Hick does England a favour

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

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. Mind you, his batting average for England isn't that much short of many of his peers...

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'.

Kirsty,
Yes Hick was treated bad,there was to much pressure on him every time he walked to the crease,he was afraid of slipping up.,he could never have enjoyed his cricket when he played for England,his face said it all,he could have been a great player,and still could have been,your post says it all.

Yes Jones will feel the pressure as well,he will have to perform to keep his place,I think that the read Jones affair,is one instance were competition is not healthy,they did the dirty on Read,and the full selection board here will scrutanise jones every move.SILLY.

I can take your point on Thorpe,but there were players who had to make room for him when he decided,the time was right for him to return,Boycott was annother,he refused to tour,he walked back in,and other high profile players eg.not a point I feel that strongly about Kirsty,good luck to Thorpe,I hope he does England justice.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by ernest

I can take your point on Thorpe,but there were players who had to make room for him when he decided,the time was right for him to return,Kirsty,good luck to Thorpe,I hope he does England justice.

If my memory serves me correctly, Thorpe came back into the side in place of Hussain, who had broken his toe, and has kept it at the expense of the 'sublime talent' that was Ed Smith ...what a great loss to the side that was (average for SA series of 17.4)!! The irony is had Hussain NOT broken his toe, Thorpe might not have gotten back in the side! Let's face it, we'd all rather have Thorpe batting against the WI this winter than Smith, wouldn't we?

Don't think there's too much doubt that Thorpe is going to do England justice...I predict a bucket load of runs for Thorpe this summer!!!

[Pete]

G.Jones just gone and hit a ton against the Kiwis Hopefully he can do something similar in the test matches.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

If my memory serves me correctly, Thorpe came back into the side in place of Hussain, who had broken his toe, and has kept it at the expense of the 'sublime talent' that was Ed Smith ...what a great loss to the side that was (average for SA series of 17.4)!! The irony is had Hussain NOT broken his toe, Thorpe might not have gotten back in the side! Let's face it, we'd all rather have Thorpe batting against the WI this winter than Smith, wouldn't we?

Don't think there's too much doubt that Thorpe is going to do England justice...I predict a bucket load of runs for Thorpe this summer!!!

Ha ,Hmm,Ed Smith average 17.4 against South Africa,just a little point here,we both agree freddy Flintoff is a major talent,his average was not a lot to shout about at first was it?,yes of course I take your point,Ed Smith is no Freddy,(what happened to Robert key?has he fallen into a black hole).

I think I would rather give R Key an.other chance,dare I say it ,rather than Collingwood,or Strauss

I hope you are right kirsty,i hope Thorpe does get a bucket of runs this year,Thorpe in form would be good for England,to have an in form Thorpe.To go back to your first point,I think Thorpe would have got back into the side,even if Hussain had not broken his toe,its like we all knew,Jones was going to take Reads place(if you see what I mean)

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by ernest

Ha ,Hmm,Ed Smith average 17.4 against South Africa,just a little point here,we both agree freddy Flintoff is a major talent,his average was not a lot to shout about at first was it?,yes of course I take your point,Ed Smith is no Freddy,(what happened to Robert key?has he fallen into a black hole).

I think I would rather give R Key an.other chance,dare I say it ,rather than Collingwood,or Strauss

I think the difference is that even in the early part of Flintoff's career, when he was somewhat erratic, there was always a little flicker of something special in him...I don't think Ed Smith ever had that - he never looked comfortable, like he belonged! Flintoffs early inconsistancy is also the reason he wan't a test match certianty until last summer. Still, it's a good point - that's why I'm not really one for judging a player by their stats!

I never really rated Key to be honest, and I think Strauss is the one to look to for the future. I also like the look of young Cooke, at Essex. Good effort for the under-19's this winter.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

I think the difference is that even in the early part of Flintoff's career, when he was somewhat erratic, there was always a little flicker of something special in him...I don't think Ed Smith ever had that - he never looked comfortable.

I never really rated Key to be honest, and I think Strauss is the one to look to for the future. I also like the look of young Cooke, at Essex. Good effort for the under-19's this winter.

It's a good point how stats can lie,i cant argue,to my mind Flintoff was always going to be special,dont think we will see Ed Smith again,no great loss I dont suppose.

One point about players like Smith,and Crawley who dissapeared,never to be seen again, would like to have seen how some of these players wouls have played,with vaughan as captain,I rate vaughan,as being second only to Mike Brearley.

By the way Kirsty,Rob Key is giving the kiwi's some stick.

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by ernest

It's a good point how stats can lie,i cant argue,to my mind Flintoff was always going to be special,dont think we will see Ed Smith again,no great loss I dont suppose.

One point about players like Smith,and Crawley who dissapeared,never to be seen again, would like to have seen how some of these players wouls have played,with vaughan as captain,I rate vaughan,as being second only to Mike Brearley.

By the way Kirsty,Rob Key is giving the kiwi's some stick.

It sounds like just about every batsmen in England is giving the Kiwi's some stick at the minute!

That bodes well for the summer, I'd say!!

Still don't want Key in the side....but good for him!

Your point about the influnce of captaincy is a good one...certianly, a players success can be greatly increased if the captin's approach is in line with his own.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Kirsty Harris

It sounds like just about every batsmen in England is giving the Kiwi's some stick at the minute!

That bodes well for the summer, I'd say!!

Yes ,and this was the much hyped new Zealand team,I think we will win the seies,gona be a good summer anyway,a cracker,lots to look forward to

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by ernest

Yes ,and this was the much hyped new Zealand team,I think we will win the seies,gona be a good summer anyway,a cracker,lots to look forward to

Yep, can't wait!!!

By the way, congrats on your 300!

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by high_on_linseed

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.

So it's not a weak side, because Gatting, Gower, Gooch, Edmonds and Emburey would walk into today's Test side, Pringle was decent in the right conditions at his pedestrian pace and Gladstone Small was a good bowler full stop.

Aside from the fact that the '86 Trent Bridge Test was Gladstone's debut...and Greg Thomas was a very wayward fast bowler - for whom I had a great deal of time, and it's a pity the selectors didn't give him as much time as Simon Jones to prove himself - but the real crux to me is: Derek Pringle batting at number six.

That is laughable. People today seem to be struggling with the thought of Flintoff batting at six, but Pringle couldn't hold a candle to Flintoff's batting. The thought of Flintoff taking 74 minutes over 21 in the first innings and then 107 minutes over nine...ok well it might have been crucial at that stage of the match, but given that New Zealand, who held quite a strong card in the then greatest seamer Richard Hadlee, won by eight wickets, I do sort of feel that a genuine batsman giving the ball a bit off a biff in a three hour stay at the crease, might have given the "All Blacks" a bit more than 74 to chase in the fourth innings.

But then your defence is presumably Pringles 22 overs. Which of course were completely invaluable given that he took naught for seventy four...I rest my case.