He just gets better.

[Ninjaman]

Haha!! Surely you could do better than that Rachael?

That was his only century versus West Indies and one of only 2 scores over 50. He averaged 21 against them. Also that game was almost close to his 40th game.

Your description of Ramprakash makes out like he was a solid performer against all the top teams and messed upon against those he was expected to pummel.

My memories of watching Ramprakash against the West Indies of the time are those of a talented player who had no mental fortitude at the time he was playing. He got lots of 20s though.

Under your reasoning of posting one score to prove a point about batsman like Ramprakash, I could choose Daren Ganga's TWO (i.e. one more than Ramprakash) centuries versus Australia as some evidence he's worth anything.

Like Ramps, he tends to dominate his domestic competition and have people championing his cause.

But then I'd look at his poor average and the regular dismissals in Test matches for little or next to nothing and realise that he can't cut it.

The man is 38. He had his time and failed. Sorry, he FAILED!!!

[pie_chucker]

That was a good knock - I remember watching it and thinking why cant he always bat like this! But his record against the WI in general was terrible.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

My memories of watching Ramprakash against the West Indies of the time are those of a talented player who had no mental fortitude at the time he was playing. He got lots of 20s though.

The man is 38. He had his time and failed. Sorry, he FAILED!!!

Spot on there Ninjaman i couldnt have said that bit any better myself.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

That was a good knock - I remember watching it and thinking why cant he always bat like this! But his record against the WI in general was terrible.

You make my point: Ramps played that innings at a level that dispelled any doubts about his ability against the very best bowling... which is more than Hick ever did... and is more than the many recent top players have ever done (though in their defense, most have just about never had the chance).

Sadly... Ramps routinely got out to pretty ordinary bowlers.. including Astle, both Benjamins, Nash, Tuffey, Allen, Butler, Drum, Hathurusingha, Johnson, Klusener, Lambert, McLean, Nicholson, Nkala, Sarandeep Singh, Tendulkar and both of the Waugh brothers.

Ramps' average for his 204 runs from 11 innings against NZ was 7.75!

In truth... many of Ramprakash's 30 dismissals to Ambrose, Walsh, Warne, McGrath and Donald were also to deliveries that were no better than ordinary... which is what tended to provoke such hostility: every batsman has such dismissals to their name.. but many considered that virtually ALL of Ramps' dismissals were of this sort - something rarely forgiven even of Gower (who did at least tend to score heavily first).

[engssmoothcriminal]

Originally Posted by Rachael

You make my point: Ramps played that innings at a level that dispelled any doubts about his ability against the very best bowling... which is more than Hick ever did... and is more than the many recent top players have ever done (though in their defense, most have just about never had the chance).

Given that for a golden period late in 1995 (sadly only consisting of the three test matches) Hick reeled off a run of scores of 118 not out, 7, 96, 51 not out and 141 against West Indian and South African attacks including messers Ambrose, Walsh, Donald and Pollock (ably backed up by the Bishop's, McMillan's) that's hardly the case. In fact he averaged more against the big three Australia, West Indies and South Africa than he did against the closest thing to the county attacks he constantly got accused of bullying New Zealand and Sri Lanka. Of the top international attacks it was only Pakistan and in particular Waqar Younis that he truely failed against.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Ramps' average for his 204 runs from 11 innings against NZ was 7.75!

I think you'll find that was Pakistan from to be fair only 2-3 games. His average against New Zealand is around 20.


In terms of Hick's ultimate failure in test cricket (still has to go down as the best one day players we have ever produced) for all the selectorial incompetence that dogged his career Athers gormless declaration at Sydney has to go down as the single worst piece of man management in the history of cricket. What difference those two runs would have made we'll never know but a hundred against Australia would have been a monumental confidence boost for such a mentally frail individual.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Thankfully those days are long gone.

England never really had an understanding coach until Fletcher came on the scene, he really would have got much better out of ramp's and Hick IMO - and although Devon Malcolm was not that unimpressive - he would have been a world beater under Fletcher - rather that you know who.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by engssmoothcriminal

Hick reeled off a run of scores of 118 not out, 7, 96, 51 not out and 141 against West Indian and South African attacks including messers Ambrose, Walsh, Donald and Pollock (ably backed up by the Bishop's, McMillan's)

There's posting a total and then there's demonstrating class: even the likes of Butcher, Hussain and Collingwood posted totals; Sehwag and Ganguly have posted totals; none could be said to have answered critics in ANY innings they EVER played. All were limited players.

Hick was clearly more able than all of the above. He had the footwork, balance, hands and eye to rise above their level.. especially against spin (against which he was surely one of the greats of his generation)... but far more accomplished judges than myself, who seem agreed that Vaughan, Atherton and Ramprakash have been a class above all but Thorpe over recent years, seem hesitatant when it comes to Hick - and time and again that hesitation is linked to concern about his handling of aggressive fast bowling.

ps. My own view was always that Hick was too reliant on his eye for the ball: he was fine when playing even good bowlers on good batting pitches... but rather like Thorpe, he was nothing special when playing the same bowling on sporting tracks where "leave if at all possible" was the order of the day - something that may also be true of Pietersen.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'm not sure Ramps and Hick should be bracketed together. Questions always remained of Hick. He, like Hayden, had great hands... but never completely satisfied all of his critics when it came to playing "grown up fast bowling" - though unlike Hayden... Hick had the misfortune to play in an era where all time great seamers really could test the theory that he had a crucial weakness.

Rachael
Firstly, let me say that Hayden and Hick played in the same era (Hick 1991-2001) Hayden (1993-2007) so they both faced up to "grown up fast bowling" and they both struggled. As did every other batsman in that era against "grown up fast bowling". There were those such as Border and S.Waugh who while never dominating, used to hold their own, but by and large Hayden and Hick were no worse than any of their peers.

Putting Hick and Hayden in the same category is like putting Caddick and Ambrose in the same category. When one thinks of Hick and Ramprekash the words insipid, lame and tedious come to mind. Hayden - dominating , strong, exciting, brutal.

Hayden both statistically and rhetorically is the greatest batsman since Bradman. Hick, well when summing up Hick, one only casts his mind back to that rediculous episode in Sydney 1995, when he was given 25 minutes to go from 98 to 100 and failed, forcing Atherton to declare before he got his century. That time wasted proved crucial in the end too.

If you want to bag Hick and Ramprekash then go ahead by all means - they are certainly worthy of such derision. But Hayden - few in the history of the game can even come close to holding a candle to that guy

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Seamer

When one thinks of Hick and Ramprekash the words insipid, lame and tedious come to mind. Hayden - dominating , strong, exciting, brutal.

Andy Roddick is often described as dominating , strong, exciting, brutal... but in truth he's second rate: his serve is crude, his forhand is just a flat bash, his backhand is just an inferior (two handed) flat bash and his volleying lacks the instinctive touch and feel that is the basis of great net-play. He is awful at changing the pace, varying the spin, finding the angles. He is completely lacking in guile, and is basically that most loathesome of characters... the bully.

ps. Great players of first rate fast bowling leave what they can, lingering on the back foot to pitched up deliveries (threatening to play late to anything overpitched) and threatening to swivel pull shorter balls that err in line: is that really a description of Hayden's game?

[greg]

If only Ramps had shown the same stubbornness during his failed test career as Rachael does when defending him then he would have been a great,sadly he lacked it upstairs and like Chris Lewis and Hick will always be regarded as talented failures.