Graeme Hick V Mark Ramprakash

[mr_mister]

i say we kickstart this debate

 

[ch00baka]

I'll go with Hick. Tough choice though.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'm with ch00ey

 

[fredfertang]

I can remember being utterly convinced that Ramps should be selected for the Oval '09 - the selectors disagreed and gave Trott a debut - shows how little I know

 

[Pothas]

Still do genuinely wonder how Ramps could have done if he had come back in 2006 or something.

 

[mr_mister]

I was also hoping against hope he would get a run '09. The last of the '90s warriors back for one last hurrah. Would have been amazing and he averaged pretty well against Australia when they had McGrath and Warne so who knows he might have tore it up.

 

[91Jmay]

Ramps was better batsmen all in, but Hick made more of his international chances I think.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Guess the better question is not who was the better batsman but which of the two was the bigger letdown given their undoubted talent?

I guess Hick being a very good ODI player of his era helps people think he was better than Ramps though Ramprakash had a ridiculous record against Australia given his career one.

 

[Minion]

Not been a fan of Hicks since my visit to Alabama in 07. Rampant rakish it is.

 

[mr_mister]

i always get a kick out of reading this thread. the extent to which Richard defends Hick is amazing

 

[Red]

Ramprakash and Hick are both truly baffling. First class averages of 53 and 52 respectively, but test averages of only 27 and 31. And both played PLENTY of tests and FC matches.

That's a huge discrepancy. What does it boil down to? Were Country Cricket attacks just woeful in that era?

 

[Burgey]

Both are proof Cricket is played 95% between your ears.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Are both still batting coaches for Australia and England respectively?

Both failing at test level in that too... :

 

[AndrewB]

Ramprakash and Hick are both truly baffling. First class averages of 53 and 52 respectively, but test averages of only 27 and 31. And both played PLENTY of tests and FC matches.

That's a huge discrepancy. What does it boil down to? Were Country Cricket attacks just woeful in that era?

Here are the Test and FC averages for the other England batsmen who played 30+ Tests alongside Hick or Ramprakash (or both):

Stewart 39 Test, 40 FC
Atherton 37 Test, 40 FC
Smith 43 Test, 41 FC
Hussain 37 Test, 42 FC
Thorpe 44 Test, 45 FC

 

[a massive zebra]

Ramprakash and Hick are both truly baffling. First class averages of 53 and 52 respectively, but test averages of only 27 and 31. And both played PLENTY of tests and FC matches.

That's a huge discrepancy. What does it boil down to? Were Country Cricket attacks just woeful in that era?

If that was a credible explanation then proven Test players like Alec Stewart, Robin Smith and Graham Thorpe should have torn it up in county cricket. Actually, Ramprakash and Hick were clearly more successful than these three at the first class level.

 

[fredfertang]

Made their Test debuts together of course, in that game against West Indies when Gooch got his extraordinary 154 not out

Burgey has clearly nailed it, and that West Indies game was an indication of what was to come. Neither of them looked at home although both (especially Ramprakash) batted tenaciously, but they just couldn't get going. Both of them (Hick especially) had their good days, but even then you got the impression they weren't particularly confident and they certainly didn't have the imperious look about them that they both had when they were playing for their counties

 

[Daemon]

Its no secret that English cricketers are largely born mediocre. If the other countries (except for Australia) had the sort of facilities and infrastructure that the English do they'd be miles ahead.

The proof is in the U19 WCs when cricketers are still raw. England has a win percentage that is 7th(!) out of all nations, even behind Bangladesh. They won the cup only once, two decades ago, and haven't ever made the finals apart from that year. Damning evidence.

Another example is Kevin Pietersen. Wasn't great in SA, but his career exploded after he was exposed to the professional English environment.

Plenty of other cricketers have seen their game improve tremendously after playing in England. Yet the English themselves are unable to take advantage of the facilities and consistently produce mediocre players.

 

[Burgey]

Burgey has clearly nailed it

He always does.

 

[fredfertang]

Another example is Kevin Pietersen. Wasn't great in SA, but his career exploded after he was exposed to the professional English environment.

Yet there are many who do/have blamed the 'comfort zone' in the county game for keeping standards low, although I seem to recall Justin Langer being surprised at how high standards were when he had his stint at Somerset

 

[cnerd123]

I don't think English cricket has that large a talent pool to begin with, what with being seen as primarily an elitist sport and the best young athletes choosing a career in Football instead.