably the bigger disappointment

Based on playing me, give me Ramps every time (result would be the same, Hick would simply be more brutal in his 200+++)

 

[Jono]

Perhaps I should have rephrased the question.

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, or someone like Ramprakash, who probably did have the technique and game to be at least a good test batsman, but failed due to what was obviously a mental weakness.

What would frustrate you more as an English cricket fan?

 

[a massive zebra]

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.

For those who claim Hick was a minnow basher, witness his extended period of success during his only regular run in the side – between the start of 1993 and the conclusion of the ‘95/96 South Africa tour, a period in which he played Australia, West Indies, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa – Hick averaged 45.

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.

 

[Anil]

i forget the match but an abiding image of hick for me has been him looking absolutely clueless against mushie, don't know if that kind of discomfort was solely because of not being able to handle pressure...the guy was hyped up as the 2nd coming of bradman before he started playing international cricket and maybe he started believing it himself but for most of his career, he looked like he couldn't handle fast or quality spin bowling and as for the reasons, be it technical deficiences or lack of temperament or inability to handle pressure or more likely a combination of the three...

 

[masterblaster]

Got to go with Mark Ramprakash on this one. Those innings he played against Australia were terrific. I've always found him to be the more elegant and graceful of the two as well. That being said, Graeme Hick was the far suprior limited overs batsman. But overall, in terms of who I liked to watch more that would be Mark Ramprakash.

 

[Burgey]

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.

For those who claim Hick was a minnow basher, witness his extended period of success during his only regular run in the side – between the start of 1993 and the conclusion of the ‘95/96 South Africa tour, a period in which he played Australia, West Indies, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and South Africa – Hick averaged 45.

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.

Maybe they wee playing him into the test side?

Seems to me he was England's Michael Bevan. Bevan struggled against the short stuff at test level (against England of all teams) yet he amassed a huge FC record against all comers in Australia. Sometimes players just can't step up at the highest level, despite having the raw talent to do so. It's a shame, because I always find that sort of thing sadder to watch than someone who either isn't up to it on the basis of raw talent, or is just hopelessly out of form.

 

[Goughy]

Maybe they wee playing him into the test side?

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

Why try and play a guy like Hick into the team? Why not try and play in a real left field selection that was notches lower in Hick in talent?

Its too difficult to do and I dont believe Hick would be the guy targeted.