Graeme Hick

[ZIMDOGGY]

Going off his stats it sounds like he absolutely crucified all FC bowling attacks

When I was young, he was a pretty big name in the cricket world.

The best modern equivalent that comes to mind is Glenn Maxwell.

He was rightly regarded as someone who oozes talent, and could effortlessly hit balls that to be honest, I haven't seen replicated much even today. And when you take into account the skinny bats, that's a big thing.

I saw him in a few televised tour games in Australia. The ABC televised them back then. I vividly recall him getting a century against an Australian A (?) attack at either the Adelaide oval or Bellerive oval and he hit it so far, it went OUT of the stadium and they lost the ball!

The camera was panning over people in the car park trying time find it. I'll never forget how effortless the shot was.
It was either that game or another game closely after he then started to let loose, and every ball was a 6 or 4, over about 30 balls before they declared.

He could pulverise an attack that was short of international class, but come the test series when the premium attacks came out he would struggle a lot more and come off more timid.

This is probably why he made that quote you originally referred too in OP.

In the ashes, maybe 4 years earlier, he managed to get to 98* and Atherton, the English skip, declared he could get his maiden ton, I remember that even though milestone aside it was a good move, the commentators were absolutely filthy on Atherton, saying on camera it would damage Hicks mindset and he needs they century to grow as a player.
Remember, he was a very popular cricketing figure, so the commentators were focused on him a lot.

He was also meant to be an absolutely protege in Zim. Boy wonder.

If you can't be bothered reading the above^ just think of him as the nineties Glenn Maxwell.

[cricket_22001]

Zimdoggy, you are so right about the 98*. England wanted to get Australia batting & there were instructions for Hick to get to the ton quickly so England could declare. Maybe the instructions weren’t clear enough because I remember the gobsmacked look Hick had on his face when they walked off. And correctly, this happened when he needed milestones to further himself at the highest level, after a fairly tame start.
As far as why he played for England. Let us remember he was part of the 1983 World Cup squad. Also, England & Australia were the power broker of the ICC & Southern Africa wasn’t readily accessible for World travel.
Zimbabwe applied for test status & was refused. Sri Lanka had just got it & weren’t doing well as well as having a civil war. So they didn’t want another new small country.
Zimbabwe sent teams overseas & Hick was on the 1985 tour of England & blitzed them. This was when he was approached. He was also told not to consider being available to Zimbabwe for the 1987 World Cup because this would jeopardise his English chances. So he he spent the next 3 English winters in NZ ( who also made a move for him) & for Queensland in Australia. He had a really good second half of the season for Queensland with 3 centuries & was second highest run getter for them. I saw his century at the SCG against a not to shabby NSW attack & he oozed class.
So by 1991, Hick debuts for England.
Around the same time South Africa is making moves for readmission to the world. And comes back with test status.
Then, the ICC gives test status to Zimbabwe stating if they didn’t, Zimbabwe would lose their players to other countries!!
It was a disgusting, cynical comment.
But it now fitted. Although world travel had really opened up in the 80s, the ICC move like evolution. In my opinion, their thinking was Zimbabwe could be an add on tour to South Africa. Just like NZ was to Australia & Sri Lanka was to India. Because that’s how England arranged their tours.
Hick was the type of player that brought crowds in. Countries would’ve wanted Zimbabwe to tour so Hick could be showcased.One can only speculate if he had an international career with Zimbabwe & if he was around at the 2003 World Cup,as a real marquee player, could things be different for Zimbabwe. It would’ve been different as far back as the eighties if test status was given.
As stated elsewhere, a decent psychiatrist may have helped. Now people may look at the stats & say he was a flat track bully. He was better than that assessment. I would really like to know if John Ward or other older blokes remember it like this.

[jaybro]

Zimdoggy, you are so right about the 98*. England wanted to get Australia batting & there were instructions for Hick to get to the ton quickly so England could declare. Maybe the instructions weren’t clear enough because I remember the gobsmacked look Hick had on his face when they walked off. And correctly, this happened when he needed milestones to further himself at the highest level, after a fairly tame start.
As far as why he played for England. Let us remember he was part of the 1983 World Cup squad. Also, England & Australia were the power broker of the ICC & Southern Africa wasn’t readily accessible for World travel.
Zimbabwe applied for test status & was refused. Sri Lanka had just got it & weren’t doing well as well as having a civil war. So they didn’t want another new small country.
Zimbabwe sent teams overseas & Hick was on the 1985 tour of England & blitzed them. This was when he was approached. He was also told not to consider being available to Zimbabwe for the 1987 World Cup because this would jeopardise his English chances. So he he spent the next 3 English winters in NZ ( who also made a move for him) & for Queensland in Australia. He had a really good second half of the season for Queensland with 3 centuries & was second highest run getter for them. I saw his century at the SCG against a not to shabby NSW attack & he oozed class.
So by 1991, Hick debuts for England.
Around the same time South Africa is making moves for readmission to the world. And comes back with test status.
Then, the ICC gives test status to Zimbabwe stating if they didn’t, Zimbabwe would lose their players to other countries!!
It was a disgusting, cynical comment.
But it now fitted. Although world travel had really opened up in the 80s, the ICC move like evolution. In my opinion, their thinking was Zimbabwe could be an add on tour to South Africa. Just like NZ was to Australia & Sri Lanka was to India. Because that’s how England arranged their tours.
Hick was the type of player that brought crowds in. Countries would’ve wanted Zimbabwe to tour so Hick could be showcased.One can only speculate if he had an international career with Zimbabwe & if he was around at the 2003 World Cup,as a real marquee player, could things be different for Zimbabwe. It would’ve been different as far back as the eighties if test status was given.
As stated elsewhere, a decent psychiatrist may have helped. Now people may look at the stats & say he was a flat track bully. He was better than that assessment. I would really like to know if John Ward or other older blokes remember it like this.

Good read there mate very interesting

Indeed things could have been very different for Zimbabwe if they got Test Status after 83* many believe it came too late and a Zimbabwe Test side in the mid to late 80’s would have been the best side they’ve produced.

I wonder how many Tests they would have won ?

[sloandog]

Zimdoggy, you are so right about the 98*. England wanted to get Australia batting & there were instructions for Hick to get to the ton quickly so England could declare. Maybe the instructions weren’t clear enough because I remember the gobsmacked look Hick had on his face when they walked off. And correctly, this happened when he needed milestones to further himself at the highest level, after a fairly tame start.
As far as why he played for England. Let us remember he was part of the 1983 World Cup squad. Also, England & Australia were the power broker of the ICC & Southern Africa wasn’t readily accessible for World travel.
Zimbabwe applied for test status & was refused. Sri Lanka had just got it & weren’t doing well as well as having a civil war. So they didn’t want another new small country.
Zimbabwe sent teams overseas & Hick was on the 1985 tour of England & blitzed them. This was when he was approached. He was also told not to consider being available to Zimbabwe for the 1987 World Cup because this would jeopardise his English chances. So he he spent the next 3 English winters in NZ ( who also made a move for him) & for Queensland in Australia. He had a really good second half of the season for Queensland with 3 centuries & was second highest run getter for them. I saw his century at the SCG against a not to shabby NSW attack & he oozed class.
So by 1991, Hick debuts for England.
Around the same time South Africa is making moves for readmission to the world. And comes back with test status.
Then, the ICC gives test status to Zimbabwe stating if they didn’t, Zimbabwe would lose their players to other countries!!
It was a disgusting, cynical comment.
But it now fitted. Although world travel had really opened up in the 80s, the ICC move like evolution. In my opinion, their thinking was Zimbabwe could be an add on tour to South Africa. Just like NZ was to Australia & Sri Lanka was to India. Because that’s how England arranged their tours.
Hick was the type of player that brought crowds in. Countries would’ve wanted Zimbabwe to tour so Hick could be showcased.One can only speculate if he had an international career with Zimbabwe & if he was around at the 2003 World Cup,as a real marquee player, could things be different for Zimbabwe. It would’ve been different as far back as the eighties if test status was given.
As stated elsewhere, a decent psychiatrist may have helped. Now people may look at the stats & say he was a flat track bully. He was better than that assessment. I would really like to know if John Ward or other older blokes remember it like this.

Awesome mate, thanks for the run down on his career.
A few mates in Zimbabwe told me that around the turn of the millennium, when he’d been dropped from the English side, he was considering a move back to Zimbabwe for a bid to play in the 2003 CWC. It obviously never materialised but how cool would that have been?! Imagine if the board had got everting right over the years. There would have been a side with Flower x 2, Hick, Goodwin, Johnson, Houghton, Streak, Ervine. Ffs I actually hate our board. They’ve literally denied the country a chance to really shine.

[sloandog]

Peter Rawson I believe was the greatest bowler to have ever come out of Zimbabwe, and that’s saying something considering how good Heath Streak was and Eddo Brandes.

[andrewn9]

What I remember of Hick is that in the late 80s, early 90s he was seen as the great white hope, the saviour of English cricket while he served his qualification period. He'd scored that 405 not out and smashed county bowlers to all parts. What could go wrong? Unfortunately, for him his first series was against Ambrose, Marshall and Walsh, and they really went after him with a bouncer barrage and he couldn't cope. As I recall, after four tests he was dropped having done very little and getting in a mess playing the short ball. To come back from that first baptism of fire and play for England for a number of years was an achievement in itself as it must have left mental scars.

From watching him on tv what I recall is that he was very physically imposing and strong but against the short ball it was almost like he was too big and didn't know whether to get out the way or take it on. Commentators would compare him with shorter guys like Lara and Tendulkar who seemed to have all the answers. I remember he went through a phase of ducking but leaving his bat up like a periscope (which Boycott didn't like!) and one time the ball hit it and went for four! To be fair though, he did get better against the short stuff over the years. He would have had to otherwise he couldn't have played 65 tests.

In tests, I never had the same confidence in him as someone like Thorpe, who immediately looked at ease at test level, with a tight technique and good temperament, invariably getting runs. Hick could look a bit stiff, flat-footed drives outside off stump. I remember sometimes he came out with an ultra-positive mindset and would play some great shots and then get out for 30 or 40. All in all, he was a very good player of spin and medium pace bowling but top class pace bowling was his achilles heel. He seemed much more at ease in odi cricket where he didn't need to worry so much about bouncers and close catchers and could really impose himself. He couldn't really impose himself in tests in the same way, underscored by the fact he only got 6 test tons. I think like Ramprakash, Hick will always be seen as a bit of an enigma of English cricket: colossal at first class level but it never quite happened in tests. I remember Ian Chappell saying Ramprakash's technique was almost too good and that he wasnt a 'run thief'! He concerned himself too much with playing textbook shots rather than being a streetwise batter. Incidentally, Ramps also made his debut against the Windies in 91 and had a real mental barrier in getting past 30. He could get to the teens or twenties but he couldn't get past 30 for love nor money! Both these players show the mental side is just as important as the physical in cricket.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Peter Rawson I believe was the greatest bowler to have ever come out of Zimbabwe, and that’s saying something considering how good Heath Streak was and Eddo Brandes.

Rawson and Brandes in one breath! Have you voted for my Draft 1 side yet

[andrewn9]

Hick on the attack. What power!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AiNR8xD6h08

[jward]

Going off his stats it sounds like he absolutely crucified all FC bowling attacks

Going by his stats he might be the best ZIM origin batsmen after Andy Flower. Has a first class quadruple centiry FFS!!!

Just want to know from perhaps John Ward what he was like as a schoolboy, and why he decided to play for England and not Zimbabwe

He was an outstanding schoolboy cricketer and it was known right from his junior school years that he was a really outstanding talent. The Zimbabwe authorities gave him every encouragement and opportunity possible, I believe, in trying to further his career, and I believe they were actively involved in his signing up by Worcestershire. Unfortunately he repaid them by walking out on them, no doubt encouraged by Worcestershire, who could hire another overseas player if Hick was England-qualified, and quite possibly by the English cricketers as well, who reduced their qualification period from seven years to four so they could play him earlier.

There was a great air of depression throughout the Zimbabwe cricket scene when it was known he was deserting us for supposedly greener pastures, and it took our national team years to recover. As far as I know, Hick has never said much publicly in appreciation for all that the Zimbabwe cricket authorities did to nurture his career, and has never put anything significant back into cricket in Zimbabwe, unlike Trevor Penney. He had far more natural talent than Andy Flower, but quite lacked the same mental strength.

If he had stayed with Zimbabwe despite the uncertainty of a Test career at that time, I have no doubt he would have fitted into international cricket far better and had a record and reputation comparable with Flower's, instead of being remembered as a great county cricketer but a flawed and disappointing international one. He made the choice and both he and Zimbabwe cricket suffered for it.

[Googly]

Wiki seems to have comprehensive info on him.
A correction to his qualification period from what I gleaned from Wiki- he left on a ZCU scholarship to Worcestershire in 1984 and somehow managed to play a FC game for them at the end of the season, I’d like to know how as he’d already played for Zimbabwe? They must have registered him as an Overseas?
He only played for England in 1991, 7 years later, which would have put him at 25 years old.
According to Wiki it was New Zealand that offered him a 4 year qualification.
I remember his defection not sitting will with most people and yet a small handful stoutly defended him. I recall those days like yesterday. I was friendly with him, but was one of the many that strongly felt he’d done the wrong thing. In those days most of us that remained here hoped that this country had a future, but it became obvious shortly before the Referendum to even the most optimistic of us that it was the intention to take over every last thing in this country like an invasive cancer, and with similar consequences. The land issue- my favorite subject, it was never about the land, it was about votes. The number of extraordinarily stupid supporters that live crammed in high density shacks with no electricity, water, medicine, education, jobs or opportunity that celebrate the winning back of “their” land is astonishing, and until recently, all dutifully voting for their “liberators” every election cycle. Nobody has been liberated here, everyone but a small handful are infinitely worse off.
I agree with John, I think he’d have been a world class international of Flower’s caliber and beyond had he stayed here. He himself acknowledges that the 7 years he spent qualifying affected him.