Hick

A very interesting topic & as an observer of cricket since 1970 may I share my opinion. I believe that if the ICC gave Zimbabwe test status in the early 1980's (when Zim applied for it) then their whole cricketing landscape & potentially, political landscape would be different.

After independence Zimbabwe had a core group of cricketers hardened by seasons of Currie Cup/Castle Bowl competition eg Fletcher, Traicos, Kaschula,Hogg, Heron, Pycroft,Clift plus emerging players like Houghton, Wallace, Curran & Rawson. They blitzed the second tier nations to qualify for the 1983 World Cup & their season was occupied by firstclass visiting teams & 'A' teams. The West Indies, who sent 3 A teams during the 80s, even stated they wished to be Zimbabwe's first opponent if their test application was successful.

The ICC say no. Zimbabwe beat Australia in the 83 World Cup & are not disgraced in the competition. In 1982/83 they have beaten the test playing touring Sri Lankans 1-0 in a 2 "test" series. NB this was a full strength SL side at that time en route to Australasia & even though SL rebels toured Sth Africa, hardly any would have made the test side.

Zimbabwe have emerging a teenage batting genius in Graeme Hick on the horizon who tour Sl in 1983/84 with a Zimbabwe side. Now if the ICC said yes to test status, there would be no doubt that Hick would have played test cricket as a teenager. Such was his pedigree that he certainly would have been a success. Zimbabwe had the core group of hard heads to allow Hick develop his own game but by 1987/88 he probably would have been the best batsman in the side (& with Pycroft, Houghton, Curran, Rawson& Jarvis at their peak.) Players who lost interest & sought out other ventures may have been influenced to stick with cricket. Players in isolation in SA may have migrated to Zimbabwe to further international careers.

In other words, Graeme Hick would have been the marquee player that would attract interest in countries competing with Zimbabwe. (England & NZ were already courting him to accept residency in their country).

By the 1990s, players such as Murray Goodwin, Neil Johnson, Trevor Penney & Adam Huckle would have rushed back to play internationally, not be enticed as we believe.

Australia & England would have shown greater interest in playing against Zimbabwe & Zimbabwe's record against the weaker nations would have been more on par.

Zimbabwe were quick to introduce a first class competition when granted test status, so there is little doubt they would have done like wise a decade earlier- the same administrators were involved. NB Sri lanka took 7 years to introduce a first class structure.

So possibly by 2003, with Hick having played 120 odd tests(probably 50 as captain) with most runs in tests for Zim, most catches as fielder & about 250 ODIs, he leads Zimbabwe in the world cup. They have been consistenly quarter finalists the last 3 WC. With Zimbabwe not being treated as cricket's b*****d child by the cricketing powers (like they have been), could events in that World Cup be different?

Eventually( hypothetically), Hick retires at 40 having oversighted a smooth transition in leadership & Zimbabwe with a regular diet of international cricket.

Greg Chappell stated once that Hick's development internationally was hindered by the 6 years of qualification for England. History shows his batting average in tests is a touch over 31. On par with Alistair Campbell. (Here is another topic. If the 1990's Zimbabwe batting line up had the Flowers, Goodwin, Johnson, Whittal & Hick, how many tests would Campbell have played? Surely he should have been better than what he was?)

I digress.

30 years on, it is justified to have Sri Lanka with test status. But not to gamble with Zimbabwe was a monumental mistake. Zimbabwe's cricket (& more?) is poorer for the experience.

Thanks for the opportunity to share my opinion. Given some heated comments in other topics, I hope I haven't offended. But I can't resist one last fact. Hick was asked by NZ to consider residency there. At the time, Hick played 2 seasons with Northern Districts. He scored over 2000 runs at 79 with 10 centuries. This is still a record number of centuries for ND. And this in a country where 30 is considered good.

Wow... thats some great info cricket_22001. I only started following cricket in the late 90's. I can hard believe that the ZIm cricket legacy goes way back.

eugene wrote:Your points about Zimbabwe's test status are very good. If it had been granted 5 yeasr earlier we would have held on to many great players. If, however the ICC hadn't awarded it in the early 1990s and waited another few years to consider it I think cricket would have suffered a death blow in Zimbabwe. So even though the ICC waited too long, I think they awarded it at the last possible time before all of our players left and cricket died out in the country.

it would have been great if we had peter rawson and kevin curran in the test side and imagine a younger david houghton and andrew pycroft in the batting line up.

sloandog wrote:Was Rawson quick ??

he was not michael holding quick but he was a brisk medium-fast.