Are you trying to say Ronchi should be playing? Because if you are you've contradicted yourself. As you can see in the first paragraph (His averages similar to Ronchis current) Haddin was not ready to play before then. In the last few years he has been in the top 15 batters in domestic cricket, so to snub him for a player who is hardly ready, just because he can hit bigger and score faster.
Which brings me to point B. Notice the strike rates in List A?
Haddin- 91
Ronchi- 108.
It is hardly a difference, which proves my point I have been argueing for a long time. Haddin is a big hitter and he can also score runs like a batsmen. So to argue Ronchi is a better batsmen is a joke. Both can hit fast, but only one can actually bat.
Once again, Ronchi is not a better keeper or a better batter. Haddin has him covered in both areas of the game. Haddin has proved over the past few years how good of an allrounder he has been, consistently scoring runs and being realiable at the stumps.
I will rant more later, I gotta go now.
You're yelling at a brick wall. I wasn't arguing, nowhere did I say "this player should be in the team or some rhetoric like that. I don't really feel like paying out on cricketers who I enjoy watching and really, being spoilt for choice is all that is on trial here, both within domestic sides and internationally. I was just posting facts. People should understand that Brad Haddin is a lot better than his career figures, because that flaw in the initial argument stopped this from being a thread of only about 2 or 3 posts. However, to use the same methodology, you have to account for the scope of development that is available to Ronchi, even at 27, as Haddin has had to wait an awful long time just the same.
Furthermore, a difference in strike rate of 17 is actually quite relevant. If almost all of the batsmen have a strike rate between 70 and 90, then anything over 100 is an extreme outlyer.
If Simon Katich had a strike rate of 85, he probably wouldn't have been dropped from the ODI side (and subsequently, time would be destroyed). You can't look at it as only about 20% better (although again, smaller differences seperate the good from the great), because any strikerate below 60 is well outside the sample. 17 runs per hundred balls extra can describes a completely different sort of player; the difference between Michael Clarke and Adam Gilchrist, for example, or Chanderpaul and Pietersen.
Of course, consistency in actually scoring runs is more important than a consistent scoring rate, but I think if we are to look differently at a player who averages only 5 or 10 runs more/less, then we should maintain this perspective, especially as strike rate continues to be an increasingly important facet of batting.
??
