I don't know if I'd call him my first icon, but I was a big fan of Phil DeFreitas when I first started watching cricket. He was one of those players I felt suffered at the hands of England's chop and change policy, never got the run in the side that would have done him the world of good and improved his stats.
I guess one problem was he was one of the "next Ian Botham"s, he was a useful lower order batsman but too much perhaps was expected of him - not helped by him making 40 on debut in an Ashes Test. I didn't believe he would ever make a Test 100, he could have in 1995 when he fell just 12 short, a MOTM performance in which he took only TWO wickets :laugh
He had a pretty good bowling record against everyone except the aussies and saffers, despite his career spanning from 1986 to 1995 he only played 44 Tests.
It's difficult to single out one player that is my favourite in any sport, in cricket if I had to pick one DeFreitas would miss out only to Hick. Hick like DeFreitas suffered at the hands of expectation and England's chop and change policy. When he played 15 Tests in a row Hick averaged well over 40, when he played 11 in a row in a separate spell he averaged 43.43 and only when you got down to his spells of seven in a row or less did he really struggle, not helped by being moved up and down the order, as high as three and as low as EIGHT. He was an excellent fielder, useful spin bowler and at least deserved a longer stay in the ODI side. But England preferred to try 20 batsmen who managed no better rather than stick with Hick, I guess DeFreitas suffered the same fate as the likes of McCague, Capel, Watkin, Taylor, Jarvis, Benjamin et al were given a whirl and failed. In the quest for the "perfect solution", England dumped all over decent players who could do a job and at least gave the side an excellent fielder who could contribute at his non-speciality ie a bowler that could bat and field, a batsman that could bowl and field