Hick does England a favour

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by ernest

There were three good bowlers in the team you mentioned.

John Emburey,One of the best off spinners in the world in his day,lara would not have got 400 of England if Emburey had been playing at his prime.

Small,Decent bowler,nothing special,but you would hardly call him rubbish.

They were the only bowlers the had,the rest were part timers,and poor at that,selectors to blame.

I didn't say "rubbish." I said "weak." And that was in response to freddie flintoff 142's post about John Bracewell.
FF142 appeared to be implying that Bracewell was a bad batsman, because he only scored centuries against weak attacks.
Well it's true I suppose, but if you read my response to him...you will see that the weak attack in question was that from England at Trent Bridge in 1986.

And I refer you to the threads on spinners for England, if you think Emburey was "one of the best off spinners in the world in his day."

Actually he was one of the fastest flattest and most uninteresting purveyors of non-spinny bowling there has ever been.
Apparently an absolute "must" for the ODI team, because he was such an effective defender.
Completely bloody useless in Tests with 147 wickets at a shade under 40.

I agree with you about Edmonds who finished with 125 at 34. He was a major rebel against the cricketing establishment and like Tufnell and Gower, he was often dropped for differing views (from the selectors) and for that he should be applauded.
Gladstone Small was a tryer, not rubbish, but not great. The mid-eighties was a poor time for the England attack and the fact that Pringle was there sort of cements that thought into place. He was truly awful. But he played for the same county as England's then premier batsman, and I think Gooch was a selector as well at the time...

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

Yep, it was a good knock by Hick. Shame he couldn't hit a double ton when he was playing for England against New Zealand! As for his chances of a test recall, pretty much nil

Hick was, indeed, a frustrating player - clearly gifted yet no consistancy what so ever

Hi Kirsty

It was different when Hick was playing,people say well he kept getting recalled,that was part of the trouble,he had no confidence,he was never sure weather he was in the team or out.

If the selectors had said to Hick,you are going to have a prolonged run,just like they have said to G Jones,knowing a bad innings would not mean that he was out,and then he would have been a confident player.

The same with Cris Read,if Jones is injured and he get in the team,he will always be looking over his shoulder,at Jones,or Foster,wondering if he will be selected next time,vaughan and Fletcher,hace all but ruined his carear now.

Some players are an exeption,takeThorpe,he has walked all over England,but was able to walk back in the team,Giles is annother,seems to me he is the only spinner on the planet,oh and batty.

[Whips_off_the_bails]

Hick had plenty of prolonged runs.

[high_on_linseed]

Originally Posted by Oliver

I should check your facts before issuing rude stabs in the guts.

John Bracewell only hit one Test century in 1986 at Trent Bridge.
So I suppose you're right, it was against a weak attack - but I expect that wasn't the point that you were trying to get across, at least not one including England.

For the record, the attack that day was Gladstone Small, Greg Thomas, Derek Pringle, Phil Edmonds, John Emburey and Graham Gooch.
Pretty weak side all round really, with Pringle at six and Emburey at seven...Bruce French (for the Genuine Gloveman's Union) batted at ten. And Englands top five were Gooch, Moxon, Athey, Gower and Gatting.
New Zealand won by eight wickets...no bloody wonder.

I dont consider that that weak a side. Emburey and Edmonds both had quality as spin bowlers. Prinlge was not test standard early in his career, but by 86, I seem to recall he was a decent swing bowler in Englsih conditions, even in test, hampered a bit by his pedestrian pace. Gladys Small was a good bowler full stop. And Gooch a useful fill-in in the right conditions.

As for the batting, an in-form, younger Gatting and Gower would walk into the current England side. Gooch...well, enough said, be was blazing by this time in his career. Athey had sound technique and underperformed run-wise but was still talented. Moxon too, had a genrally good technique with a few flaws. Anyway, theres no way Id call that side weak.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Oliver

I didn't say "rubbish." I said "weak."

And I refer you to the threads on spinners for England, if you think Emburey was "one of the best off spinners in the world in his day."

Apparently an absolute "must" for the ODI team, because he was such an effective defender.
Completely bloody useless in Tests with 147 wickets at a shade under 40.

I agree with you about Edmonds who finished with 125 at 34. He was a major rebel against the cricketing establishment and like Tufnell and Gower, he was often dropped for differing views (from the selectors) and for that he should be applauded.
Gladstone Small was a tryer, not rubbish, but not great. The mid-eighties was a poor time for the England attack and the fact that Pringle was there sort of cements that thought into place. He was truly awful. But he played for the same county as England's then premier batsman, and I think Gooch was a selector as well

I know you did not say rubbish,I did,and I was refairing to Pringle,and the part time bowlers.

You have said the same as me about Gladstone Small,he tried gave 100%.

I agree with most of your post,but Emburey,should have had a better average than he did,he came back into the later stage and was knocked all over the park,but I still say that brian Lara,would not have got his world record 400,if Emburey at his best had have been bowling to him.you could rely on him to bowl accurtate,and probably would have forced Lara into an error.

[R W S]

The Emburey Vs Edmonds (remember Frances anyone!?) who's best debate (for some reason it reminds me Ovett/Coe) seemed to favour JE but PE was always the better bowler for me.

Gladstone was a decent enough sort but the way he reduced his already small neck by wearing his collar up distracted me!!

[Whips_off_the_bails]

There was a joke about Gladstone Small, of which I only remember the punchline:

Mike Gatting: How do you think we get Gladstone Small into a helmet?

Anyone remember the rest? I can't remember if it was rude or not.

[Farmer Giles]

Actually RWS, I believe Gladstone was registered disabled. He had some sort of deformity which made his neck look very short. He was still a very good bowler.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Whips_off_the_bails

There was a joke about Gladstone Small, of which I only remember the punchline:

Mike Gatting: How do you think we get Gladstone Small into a helmet?

Anyone remember the rest? I can't remember if it was rude or not.

I remember it. It wasn't rude, but it did make fun of the chap's appearance and therefore could be offensive to him, which is not really onside. Better forget it for this forum.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by ernest

Hi Kirsty

It was different when Hick was playing,people say well he kept getting recalled,that was part of the trouble,he had no confidence,he was never sure weather he was in the team or out.

If the selectors had said to Hick,you are going to have a prolonged run,just like they have said to G Jones,knowing a bad innings would not mean that he was out,and then he would have been a confident player.

The same with Cris Read,if Jones is injured and he get in the team,he will always be looking over his shoulder,at Jones,or Foster,wondering if he will be selected next time,vaughan and Fletcher,hace all but ruined his carear now.

Some players are an exeption,takeThorpe,he has walked all over England,but was able to walk back in the team,Giles is annother,seems to me he is the only spinner on the planet,oh and batty.

Yep, there is some truth in this. I do think that there was an unreasonable expectation on Hick, from the team and fans alike - he was supposed to be the saviour of English cricket! And when it was found he was only human after all he wasn't really supported. Atherton's decleration when he was on 98 or 99 is a good example. And he wasn't really given a fair run either. Still, with the talent he had, he should really have done a bit better, overall. Mind you, his batting average for England isn't that much short of many of his peers...

Good point about Jones/Read - I think a lot will depend of Jones performing with the bat. In many ways, Jones will have more pressure on him to get runs, because the expectation is greater! If he fails to deliver and Read does get in the side, Jones would have to score a lot of runs for his county to get back in the side!

Finally, Thorpe was a whole other kettle of fish to Hick, IMO. He did not 'walk all over England'. He did what any father should do in his situation - put his kids first. And nor did he just 'walk back' into the team - he had to prove himself at county level first and only came back in at the end of the summer, where he straight away hit a big hundred. Also, since Thorpe has been, without doubt, England's most consistant player of the past 10 - 15 years, I think he is entitled to a little slack.