nice story anyway
You must be logged on to see external links
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Google isn’t clear. But I think it’s because he’s not a British citizen (yet)How is it six years before he can play for England? I'm sure Archer didn't wait that long.
How is it six years before he can play for England? I'm sure Archer didn't wait that long.
I think that’s harsh to be honest. Both were young blokes in a disfunctional England setup, both against a West Indies that were very good. Ramprakash was 21.Hick had great talent and potential to score more than he did. As per Stattos he got found out. At least though he had guts which another ECB favourite, Ramprakash, didn't.
I think that’s harsh to be honest. Both were young blokes in a disfunctional England setup, both against a West Indies that were very good. Ramprakash was 21.
Ramprakash ended up averaging 41 vs Australia even, but never cracked test cricket.
They were both excellent players, as this shows
You must be logged on to see external links
Again, think that’s a tad harsh. Read something a few years ago, can’t remember by whom, that suggested he was such a natural player but the entire test match game forced him to develop a method. And he lost his fluency.You only had to look at Ramprakash's eyes - he was scared.
Good spin bowler and an excellent slip fielder also.One of my favourite players as a kid was hick, real shame he got found out against pace at the top level particularly in a time when some of the games top quicks were about, akram, younis, ambrose, Donald to name but a few. Still had a decent career though and was one of our best one day players at the time, think we all hoped for just a bit more given his prior first class record
I think his bowling was more than decent especially at one day level, as u say great fielder. Just got found out a little which test cricket does. Similar to ramprakash although I thought hick was given a bit more time than ramps (memory may play tricks though)Good spin bowler and an excellent slip fielder also.
Hick 65 tests, Ramps 52. Both had enough chances to performI think his bowling was more than decent especially at one day level, as u say great fielder. Just got found out a little which test cricket does. Similar to ramprakash although I thought hick was given a bit more time than ramps (memory may play tricks though)
Did well in the one day format (when 5 an over was considered to be especially aggressive slogging). Was very much a county cricket bully, would twat 2,000 a season for Worcester then time and time again would come up terribly short against bowlers who could send it down 8mph quicker... See also Mark Ramprakash, was staggering how many opportunities he go at international level.One of my favourite players as a kid was hick, real shame he got found out against pace at the top level particularly in a time when some of the games top quicks were about, akram, younis, ambrose, Donald to name but a few. Still had a decent career though and was one of our best one day players at the time, think we all hoped for just a bit more given his prior first class record
Atherton had f***ing balls and carried a poor England side for a long time. His innings against the saffers when Donald was on the rampage was legendary. THATS proper test cricket. 2 blokes battling hard against each other.Ramps and Hick had it all. Ramps probably the better technique, Hick was a heavy run scorer. Neither had the mental toughness needed for Test Cricket, and Hick had problems against the short ball.
Had they played a decade later, they might have had more of a chance with central contracts and more specialised coaching
Different players of course, but Hick averaged 31 and was seen as a failure. Atherton averaged 37 and is a hero
Hick 65 tests, Ramps 52. Both had enough chances to perform
Tidied ^Had they played a decade later, they might have had more of a chance with central contracts and more specialised coaching. *& the bowling by comparison was dross.
Saw him get a great 72 at Perth in 1995 when all the rest failed. Batted really well against WarneI think that’s harsh to be honest. Both were young blokes in a disfunctional England setup, both against a West Indies that were very good. Ramprakash was 21.
Ramprakash ended up averaging 41 vs Australia even, but never cracked test cricket.
They were both excellent players, as this shows
You must be logged on to see external links