Talk:Graeme Hick

Material removed from article

I removed a large amount of material added by Dar2020 - as seen in this diff - because it seemed to me to be more an essay and original research than encyclopedic material. There's also considerable POV in it, which again is a problem. There is some good stuff within that could certainly be added back to the article - in a more controlled manner - but the huge mass of the essay really isn't suitable, I feel. Loganberry (Talk) 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

With re: Loganberry omission. From Dar2020.

I completely understand, Loganberry. The overall page on Hick is fine, but I feel that (like many biogs of Hick) it's a tad on the negative side when it comes to his international career. I feel the part on Hick's England career is a bit cliched; ie "Hick struggled at test level and was labelled a flat-track bully". Such points are fair enough, but they are too narrow on their own to be fair and perhaps should be mixed with more detailed mention of his better periods and better innings in test cricket - of which there were many.

There is a real polarisation in opinion of Hick's international career. I feel a proper biog of Hick should find the right balance between the "flat-track bully" school of thought and the strong arguments in support and mitigation that I relayed. I appreciate that it will be difficult to reach this balance while employing a controlled, biographical style.

The fact that he averaged 50 for England over a 25 test period against quality opposition I feel should be mentioned. As I argued, at least 2 of his test omissions were ostensibly very harsh and could be said to have affected his future test play. Although I provided no citation, the quotes from Warne and Waugh et al were taken from their autobiographies. Their views on Hick are much more positive than the English opinion tends to be and should be respected. The fact that Hick averaged 42.6 in the "Merv Hughes verbals" series (in which he is commonly said to have "wilted") is also interesting.

Hick's ICC ratings are also impressive. Mention of other achievements like a World Cup semi-final man of the match performance (1992 South Africa) and successive One Day scores of 108,66*,126*,109 against Australia and Sri Lanka would contribute to a fairer assessment of a very interesting career.

You seem to be on the ball with regard to the Graeme Hick page, and I'll leave it up to you to incorporate any of the above if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dar2020 (talk • contribs)

You make some very good points, and as I said on your own Talk page I think the material you added contained much of value; the same could be said of your comments here. I don't think there's any doubt that plenty of that information will return to the article in some form (the quotes, with citations, are a good example of what would be valuable). I do think the "flat-track bully" is important, as for better or worse it was how a lot of people did see Hick, but it's not something I personally think was very fair.

Leading on from that, I do have to smile a bit at your opinion that the article as it stood before your additions was too negative. I wrote a large percentage of that text, and as it happens I am a Worcestershire supporter - and a huge Graeme Hick fan! As a matter of personal opinion, I think he was often appallingly treated by the Illingworths of this world, but I was trying very hard not to be excessively pro Hick; it could well be that I went a little bit too far in the other direction. As far as my own views go, one of my favourite bits of writing about Hick is the last few sentences of Peter Roebuck's piece "The light that flickered" in the 1999 Wisden:

It says much for [Hick] that he has remained unbowed by dismay. He has been a punishing and faithful cricketer, commanding where he is comfortable, and quiet elsewhere. Throughout, he has searched for the contentment and simplicity he knew in his early days, and he has found it in the same place, at home with his family. It might sound like a defeat but it isn't a defeat at all. Indeed, it's a sort of victory.

I'd better stop now as I'm drifting rather off the subject of the Wikipedia article itself! One final point: when you make a comment on a Talk page (though not on an article itself), if you end your comment with four tildes, like so: (~~~~) then your username, and the date and time you posted the comment, will be added automatically. It's a very useful facility, so please do make use of it. :) Loganberry (Talk) 17:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

From Dar2020.

Allow me to clarify that I only felt the part about playing for England was - maybe negative was the wrong word - a bit too brief on his international achievements. His record between 1993-1996 is touched upon as are his One-Day stats but I think we agree they could be expanded upon.

suspected you were a Hick and Worcester fan (Saturday was a close call!) and I appreciate the difficulty Hick fan's have when trying to stick up for him without coming across as a bit of a crank.

I think the key point is though that - in terms of his international career - there was very much a middle ground. Every criticism can be negated with a defence and vice versa.

Next time I'm in a book shop, I'll look to take a note of proper citations from the autobiographies - particularly Waugh's and Warne's - and post them here. If and when additions are made to the page, please try and mention the 68 in the Perth test of the 1998 Ashes - my favourite Hick innings! (~~~~) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dar2020 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, apologies for my not being clear about the tildes - the "nowiki" tags were just so they'd show up on the page as tildes rather than inserting my name! When you use theis feature, all you have to do is type the actual tildes - actually you don't need the brackets either; I don't usually use them, but some people think they look nice. That's why your comment above is marked "unsigned" - there's no actual problem other than my unclear explanation!

Secondly, I would actually like to do a complete rewrite and expansion of this article, since it could do with quite a bit more detail, perhaps at the expense of some of the less important "career milestones"; after all, statistics can be found all over the place. Two paragraphs is indeed too little to cover Hick's England experience, but that's only one problem: there's also not enough on his recent career. Those citations you mention would be very handy, and I'll dig out a few others from books I do have.

All this is an ambitious target, especially when some other very prominent cricketers (eg Gooch and Knight) have even shorter articles, but I'll have a go - and though my own favourite innings is that 141 in South Africa, I'll certainly take note of your comment about the Perth innings! Loganberry (Talk) 23:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Loganberry - Here's some of the citations:

“Out of My Comfort Zone” – Steve Waugh – the autobiography Michael Joseph (publishers), 2005

P49 – in reference to Zimbabwe 1983 World Cup

“A young Graeme Hick was as good as any 18 year-old has ever been in the history of cricket; to my mind, he was at his peak back then.”

PP336-337 – in ref to Atherton declaration and Hick in general

Graeme Hick “had as much talent as any player I’d ever come across”

“…just as it appeared Hick’s liberating gifts were about to re-emerge, in stepped England captain Mike Atherton to extinguish the flame. As far as exerting your authority at the wrong time and not knowing your players well enough Atherton’s decision to declare before Tea during the 4th day of the Third Test, in Sydney, when Hick was 98 not out, must rate as a major blunder.”

“In his misguided belief that to show tunnel vision in the search for victory was a virtue, Atherton overlooked the very secret to team success: effective man-management.”

“In Hick, Atherton had a potentially great player who hadn’t scored a Test century against Australia and was in urgent need of a confidence boost. One more over and he might have been a totally different player for the rest of his career, but sadly for him, he never did make a (Test) hundred against us and his self-belief never matched his gifts.”

“County cricket attacks…were a dangerous impediment to his development” (ie – in terms of ingraining faults in technique).

I couldn't get a hold of Warne's autobiog to note the exact citations:

Shane Warne – my autobiography – Coronet Books 2002

If it's any help, I'm certain that the quotes I originally posted are as close to word for word as you can get. I can also recall the quotes were in the "Ashes" chapter of his book which is in the first 50 pages.

Andrew Flintoff – Being Freddie – Hodder and Stoughton – 2006 – page 45

“I remember Graeme Hick being good to me during those early stages.” (in reference to his test debut v South Africa, Trent Bridge 1998)

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=1989;class=testplayer;filter=advanced;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;season=0;startdefault=1991-06-06;start=1993-02-15;enddefault=2001-03-11;end=1995-11-23;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduleddays=0;scheduledovers=0;innings=0;followon=0;result=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;viewtype=aro_list;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

This is a link to a page showing Hick's test average filtered between his 178 v India in 1993 and his 141 v SA in 1995 - 25 tests at a (rounded) average of 50.

If you haven't seen them already, the Cric Info page for Hick also has links to some good articles by Mark Nicholas, Mike Atherton, and Martin-Jenkins. The Nicholas one (Hick Best Left to Reflect...) covers the "flat-track" debate well. The Atherton one's (Why I'm Backing Hick...) about the Perth(!) innings. The Martin-Jenkins (Cricketing Immortals Welcome...) is also of note. The Match reports for the 98* test are also interesting.

The BBC website also has a story "Hick's place in history" which includes good quotes from Tom Moody and Graeme Fowler. There is also a link to an archived news report on the BBC site ("1988: Hick makes cricketing history") which covers his 405* v Somerset and superbly captures the preposterous pressure Hick was put under (it includes an interview with some geezer who referred to Hick as the next Bradman - which, I'm led to believe, many people did).

There's also a fair chunk about Hick in Atherton's autobiography which I'll post later.

Have you considered mentioning Hick's change in technique during the early 1990's - his style pre-1993 resembled Gooch a bit (more upright and rigid).

I trust this is enough for you to get on with. We obviously shouldn't go overboard but, equally, the page should reflect the immense attention and scrutiny Hick's career has drawn (from not just Worcester fans, but legends like Waugh and Warne as well). Dar2020 20:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.lgiccrankings.com/odi/batting/all-time-ranking.php - link to Hick's place at no31 on ICC list of top ODI batsmen of all-time.

http://www.lgiccrankings.com/odi/batting/player-display.php?id=1595 - link to Hick's ODI ratings page.

http://www.lgiccrankings.com/test/batting/player-display.php?id=1595 - link to Hick's test ranking page. Dar2020 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks very much indeed for going to the trouble of finding all that! I've spent several hours in local libraries over the last few days chasing down some useful references, but I certainly didn't have all of those. Suffice it to say that there are quite a few about that 98*! I don't think we can really use the Warne quotes as quotes unless we're certain they're accurate, but it might be reasonable to paraphrase them with a {{verify source}} or {{fact}} note appended (which is used depends on how the information is worded) until the exact reference can be looked up. (The book isn't in my local libraries either!) I don't think exact page numbers are that vital, but exact words are.

To answer your question near the end, yes I do intend to mention Hick's change in technique. As it happens I own Atherton's book (so there's no great need to post quotes from that), and he himself makes the point (p137 of the paperback). I also found a comment by Jonathan Agnew in his own autobiography (2002 pbk ed) mentioning that Hick tried to change his technique halfway through the 1991 summer, with less success. I wish I could find my copy of My Early Life, since some of the excessive expectation on Hick is visible already in that book - quite apart from the whole idea of his "writing" an autobiography before playing for England at all!

I think it's important to mention that, in general, Hick's cricketing contemporaries are considerably more complimentary about him than some others. You've found Waugh and Flintoff (and Warne as mentioned above), and I've dug out similar comments from the likes of Botham, Stewart and Donald. Some others (eg Lara) are more equivocal, but it's hard to find a 1990s player who really doesn't believe Hick should have been persevered with at all.

Finally, and this is a call to anyone reading: any chance of a photo? I can only find three of Hick on Flickr, and sadly none are under a licence acceptable for use on Wikipedia. (Any photos must allow both derivative works and commercial use; the latter is often the sticking point.)

Anyway, as things stand it looks as though I'm going to end up with an article about three times longer than the recommended maximum (32K) for Wikipedia, so something will have to give! So many people have an opinion about Hick, and though the article has to concentrate on established facts I agree with you that, given that he is one of the most discussed England players of recent years, that outside interest does need to be addressed. Loganberry (Talk) 00:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Heads-up for possible record approaching

This isn't very likely unless he keeps playing for at least two more years, and plays more one-day games than he has of late, but should Hick score another 1,032 List A runs before retirement, he will overtake Graham Gooch as the heaviest List A run-scorer of all time. Loganberry (Talk) 01:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Page numbers

I've just checked the relevant section of WP:CITE, and it says:

Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article.

So my comment above is wrong, and the guideline seems pretty clear: we can only use quotations for which we have both exact wording and definite page number(s). Still, it shouldn't be impossible: my draft as it stands now has around 30 sources cites even discounting those which don't fulfill the aforementioned requirements! Loganberry (Talk) 16:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I've just noticed that if you ignore the three seasons 1993-95 inclusive (ie go straight from 1992 to 1996) Hick's English-summer average rises then falls in alternate years through his entire career. Whether there's something in that I have no idea! Loganberry (Talk) 02:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't: 2002 just fails to comply with the "rule". Never mind; I did say it was trivial! Loganberry (Talk) 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Article size

My current draft of the revised article is 54K in size. This is well above the 32K at which point the "This may be longer than is preferable" notice comes up, but Wikipedia:Article size points out that what is important is the size of the main body of prose - excluding such things as references, of which the aforementioned draft has a very large number (over 40), many linked with templates (eg {{cite book}}). Nor do images, infoboxes etc count. Without those, the text is more like 30K.

Perhaps more important is another comment on the Article size page, which says that readers "may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words". Excluding references etc, my current draft of the Hick article comes in at about 5,300 words, which is okay. I don't think there's any reasonable way to split the biography into sub-articles, since the biggest point of discussion is the difference between Hick's domestic and international careers: the two simply cannot be considered apart from each other.

Finally, "going over the recommended limit needs to be justified by the topic". Whether we can use that justification here is arguable, but I would say yes. It's certainly the case that Hick is one of the most discussed cricketers of our time, and that combining that with his long and record-strewn domestic career gives us a great deal to talk about. My own view is that so long as the introduction gives a good summary (which is something we should be aiming for anyway), an article of considerable length is justified in Hick's case. Loganberry (Talk) 03:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As we've discussed, in order to give a fair, accurate, and objective account of Hick's career the page must respect the attention he has received. To be properly objective, the article must find that elusive middle-ground that very few Hick biogs find. To do that, significant detail needs to be employed. Just as Hick fans live with the flat-track description, critics of Hick have to live with his successes and numerous admirers. Its not being partial or over-zealous, its just being fair and honest to the research conducted.

Critics who are biased against Hick's intl career are quick to call him a failure; fans who are biased for Hick take much longer to label him a success. Its all about finding the middle-ground, and the more detail and research that is included, the greater the level of objectivity that can be achieved.

Dar2020 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(I've indented your answer to make it clearer to read; no other changes have been made.) To be honest at the moment the article probably errs too much to the positive. There's a short intro, a long season-by-season chronology - which again I think is justified - and finally a sort of "aftermath" section discussing "what went wrong?" with Hick's international career. It is that last section which is a bit problematical, since I haven't yet got enough material citing those who didn't think Hick was good enough.

I'd really like to find some good quotes from Bob Willis, who seemed to me among the most negative of the main authorities, more so than Boycott. Unfortunately I've had no luck with that in the libraries, and there's not a great deal of use online. Since the majority of Hick's cricketing contemporaries (with a few exceptions such as Wasim Akram) are quite warm towards him, I think that balance is important.

I've also made sure to distinguish between Hick's Test and ODI careers, since he did much better at the latter than the former. It's also the case that there were respected voices calling for his recall to the ODI squad quite a bit after his Test career was clearly over - seriously as late as about the 2003 World Cup, and not-entirely-jokingly as late as this summer! Loganberry (Talk) 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Finding less positive quotes about Hick that are non-sensationalist and thoughtful is easier said than done. I don't have references or citations, but a lot of what Willis (particularly in his commentary for Sky and his Daily Mail column) used to say was stuff like "pathetic test average. Time's up. End of story". Okay, the guy's opinion has to be respected deeply but such comment is no more helpful to a proper biog than a one-sided rant from a Hick fan. I tolerate Willis to an extent because he has alway's acknowledged Hick's domestic achievements and, while his view of the intl Hick is harsh, he is obviously not alone in that respect. Atherton tried to find a decent balance in his book, but again its disappointing that he didn't see fit to acknowledge Hick's ODI achievements. I was very interested by a section of his book on Hick (p138 I believe) where Atherton comments "the general perception was he failed to fulfil his potential and shied away from confrontations that are the lifeblood of test cricket". Crucially, he then says "If so, ...", which to me indicates that he knows or suspects that such an argument is not cut and dried and is speculating as opposed to stating.

I have a lot of time for the articles of Mark Nicholas and CMJ on Hick; not necessarily because they are rather supportive, but more because they strike me as being rather balanced - they attempt to address criticisms of Hick at intl level logically, clearly and calmly; they are more respectful to the criticisms of Hick than critics are to the mitigating arguments, I believe. For that reason, it may be an idea to use their writings to find the less positive stuff about Hick. The crucial thing about the redraft is that we're trying to submit an article the fans and critics across the spectrum can accept as fair. As I said above, the major problem is that most negative views (which must be noted and respected) on Hick are not always backed up by the requisite detail and objectivity (they just tend to spout cliche - I mean, where's the evidence for "flat-track" - certainly not Perth 98 or Headingly 2000 to name but two - both examples of Hick making serious contributions on bad pitches against quality bowlers in low-scoring matches), and I think this reflects badly on the arguments of Hick's critics. The additions I made to the article initially were not graced with measure, but each assertion was backed up with a strong reference. Apart from a disappointing final test average (for which there are oodles of mitigating circumstances), a nick-name from John Bracewell, and a some boasts from Merv Hughes, I'm not convinced there's much else for Hick critics to get stuck into. Sure, they can point to given innings where Hick failed, but we can point to innings where he did not (besides, Mike Atherton didn't hit 185* every time his back was against the wall). They can point to poor patches in test cricket, but we can point to the world-class period Hick enjoyed between 1993-95. The issues regarding the treatment of Hick, I believe, are a lot less debatable, as the arguments in my essay indicate.

I'm not saying Hick was perfect and I'm not saying his shortcomings and poor patches should be overlooked, not at all. What I do feel, however, is that the standard criticisms for Hick are rather misguided; ie everyone refers to Hick's suspect technique v short stuff, but I'm sure you'll agree that his susceptibility to it was more down to suspect shot selection (cause perhaps by overanxiousness to prove himself, caused in turn by the fact he was always getting dropped) than technique (there was nothing wrong with his technique v short stuff at Centurion in 95 or Perth in 98 was there?). This is actually another argument of Warne's and I wish I could get a hold of his book.

The likes of Warne, and Nicholas and CMJ never say Hick's perfect, they agree he has shortcomings and they acknowledge the criticisms Hick has received. They do so in a balanced way, however; a way that is more balanced than the likes of Willis IMO. For that reason, I feel that it is such writings that we should give most time to. If thoughtful and reasoned quotes from critics like Willis can be found then great, but such quotes don't seem to jumping out at us and I don't think its because we're not looking hard enough.

We should not seek to be biased for Hick and we should not seek to disrespect the views of those who do not view him in the same light as we do. But equally, we shouldn't be giving all arguments the same weight if the evidence isn't there. I'm digressing a bit, but the case of Hick is a bit like that of Timothy Dalton's tenure as James Bond - there's an abundance of casual criticism, but it generally tends to be the supportive views that are more detailed, better researched and appear more objective. If in the course of our research, we find the balance of detailed, thoughtful, and objective views on Hick is tipped in the balance of the the more sympathetic and supportive, we must respect that (im)balance.

If those who don't like Hick aren't satisfied, there is nothing to stop them appearing on these boards to give their (properly substantiated) views. The criticisms of Hick should - along with the supportive views - be allowed the force they merit.

I seem to have gone off on one again there! I'm looking forward to seeing the redraft though.

Dar2020 23:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Length again

The revised version I have just uploaded is a great deal longer than its predecessor, but in Hick's case I think that's entirely justified. If footnotes, infoboxes etc are stripped out then the body text itself weighs in at around 30K, which for one of the most discussed English cricketers of modern times and a man with more than twenty years in the first-class game I don't think is unreasonable. The one thing I really would have liked would have been a photo, but sadly there seem to be no suitably-licensed pictures of Hick available. Loganberry (Talk) 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed photo

I removed the photo that User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld added, for which he used the {{promotional}} template, and repeat here what I said on his Talk page:

About the photo you added to the Graeme Hick article... it's nice, but I don't think it's going to be acceptable, because the criteria listed in the tag template include:

where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it

That's clearly not the case with Hick: he's both still alive and still appearing in public (ie by playing cricket), and it's perfectly possible for someone to take a photo of him. Whether a free image has been created is not the point: the tag specifically requires that it could not be created. Loganberry (Talk) 23:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced it anyway, (I am 95% sure its him now) but could someone work out how to make it bigger? SGGH ^speak! 16:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You can be 100% sure it is Graeme Hick but you won't make it bigger without losing focus. It's okay for the infobox so leave it. Pity he was wearing shades but never mind. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Graeme Hick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616084923/http://graemehicktestimonial2006.com/profile.htm to http://graemehicktestimonial2006.com/profile.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927010250/http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/display.var.1332347.0..php to http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/display.var.1332347.0..php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Graeme Hick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140206111305/http://www.worcesterstandard.co.uk/2014/02/06/sport-Hick-takes-on-Australian-coaching-role-85338.html to http://www.worcesterstandard.co.uk/2014/02/06/sport-Hick-takes-on-Australian-coaching-role-85338.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)