• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Is Luke Ronchi potentially the next Adam Gilchrist?

Is Luke Ronchi potentially the next Adam Gilchrist?

  • Total voters
    45
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah I know what you mean. Post edited to reflect more accurately meaning.

Thing is, of course, "Aussie" sounds far more natural than "fan of the Australian cricket team". And FFS, we've at least 2 Australian-cricket-team-fans here on CW who are in no way, shape or form Australian.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Richard said:
Nah I know what you mean. Post edited to reflect more accurately meaning.

Thing is, of course, "Aussie" sounds far more natural than "fan of the Australian cricket team". And FFS, we've at least 2 Australian-cricket-team-fans here on CW who are in no way, shape or form Australian.
Click to expand...
Even "Aussie supporters" would suffice IMO.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Quite hilarious that at this very moment I'm having to tell a second poster that I have more right than they to choose my own nationality as it's once again insisted I'm more English than Welsh. :laugh:
 
NUFAN

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Prince I can't believe you think Knight was a better one day bat than Gilchrist.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well I expect if someone considers Adam Gilchrist better than Nick Knight at one-day batting, they won't answer "Nick Knight" to the question "who is better at one-day batting out of Nick Knight and Adam Gilchrist?" TBH.

I accept them as a reliable survey of forum consensus, and have always done so TBH.
 
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I just looked at the thread. I posted in it yet didn't vote, for one reason or another. Probably forgot at the time, like I often do when the discussion has been going on for ages by the time I enter the thread, and just ignore/forget the poll.

You can't really rely on a CW poll obviously, but the results in that thread regarding how many votes Knight has does surprise me. I think everyone voting Knight thought the question was "who has smaller ears" personally.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Jono said:
I just looked at the thread. I posted in it yet didn't vote, for one reason or another. Probably forgot at the time, like I often do when the discussion has been going on for ages by the time I enter the thread, and just ignore/forget the poll.

You can't really rely on a CW poll obviously, but the results in that thread regarding how many votes Knight has does surprise me. I think everyone voting Knight thought the question was "who has smaller ears" personally.
Click to expand...
It was a lot closer than I thought it'd be too. Personally I can't really split them TBH, but given I thought Knight would get an absolute hammering I voted for him. I certainly don't think he's conclusively better than Gilchrist if at all but I'd never say Gilchrist was better either. I put them on the same level of ODI batsmen in the tier. The first tier consists of the true greats like Richards, Bevan and Tendulkar.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Jono said:
You can't really rely on a CW poll obviously, but the results in that thread regarding how many votes Knight has does surprise me. I think everyone voting Knight thought the question was "who has smaller ears" personally.
Click to expand...
That's so similar to Fiery's comments when he found that what he was trying to show didn't exist - "those who voted for Knight obviously don't have a clue about cricket, because I say they don't because they don't view it the same way I do". Basically suggesting it's obviously something that can't really be considered by anyone.

FFS, is it really so hard to comprehend that plenty of people think there is no good reason to consider Gilchrist better than Knight?
 
Mr Mxyzptlk

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Safe to say, after belting WI around on that pitch and with a 5-0 series on the line, Luke Ronchi is better than Adam Gilchrist. Could Gilchrist do that at the age that Ronchi is? Doubtful. Ronchi is basically a legend.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Richard said:
That's so similar to Fiery's comments when he found that what he was trying to show didn't exist - "those who voted for Knight obviously don't have a clue about cricket, because I say they don't because they don't view it the same way I do". Basically suggesting it's obviously something that can't really be considered by anyone.
Click to expand...
TBH I think that sort of attitude from members just prior to and indeed during the poll led to a few more votes for Knight than there would have been otherwise. Given the circumstances in which the poll was created, I think quite a few, like myself, voted for Knight as a way of saying "Knight is in the same league as Gilchrist", "Knight is comparable to Gilchrist" or "Gilchrist is not conclusively better than Knight" rather than legitimately thinking Knight was better.
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Blame Jono, if you must blame someone - someone makes an off-the-cuff comment, people are bound to respond to it.

Think consensus on the Ronchi issue has been reached anyway, pretty much.
Prince EWS said:
TBH I think that sort of attitude from members just prior to and indeed during the poll led to a few more votes for Knight than there would have been otherwise. Given the circumstances in which the poll was created, I think quite a few, like myself, voted for Knight as a way of saying "Knight is in the same league as Gilchrist", "Knight is comparable to Gilchrist" or "Gilchrist is not conclusively better than Knight" rather than legitimately thinking Knight was better.
Click to expand...
I know - I've said as much, really.

The point I wanted disproved, and am glad it was, was that almost everyone thought Gilchrist was in a totally different league to Knight. That is ridiculous. Suggesting Gilchrist was a better ODI opener than Knight isn't, though I don't consider it myself.
 
dontcloseyoureyes

dontcloseyoureyes

BARNES OUT
I don't want to start a big handbag throw but aren't you the one who chastised a new kid for making a duplicate thread? Surely using a completely unrelated thread to discuss the topic of another well known thread (that you've even linked here) is just as bad?

Of course you won't agree with me and you'll be all English and pompous about it, but anyway, you're still a douche.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Making needless threads is different to the evolution of discussion within an existing thread. Considerably different.

PS, I am neither English nor pompous.
 
PY

PY

International Coach
dontcloseyoureyes said:
I don't want to start a big handbag throw but aren't you the one who chastised a new kid for making a duplicate thread? Surely using a completely unrelated thread to discuss the topic of another well known thread (that you've even linked here) is just as bad?

Of course you won't agree with me and you'll be all English and pompous about it, but anyway, you're still a douche.
Click to expand...
While we're wildly OT and going further away, how many English people do you actually know who are pompous?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top