Disappointing players

[Richard]

except that he succeeded against the likes of hughes, mcdermott, donald, ambrose, walsh,marshall(in tour game on a green wicket), bishop(in prime), devilliers, fleming, pollock etc all of whom were capable of exposing absolutely any weakness especially the short stuff.

And he also failed against some of them, and plenty of others.

yes you watched so much of it in fact that your initial theory was that hick always failed against quality bowling attacks

Nope, it was never that - you just took it to mean that.
Any fool knows about Hick's run-scoring in Tests in the mid-1990s.

err backed up by invisible people doesnt count. or saying that you read somewhere 10 years ago that he was suspect against the short ball. if he had problems with the short ball he would have been dismissed by it frequently, something which he clearly wasnt.

No, not neccesarily. In fact, he might simply have had his dismissal caused by it.

err breakout innings arent consistent performances series after series for 3 years in a row. he played around it for all his career. the fact is that hick often played stupid strokes, spooning shots to mid off, flicking balls to square leg and not moving his feet and getting absolutely plum. such problems can only be temperamental.

Or they could be caused by unease due to short-pitched bowling. Personally, I find it just as odd that he could have had a suspect temperament in the 1st and 3rd thirds of his career and not in the 2nd.

 

[Richard]

instinct doesnt just 'happen' for 3 years in a row and then suddenly just disappear again for the rest of your career.

Why not?
Why can't instincts change?

except that he didnt. he played poor strokes to just about any kind of delivery after 95, because of his poor temperament.

So how did this poor temperament just "reappear" then, having been a much better temperament for the last 2 years?

 

[Richard]

yes except that you choose to ignore them whenever you want to(such as the stats that point out that hick was bowled, lbw and caught so often as opposed to being caught.

I choose to ignore them when I feel something else tells a better story, yes - something anyone and everyone also does.
And when Mr. X feels Mr. Y is using a stat that doesn't suit Mr. X's view, he will simply accuse Mr. Y of "twisting the figures".

why does he not need turners to bowl well? the fact is that any bowler bowls better on turners than he does on non turners. and salisbury is no different, except that hes too poor to pick up wickets on non-turners.

And as demonstrated by his Test-career he's equally capable of bowling rubbish on turners as he is of bowling well on non-turners. If you'd watched any of his career you'd see he can turn it on anything, his problems have only ever come from accuracy (lack of).
Accuracy is irrelevant to the pitch-condition.

why is it a greater achievement? you still havent explained why? the fact is that its quite possibly that he got plenty of turners in all of those 3 years and hence improved his record. the fact that he was rubbish for the rest of it suggests that he was rubbish.

The pitch conditions are not relevant, as shown above.
It's a greater achievement because it's consistent performance, not just breakout seasons where you perform better than normal.

 

[Richard]

yes and since highlights are 1 hr, theres no way they can possibly show such detail for every wicket.

Some highlights are 1 hr, some 3 hr, some 1\2 hr (which are only worth bothering about if you want to see some fairly random account of a day's play).
The 3 hr ones are almost invariably an accurate reflection of a day's play telling you about as much as watching every ball would, and 1 hr ones tend to be pretty good too, unless the day has been a truly frenzied, action-packed one.

 

[tooextracool]

Some highlights are 1 hr, some 3 hr, some 1\2 hr (which are only worth bothering about if you want to see some fairly random account of a day's play).
The 3 hr ones are almost invariably an accurate reflection of a day's play telling you about as much as watching every ball would, and 1 hr ones tend to be pretty good too, unless the day has been a truly frenzied, action-packed one.

except that you;ve already said that you watched the 1 hr highlights. you certainly dont get 3 hr highlights off games from over 7 years ago.

 

[tooextracool]

I choose to ignore them when I feel something else tells a better story, yes - something anyone and everyone also does.
And when Mr. X feels Mr. Y is using a stat that doesn't suit Mr. X's view, he will simply accuse Mr. Y of "twisting the figures"..

no one 'ignores' facts that prove them wrong, they instead choose to explain them. you however have simply looked at the 1 stat that prove you right, in this case of course you dont even have 1 and are simply relying on reports that you dont have from someone who is a complete fool to try and prove me wrong.

And as demonstrated by his Test-career he's equally capable of bowling rubbish on turners as he is of bowling well on non-turners. If you'd watched any of his career you'd see he can turn it on anything, his problems have only ever come from accuracy (lack of).
Accuracy is irrelevant to the pitch-condition..

yes precisely my point, at the domestic level his inaccuracy combined with turn made him effective because domestic players were largely rubbish. however at the international level turn + inaccuracy made him remain useless.

The pitch conditions are not relevant, as shown above.
It's a greater achievement because it's consistent performance, not just breakout seasons where you perform better than normal.

and you can prove to me that he didnt just succeed on turners in those 3 years then? i doubt it.

 

[tooextracool]

Why not?
Why can't instincts change?

so your saying that if you brushed your teeth continously for 3 years you would suddenly just forget how to do it one day, despite the fact that you've been doing it for every day for the last 3 years?

So how did this poor temperament just "reappear" then, having been a much better temperament for the last 2 years?

in the same way that it did for ramprakash, who also has a brief successful period for a longish period of time. lets not forget that graeme hick was under more pressure than possibly any other cricketer in england has been to perform because of the weight of expectations. he was also always only a few poor games around the corner from being dropped. even after those brilliant 3 years of consistent performance, he only had to underperform for 4 tests, before he was dropped.

 

[tooextracool]

And he also failed against some of them, and plenty of others.

all of which came after that 3 year period, so you have no point at all, especially considering that he failed against almost any bowler not just the good ones after the 3 year run.

Nope, it was never that - you just took it to mean that.
Any fool knows about Hick's run-scoring in Tests in the mid-1990s..

yet of course you said that he failed 'time and time' again against every quality bowler, when the fact is that in that 3 year period he rarely ever failed against them.

No, not neccesarily. In fact, he might simply have had his dismissal caused by it.

except that no one can be dismissed far more often by a ball that he prefers to play than a ball that he has a clear weakness against. otherwise one could say that someone like bevan had problems against the full ball, and the only reason he was out by the short ball was because it was caused by the barrage of full balls bowled to him.

Or they could be caused by unease due to short-pitched bowling. Personally, I find it just as odd that he could have had a suspect temperament in the 1st and 3rd thirds of his career and not in the 2nd.

so should we say the same thing about ramprakash then? therefore ramprakash to has a weakness against the short ball.
and no anyone who watched those games would know that they had no direct relation to the short ball.

 

[Richard]

except that you;ve already said that you watched the 1 hr highlights. you certainly dont get 3 hr highlights off games from over 7 years ago.

Really?
How do you know that, then?
Would it be because you haven't seen them?

 

[Richard]

no one 'ignores' facts that prove them wrong, they instead choose to explain them. you however have simply looked at the 1 stat that prove you right, in this case of course you dont even have 1 and are simply relying on reports that you dont have from someone who is a complete fool to try and prove me wrong.

I rely on reports and footage - you can't use stats to show-up a weakness.

yes precisely my point, at the domestic level his inaccuracy combined with turn made him effective because domestic players were largely rubbish. however at the international level turn + inaccuracy made him remain useless.

And despite the fact that in subsequent years (and former years) he was more expensive and took far less wickets?
No, the logical conclusion is that he was more accurate in these three seasons than he generally was at other times, and hence he was more effective.

and you can prove to me that he didnt just succeed on turners in those 3 years then? i doubt it.

No, I can prove that the pitch-condition is irrelevant to whether he's good or not - what matters is whether he gets it right or not.

 

[Richard]

so your saying that if you brushed your teeth continously for 3 years you would suddenly just forget how to do it one day, despite the fact that you've been doing it for every day for the last 3 years?

Of course brushing teeth isn't an incredibly simple operation, is it?

 

[Richard]

all of which came after that 3 year period, so you have no point at all, especially considering that he failed against almost any bowler not just the good ones after the 3 year run.

Including these innings, presumably.
No coincidence that the two centuries were against teams with no bowlers capable of exploiting weaknesses with short-balls.

yet of course you said that he failed 'time and time' again against every quality bowler, when the fact is that in that 3 year period he rarely ever failed against them.

No, I said he failed lots (outside that obvious 3-year period which everyone knows about) especially when the bowlers were good at short-pitched bowling.

except that no one can be dismissed far more often by a ball that he prefers to play than a ball that he has a clear weakness against. otherwise one could say that someone like bevan had problems against the full ball, and the only reason he was out by the short ball was because it was caused by the barrage of full balls bowled to him.

Almost everyone gets out to the full ball more than the short one. People can have a weakness with the short-ball because they look very clearly uncomfortable playing it and get out to indifferent shots shortly afterwards.

so should we say the same thing about ramprakash then? therefore ramprakash to has a weakness against the short ball.
and no anyone who watched those games would know that they had no direct relation to the short ball.

Really? You seriously haven't heard anyone say Hick had problems with the short-ball?