Is Luke Ronchi potentially the next Adam Gilchrist?

[Perm]

I think it's safe to say that Brad Haddin will occupy the ODI wicket-keeping slot until he retires, and hopefully now that he gets a solid run we will see how classy he is. He definitely deserves to be the first choice, and I predict he would've done well in this series if he wasn't injured.

Ronchi has only had two decent seasons (2006/7 & 2007/8), averaging 34.15 at a strike rate of 105 over both seasons. Good performances for a opening batsman who also doubles as a wicket-keeper, but he still averages less than 25 for his List A career. I've never seen him bat, so I'm judging him based on what I've read and his acheivements domestically. I doubt he has the ability, mental or physical, to match Gilchrist's feats or retputation, but I can see him being similar with his aggressive playing style.

 

[deeps]

Brad Hogg had a crap List-A and first class bowling average

still went alright at ODI's and played a handfull of test matches to boot..

stats aren't everything, and he has significantly improved both his keeping and batting over the past two seasons.

I'd have him in the One day and twenty twenty team over Haddin... I wouldn't have him in the test team though.

 

[SJS]

CW is a great place to discover all time greats before anyone else in the world notices them. It was here that we discovered the next Wasim Akram aka Irfan Khan Pathan and now the next Gilchrist.

Well done guys

 

[Richard]

Is Luke Ronchi potentially the next Adam Gilchrist?

If he plays on pea-sized grounds like Basseterre (if that's how it's spelt, CBA to check) every innings, maybe.

Otherwise, not a chance.

 

[Prince EWS]

He hasn't even proved a domestic dominator. He's got a reasonable FC average of 36ish (actually better than I thought it was) though it helps coming in behind arguably the best batting lineup in Australian domestic cricket (Langer, North, Pomersbach, Marsh, Rogers) and his List-A average is a largely underwhelming 26. His keeping certainly has improved but it's still no better than Haddin and certainly doesn't justify him playing ahead.


Anyway, there's a common perception in Australia that Ronchi is a young star of the game, mainly because of a) people only hear about him when he makes his customary hundred from 60 balls per season (generally his only hundred in the given season) and b) because he's only been even close to reasonable in very recent years. He's 27, which isn't that young, and if Haddin plays for another 4 or 5 years which he perceivably could (being only 30 himself) he'll be much too old to be debuted and should be overlooked for (hopefully) Tim Paine or another young keeper.

Ronchi doesn't have the temperament or the talent to emulate Gilchrist. While Gilly had multiple gears to his batting, Ronchi has only the one. Go for it. He has no slow down or off button and it is obviously the major factor to his lack of consistency.

Completely agree with all of that. One of the most over-rated "talents" in Australian cricket for mine. He's deservedly the reserve 'keeper behind Haddin ATM but he's nowhere close to Haddin in reality, let alone Gilchrist.

 

[Prince EWS]

Tim Paine is the better prospect, IMO.

Yeah, AWTA. Stangely seems to struggle to score runs when he's keeping in the same game though, which is obviously a major problem.

 

[chaminda_00]

Phil Hughes is a better keeper batsmen then Ronchi, thats all.

 

[Jono]

CW is a great place to discover all time greats before anyone else in the world notices them. It was here that we discovered the next Wasim Akram aka Irfan Khan Pathan and now the next Gilchrist.

Well done guys

If we didn't speculate this place would be pretty boring and all we'd be doing is having battles and trying to convince Richard that Gilly was a better ODI batsman than Knick Knight.

 

[Richard]

Yeah me and half the rest of the forum who also consider Knight > Gilchrist.

 

[Jono]

No one cares about anyone else Richard, you are the forum. You are CW.

 

[Richard]

Not sure whether to greet that with a or a TBH.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not sure whether to greet that with a or a TBH.

Greet it by smashing your hand through a glass window and abusing hospital staff.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah me and half the rest of the forum who also consider Knight > Gilchrist.

Well, if by Knight you mean

then I can see where you're coming from.

If you mean the startlingly average English ODI specialist of yesteryear 'fraid you should stick to your 80s tv shows

 

[Richard]

Nope, it's been shown pretty conclusively that a good proportion of CWers consider Nick Knight > Adam Gilchrist.

None of them are Australian-team-fans, naturally. That'd be completely OOTQ.

 

[Matt79]

link?

 

[Prince EWS]

None of them are Aussies, naturally.

Your insistence that I don't qualify as an Aussie does bother me ITBT. I have no recollection of ever being a different country, so unless you want to call me English via my mother or something, it's a real stretch to consider me anything else.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

No........

It's useless to judge at this time......
He hasn't even played a test yet......

 

[Richard]

Your insistence that I don't qualify as an Aussie does bother me ITBT. I have no recollection of ever being a different country, so unless you want to call me English via my mother or something, it's a real stretch to consider me anything else.

Didn't actually remember you voting for Knight in said poll TBH. Bloody Fiery and his non-public polls. But I maintain you're, well... "apart from the crowd" as far as Aussies are concerned. You're a citizen of Earth as far as cricket is concerned, for mine. Almost everyone else can be pinned down to an obvious team - sometimes a domestic team more than an international one, eg Kyle and Beevers.

I'm the same, FWIW, in my book.

 

[Richard]

link?

............ Blast those non-public polls, as I say.

 

[Prince EWS]

Didn't actually remember you voting for Knight in said poll TBH. Bloody Fiery and his non-public polls. But I maintain you're, well... "apart from the crowd" as far as Aussies are concerned. You're a citizen of Earth as far as cricket is concerned, for mine. Almost everyone else can be pinned down to an obvious team - sometimes a domestic team more than an international one, eg Kyle and Beevers.

I'm the same, FWIW, in my book.

I suppose what I take offence to is the implication that I'm not an Aussie because I don't barrack for the Australian cricket team as passionately as others. FTR I did indeed vote for Australia on the poll Goughy started but I'd admit to being less interested in seeing them win than seeing good cricket and certain players from several countries develop/prosper, but that doesn't disclude me from being Australian.

I can understand why you don't consider me as an Australian cricket supporter but I'd prefer you made it clear that you meant it purely in cricket-supporting terms in future in possible. Even if I hated the Australian cricket team I'd still be an Aussie.

None of them are Aussies, naturally.

None of them are Australian supporters, naturally.

I know I'm being a bit pedantic here but on a strange level I take offence. I know you don't mean it like that but still.