Graeme Hick international career

[honestbharani]

I believe he could have been KP levels if he was managed better.

 

[Ali TT]

Looked at the list of bowlers who dismissed him the most in Test cricket, this is definitely borne out. Ambrose Walsh Younis Donald and at very low averages

He played 18/65 tests against the West Indies, so no surprise Walsh and Ambrose top that list.

 

[Line and Length]

I believe he could have been KP levels if he was managed better.

He lacked the confidence and outgoing nature of KP.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

He lacked the confidence and outgoing nature of KP.

That's a very polite way of describing KP's personality.

 

[peterhrt]

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

This innings took place on 28 May 1988. Hick went into the match with 847 first-class runs in the season so far. He needed 153 to reach a thousand before the end of May. Only Glenn Turner had achieved this since the war and nobody has repeated the feat since. Hick needed 11 innings, Turner 18. Only Grace and Bradman needed fewer. It may have been at this point that Hick's reputation was highest.

Among batsmen to feature regularly in the professional game only four have scored 200 centuries in all cricket including minor matches: Grace, Hobbs, Bradman and Hick.

 

[Silver Silva]

I dont think that his entire international career was a failure , he was very good in ODI cricket in fact before the recent England one day legends arrived he probably had a case of making Englands best ODI ever team as a batting allrounder in fact he would get in ahead of Moeen Ali imo.

 

[Ali TT]

Hick only played 37 T20s, but averaged 36 at an s/r of over 150. Would've been an absolute ATG at that format had it arrived a few years sooner.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Some interesting takes here. Reality lies a lot more toward the "He just wasn't good as Test-level cricket/couldn't perform under pressure" than the "he was actually really good just wasn't supported enough"

 

[mr_mister]

His ODI success is a bit hard to explain away though. Even did well in world cups where there was added pressure

I agree with the mismanagement theory. Bloke got dropped way too often

 

[BazBall21]

Hick was flat and leaden-footed, played with an angled bat and had ordinary reflexes. I think he just wasn't a good test batsman tbh. Not suited to facing high pace. Ramprakash is by far the bigger mystery as he had a great technique but fragile temperament.

 

[Coronis]

Some interesting takes here. Reality lies a lot more toward the "He just wasn't good as Test-level cricket/couldn't perform under pressure" than the "he was actually really good just wasn't supported enough"

I mean, its not like he played 20 tests or something. He played 65 tests (out of 106) and had ample opportunity to prove himself.

 

[peterhrt]

Hick was flat and leaden-footed, played with an angled bat and had ordinary reflexes. I think he just wasn't a good test batsman tbh. Not suited to facing high pace. Ramprakash is by far the bigger mystery as he had a great technique but fragile temperament.

Through the 1990s the English-qualified batsmen who county bowlers feared most (apart from Gooch) were Hick, Ramprakash and John Crawley. Far more so than their more successful counterparts in Test cricket: Atherton, Stewart and Thorpe.

 

[kevinw]

Well he certainly underachieved. Part of it down to his own temperament, some down to poor management. He was top wicket taker on a tour of India iirc ('92?). Probably a bit underbowled. Excellent one day cricketer. Certainly had a better international career than Ramps, and of course they debuted in the same Test with both having crazy high expectations.

 

[Coronis]

Well he certainly underachieved. Part of it down to his own temperament, some down to poor management. He was top wicket taker on a tour of India iirc ('92?). Probably a bit underbowled. Excellent one day cricketer. Certainly had a better international career than Ramps, and of course they debuted in the same Test with both having crazy high expectations.

Sadly there was never a test with Hick/Ramprakash/Bevan all playing together. Hick did play against Bevan though.

Bevan unlucky the Aussie team was far stronger and had no reason to persist with him.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

One of our best ODI players in an era when 92 World Cup apart we were pretty woeful and an underwhelming test career given his ability.

 

[jcas0167]

A lot of nonsense spouted in this thread, with people incorrectly assuming the current dynamics of county cricket applied 30 years ago. Today, county cricket is indeed dominated by 70mph swing bowlers. 30 years ago, this simply wasn't true. Many of the world's leading fast bowlers such as Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh regularly played full seasons of county cricket and topped the wicket taking and average stats in the county championship. Yet Hick still dominated county cricket of the late 80s and early 90s, with world class fast bowlers in many of the county teams.

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 under selection policies that bear no resemblance to the more consistent and faithful approach adopted by modern England teams. At the time, the England selectors showed zero faith in non established Test players, regularly dropped players after just one failure, and regularly got through anything up to 25 players over a 5 match Test series. 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 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 couldn't play fast bowling, huh? Anyone suggesting this held true over his entire career doesn't have a clue what they're on about. Hick cured this problem in 1994 and scored runs against high-class seam-bowlers aplenty from then on. 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.

Hick had the natural ability and technical skills to succeed at any level of the game, but not the mental toughness to cope in high profile matches where he knew his position in the side could be terminated by trigger happy selectors after one single failure.

Great post. Nice article here about Hick's 141 against Donald and Pollack in South Africa. He averaged over 50 against the Windies in 1995 too. From 1993-95 he was very good at test level. I remember Duncan Fletcher said in his book if he had been coach in the 90's he would have always picked Hick and Ramprakash.

When Hick "Hammered" Donald & Pollock In Their Own Backyard | Wisden

At Centurion in 1995, Graeme Hick produced seven hours of ‘hammer time’ against a strong South African bowling attack before the heavens opened up.

wisden.com

 

[honestbharani]

He also smashed Aussie quicks in Perth once IIRC...

 

[Shri]

A lot of nonsense spouted in this thread, with people incorrectly assuming the current dynamics of county cricket applied 30 years ago. Today, county cricket is indeed dominated by 70mph swing bowlers. 30 years ago, this simply wasn't true. Many of the world's leading fast bowlers such as Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh regularly played full seasons of county cricket and topped the wicket taking and average stats in the county championship. Yet Hick still dominated county cricket of the late 80s and early 90s, with world class fast bowlers in many of the county teams.

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 under selection policies that bear no resemblance to the more consistent and faithful approach adopted by modern England teams. At the time, the England selectors showed zero faith in non established Test players, regularly dropped players after just one failure, and regularly got through anything up to 25 players over a 5 match Test series. 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 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 couldn't play fast bowling, huh? Anyone suggesting this held true over his entire career doesn't have a clue what they're on about. Hick cured this problem in 1994 and scored runs against high-class seam-bowlers aplenty from then on. 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.

Hick had the natural ability and technical skills to succeed at any level of the game, but not the mental toughness to cope in high profile matches where he knew his position in the side could be terminated by trigger happy selectors after one single failure.

you mean hick would have flourished under bazball

 

[The Sean]

A lot of nonsense spouted in this thread, with people incorrectly assuming the current dynamics of county cricket applied 30 years ago. Today, county cricket is indeed dominated by 70mph swing bowlers. 30 years ago, this simply wasn't true. Many of the world's leading fast bowlers such as Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh regularly played full seasons of county cricket and topped the wicket taking and average stats in the county championship. Yet Hick still dominated county cricket of the late 80s and early 90s, with world class fast bowlers in many of the county teams.

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 under selection policies that bear no resemblance to the more consistent and faithful approach adopted by modern England teams. At the time, the England selectors showed zero faith in non established Test players, regularly dropped players after just one failure, and regularly got through anything up to 25 players over a 5 match Test series. 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 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 couldn't play fast bowling, huh? Anyone suggesting this held true over his entire career doesn't have a clue what they're on about. Hick cured this problem in 1994 and scored runs against high-class seam-bowlers aplenty from then on. 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.

Hick had the natural ability and technical skills to succeed at any level of the game, but not the mental toughness to cope in high profile matches where he knew his position in the side could be terminated by trigger happy selectors after one single failure.

This a great post, though I'm confused by the line: "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."

Blythe was by all accounts a sensitive soul, and suffered from epilepsy which may have been worsened by the pressures of Test cricket. But it didn't overly show on the pitch - his Test career was very successful.

 

[Owzat]

While he was repeatedly in and out of the side he did play 65 tests all in all so it cannot be said that he was given ample chance to prove himself.

He was in and out of the side, some bright spark decided to bat him at his regulation #3 spot in his debut series against the quicks of windies and that was a massive mistake - with Brook they addressed this, county bowling has some top quality but international is often like having 3-4 overseas players, unsurprisingly! Nonetheless at one stage of his career he was pushing up towards averaging 40, the benchmark many have in mind much like 40 points in the Premier League as "safety", but then it went back down again and he was done

He was worth including, had he regularly played in a slot away from the very top order, if only for his catching, fielding and useful spin which didn't reflect his ability as he was often bowled the "one over before lunch" or when the pitch was doing nothing for spin