That was a poor decision, no doubt about it, though I can understand Atherton's reasons, but ironically, of course, it had no immidiate effect - he was still playing well for another year.
No immediate effect? Hick never scored a century against Australia, he never even came close to doing so after that. You dont think that master sledger Ian Healy didnt remind him constantly when he batted how he cried after Atherton's declaration? It certainly had an effect on his confidence, youd have to be a complete fool if you didnt think that someone like Hick who was already a quite fragile personality was having to play with a captain that seemed to care less about him as well as the coach and management. everything takes its toll. its almost like saying Trescothick didnt have any mental frailities because he scored a century on return last summer.
Furthermore your argument was this:
"Oh, come on! How could they have been handled better?"
Whether or not it had immediate impact on him is rather irrelevant because it is basic fact that he wasnt handled properly.
How on Earth was Hick being dropped for a poor series such a terrible decision? You can hardly argue that leaving him out at the tail-end of 1991 and 1992 was a bad decision - you can't just go on picking and picking players who're averaging in the teens.
Firstly he was dropped in 93 after the 2nd Ashes test at Lords. This despite the fact that he was the only competent cricketer in India, played brilliantly against SL and also scored 64 in the innings before he was dropped. I guess of course averaging 45 odd in his last 6 tests werent good enough for the English management. Surprisingly enough they recalled him against after 2 tests and he scored more runs.
Nor can you argue that being dropped (and Illingworth's words) was a bad decision in 1995, as he responded with a brilliant century..
Hick was dropped in 95?
Nor do I really think his run in 1996 merited anything other than the axe - and thereafter he was rarely if ever a first-choice, and like Solanki now, that's the price you pay for past failures. Even when Duncan Fletcher backed him to the hilt (despite, at the end, Vaughan's case being overwhelmingly superior - I was positively tearing my hair out in Sri Lanka) he still couldn't deliver.
Oh yes what clear logic that is. Here is someone averaging 45 over the last 3 years, the best out of all the English batsman including Stewart, Atherton, Thorpe and all the others that were consistently playing for England, why dont we drop him after 6 poor innings. because of course 3 years of top quality cricket against Ambrose, Walsh, Benjamin, Warne, Pollock, Mcdermott, Hughes and Donald counts for absolutely nothing. By your logic, everyone from Tendulkar to Richards and everyone else would have been dropped multiple times in their career.
Even after he was dropped for what should have been merely a kick on the backside, he didnt play test cricket for 2 years(and ODI cricket for about a year), despite scoring prolifically in FC cricket arguably in his very prime. Logic?
IMO nothing else could've been done with Hick - for a series of reasons, he just did not have what Test cricket takes. That didn't stop him being probably our 2nd-best ODI player of the modern era.
Err and despite being the 2nd best English ODI player of the modern era, how many times was he dropped in that form? Even in 96 when he was dropped in both forms, he averaged 41 against India in the texaco trophy, the series just before that. Really i dont think Hick could have been handled any worse than he was. Yes when he was picked in the subcontinent in 2000-01 there were many including me who were praying for him to be dropped as it would tarnish his reputation even further considering that he was well past it. However for most of his career he was never ever given any sort of confidence in the side, certainly dropping him after a handful of poor innings was quite a joke.
