CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

``May you all live to be 100, and may the last voice you hear be mine.'' Thus spake Sinatra, bourbon in hand, as he addressed the audience between songs. Graeme Hick seems determined to push the Sinatra Doctrine as far as decency permits, with a little help from his friends. He has now made eight come-backs. Even the kid from Hoboken might have blanched at that.

When the news was released yesterday that Hick was back in the Test team, it is a fair bet that, for every person who cried, another laughed. (David Graveney might have declared for both sides, like one of those Greek masks). So which shall we have first, laughter or tears? Oh, dear, dear, let's have a laugh.

``He's making runs.'' Goodness gracious, if the selectors told gags of that quality on the south pier at Blackpool they would be booked all summer, every summer. Of course he is making runs. He made them in 1991, when he was first selected; in '92, when he returned to the side; in '93, after he was dropped a second time; in '94, before he was again 'rested'; in '95, '96, '97 and '98. He is always making runs. In county cricket, he is the most voracious run-maker since G Boycott. But what has that got to do with Test cricket?

``The pitch will turn, and he's good for a few overs.'' So good, in fact, that he is bowled one over in the last seven Tests. At the Oval last year, when Muttiah Muralitharan took 16 wickets in the match, and at Sydney, when the three Australian spinners shared 17, Hick wasn't trusted to bowl a single ball. In 53 Tests, he has taken 22 wickets. That's how valuable a bowler he is.

``New Zealand are scared of him.'' Possibly, but only when he wears a mask and cape. He has played six Tests against these opponents, and his best score in nine innings is 58. That doesn't strike anybody as terribly intimidating. Far more frightening is the tosh that the selectors rely on, in an attempt to dress it up as justification.

You have got to admit, that little list is a feast of laughter, a jamboree of mirth, a torrent of merriment. Now, Rigoletto, hand me my togs and give me a freshly-peeled onion. It is time for tears.

Hick's last act as an England player, two months ago at Edgbaston, was instructive. As the team came to terms, in their different ways, with the defeat against India that ended their World Cup, Hick wandered around the dressing room asking others to sign all sorts of memorabilia for his benefit. Nasser Hussain was in that room. Did he not see it, or does he not regard that behaviour as significant?

Hussain is not the first man to be beguiled by Hick. Just as prime ministers, from Gladstone to Blair, have seen it as their mission ``to pacify Ireland'', successive England captains have come to regard the Hick problem as an issue they must address. Unfortunately, it is just as intractable as Ireland. It is no nearer resolution now than it was eight long years ago when Hick first stepped forth, like Siegfried, only to flinch at the sight of the magic fire.

We are told that this coming Test is a one-off (all matches are, in point of fact) and that Hick is a horse for the Manchester course. Phooey. Either he is in the team on merit or he is not, and he is not. Time after time the poor man has been summoned from Worcester, not through conviction but because he is still around, pummelling county bowlers into submission.

Selection, it has to be said yet again, is not about opinion; it never was. It is about judgement. If these selectors do not know by now, despite overwhelming evidence, that Hick has betrayed their trust then they must have spent the last decade consorting with pixies, elves and other spirits of the night.

Peter Roebuck has contributed an excellent and sympathetic piece about Hick to this year's Wisden. He argues persuasively that he has found fulfilment as a cricketer; not as a Test player, for he is not a competitor, as Roebuck defines it, but a performer. He is right, and one can only admire Hick for it. His is a considerable achievement, as far as it goes.

This is a very English tale. Should anybody want to know why this country fails to win important Test matches, and series, then Graham Gooch and Mike Gatting have unwittingly supplied the answer. Instead of looking forward, England prefer to go back to those who have failed, or not succeeded fully. Other countries, being braver, are rewarded for their courage. Look at Pakistan. They cannot wait to blood the latest teenager.

The guff that has accompanied Hick's latest return fair takes the breath away. We are asked to believe that the seven batsmen nominated are the seven best in the country. They are not. Robin Smith's Test career shows him to be clearly superior to six of them and even though his powers have diminished, he can consider himself desperately unlucky to have become the forgotten man.

The fact is, for all their gifts, this lot do not play well together, and the hour is getting late. How many times must batsmen let the side down before they are not just named, but shamed as well? How much longer can incompetence - for that is what it was at Lord's - be tolerated as ``one of those days''?

Let's have it absolutely right, though this criticism is aimed specifically at Hick, there is a general point which needs amplification. This is a broadside at lazy thinking, of the sort that has blighted the English game for far too long. This latest decision is merely another indictment of the dismal planning that passes for strategy. If this is the best the selectors can do, they must be challenged publicly.

This is the most feeble, witless, craven of all possible selections. It is buttock-clenchingly grim. By all means roll out the carpet for Hick at Old Trafford. Make him the Elector of Saxony, for all the good it will do, so long as Messrs Gooch and Gatting never pick another England team. This side bears the stamp of men who have grown tired in the job and who now field excuses that they would never have accepted as captains.

It is hard to write this, but it must be written. Gooch was a great player, Gatting one of the highest quality. They have rendered the state some service, and can continue to make a useful contribution in other ways. But, as selectors, they have outlived their purpose. They neither know what they want, nor who they want. They are shot to pieces. They should resign.