Hick does England a favour

[Whips_off_the_bails]

Apologies if this has been discussed before. I haven't viewed the board for several days and haven't been through all the threads.

It seems to me that Graeme Hick has done England a big favour by hitting a run-a-ball double century off the Kiwis. At 38, and innumerable failed 'comebacks' behind him, there is no likelihood of a test recall for Hickie himself (thank God). But it seems that he has taken some of the shine off the much-hyped tourists, which will hopefully work in England's favour.

Much as Hick's test performances for England exasperated me - I don't think I've ever seen worse body language from a top batsman as Hick's in Australia, for instance - I'm glad he had this bit of revenge. Watching him smack the pride of NZ bowling all over the park was John Bracewell - he it was who first coined the phrase "flat-track bully" to describe Hick!

[Kirsty Harris]

Originally Posted by Whips_off_the_bails

Apologies if this has been discussed before. I haven't viewed the board for several days and haven't been through all the threads.

It seems to me that Graeme Hick has done England a big favour by hitting a run-a-ball double century off the Kiwis. At 38, and innumerable failed 'comebacks' behind him, there is no likelihood of a test recall for Hickie himself (thank God). But it seems that he has taken some of the shine off the much-hyped tourists, which will hopefully work in England's favour.

Much as Hick's test performances for England exasperated me - I don't think I've ever seen worse body language from a top batsman as Hick's in Australia, for instance - I'm glad he had this bit of revenge. Watching him smack the pride of NZ bowling all over the park was John Bracewell - he it was who first coined the phrase "flat-track bully" to describe Hick!

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 - but there will doubtless be a few Hick fans in Worcester suggesting it!

As you say, it will be food for thought for the NZ side!

Hick was, indeed, a frustrating player - clearly gifted yet no consistancy what so ever...and to be fair to Bracewell, the 'flat track bully' comment may have been harsh, but their was an element of truth to it..

[freddie flintoff 142]

bracewell werent the greatest of batsman, in fact i remeber reading something about his test 100's being agianst weak attacks,.......... whether true or not i dont know

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

I never thought Hick was a flat track bully to be honest. He has consistently scored runs in county cricket, often on pitches which could not even charitably be described as flat (he plays his home matches at Worcester after all which seems to spend part of every year under water!).

Hick's problem was rather that he had difficulties playing fast bowling of the highest quality whilst under the pressure of being in the test arena. His footwork was found out as being occasionally ponderous and he had problems dealing with short pitched bowling into the chest area and therefore sometimes loitered on the back foot which left him open to the sucker punch fuller delivery.

It must also be remembered that Hick began his test career when there were several high quality fast bowlers in test cricket - McDermott and Hughes for Aus, Wasim and Waqar for Pak, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop and the Benjamins for WI and Donald, De Villiers et al for SA. I imagine that he would be far happier playing against some of the pace attacks currently gracing test cricket!

[freddie flintoff 142]

couldnt agree more with the fast bowling thing, iv always said hicks footwork is shocking against pace (yet good against spin!)

i think hick was a medium pace bully, and getting a flat track got him 200+ but he did score good test centuries like 140 odd against SA and a 178 as well. he can do it which jus frustrates even more.

i wonder if he had player for zim, there would have been no pressure on him, he is a better batter than flower, thus i reckon he prob would have averaged late 40's pos earlier 50's easliy at test level

[freddie flintoff 142]

go onto hicks cricinfo player page and on his pictures click on 211 v auckland, look who one of the bowlers where!

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by freddie flintoff 142

bracewell werent the greatest of batsman, in fact i remeber reading something about his test 100's being agianst weak attacks,.......... whether true or not i dont know

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.

[Whips_off_the_bails]

Hick was found out by high-quality fast bowling. But he had weaknesses against spin too - he was a lousy sweeper of the ball. Like many African-born players, he played with rigid hands. He wasn't good at rotating the strike. And despite the reputation of being a good slip fielder, I remember the ones he dropped much better (and there were a lot of them).

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Whips_off_the_bails

Hick was found out by high-quality fast bowling. But he had weaknesses against spin too - he was a lousy sweeper of the ball. Like many African-born players, he played with rigid hands. He wasn't good at rotating the strike. And despite the reputation of being a good slip fielder, I remember the ones he dropped much better (and there were a lot of them).

He was a fairly decent player of spin though. He always seemed to be able to play Warne better than most (along with Thorpe) and his highest test score was against India in India (although I suppose it can have been that bad a pitch because Chris Lewis also got 118 in the same innings!).

[Ernest]

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.

There were three good bowlers in the team you mentioned.
A) Phil Edmonds,give him the right pitch,he could bowl as good as any other spinn bowler.

B)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.