4 Australian Retirements..Replacemants!!!

[flanflinger]

First of all Clarke was only called up due to Watson's injury. As good as MacGill is, he isn't Warne. You cannot just replace Langer and Hayden (third best Test opening partnership in History - in terms of century partnerships).

Clark has been a good find, but he is not in the same leagus as McGrath. There is nobody in the world like Gilchrist..

The fact is that in a years time the team could be in serious strife.

This team has been unique, but 4 retirements, and another two in the offing, will take a long time to recover from. The selectors really should have planned better for this than they have done, and it may bite them on the proverbials!!

[draexem]

Clarke was called up due to Watson's injury, but he's pretty much replaced Martyn now, with Symonds warming Watson's spot (and Watson being a benchwarmer for either MacDonald or Henriques).

In terms of replacing Hayden and Langer, is this the same Hayden that most Englishmen claim is nothing more than a flat track bully? It should be easy to replace such a character. Concerning Langer, he was hardly a key part of Australia's dominance, entered the Australian team in 2001 to replace Slater. Averaged 45 which was decent (cobsidering Slater and Taylor both averaged 42 at times of better bowlers and lesser bats). Their replacements, Rogers and Jaques, have both had long apprenticeships. Jaques is a highly aggressive batsmen who is perfectly willing to play his shots and likes to intimidate the opposition team. At 27 years old and with a FC average of 56, he's an opener in the mould of Hayden and Slater. Rogers, at 29 and with a FC average of 50, is a gritty and determined batsmen. A batsmen who is both shortsighted and colourblind (which causes him to occasionally lose the red ball if he doesn't focus hard), he has overcome great odds and is a battler through and through... wait a sec, this is starting to sound familiar. If you are familiar at all with Australian cricket, you should know that the one thing we have in abundance is quality batsmen. If you aren't, well now you know .

Clark is a great find. He won't be able to replace McGrath, but we don't mind. We're more concerned in replacing Warne. He will more than do the job required.

And yes, Macgill isn't Warne... he turns the ball further and has a much better average in India. He also takes more wickets than Warne when they are both playing at the same time. Doesn't have the control of Warne though, however, MacGill will do the job in the short term, all the Aussies are confident of that. What worries us is the development of the young spinners after MacGill goes. Trust me, when 2009 comes, the English batsmen will be having the same old troubles with MacGill, and unlike Warne, he can still bowl all his repertoire.

Gilchrist has been a one off, but we're not looking for a clone. Plenty of keepers in Australia that can keep and score runs.

A lot of people are retiring, Langer, Hayden, Gilchrist, McGrath, Martyn and Warne. Of those 6, 3 are important (Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath) and of those 3 Australia is only really concerned about replacing Warne. You're being melodramatic about Australia's position.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Clark has been a good find, but he is not in the same leagus as McGrath. There is nobody in the world like Gilchrist..!!

I must beg to differ. If you asked any of the current English batsmen who they feel more comfortable facing between Clark and McGrath, they would all say the former. 21 wickets @ 16 is awesome and truly reflects Clark's mastery over the mesmerised English batsmen. Simply put, we have a superior option to McGrath.
As to Gilchrist, he did get that 102* when the pressure was off and England were already on the mat. But what about his feeble 65 runs from his other four innings?? We have 3 or 4 wicketkeepers right now who would be a superior option to Gilchrist both with gloves and bat. England can count themselves lucky we have'nt selected them yet.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

The fact is that in a years time the team could be in serious strife.

Yes i tend to agree with your sentiments to the extent that we could have replaced McGrath, Langer and Martyn and Gilchrist earlier. But look at world cricket right now and be brutally honest. Apart from maybe Pakistan, the rest of the world is and will remain weak in comparison to our new look team. Just as Australia has continued to dominate with the exit of past great players, so to will Australia continue to do so.

There are many reasons for this, superior talent, superior depth, superior technical support, superior facilities, superior first class system, superior training and coaching doctrins, a wider range of environmental conditions resulting in better preparation for playing in the different conditions offered around the world. these are just a few reasons off the top of my head, why Australia will always be very strong on the sporting fields - not just cricket.

Australia will miss Warne for sure but life will go on. He stopped playing ODI's 4 years ago, but did that stop us firstly winning the world cup, and then staying way on top of the rankings? He has been out injured and banned in the past but did that stop Australia winning 80% of those games where he was absent?

No, just as many thought the "dad's army" would be whipped by the "dud's army" this summer, and were found sadly mistaken, so to will it be with the predicted demise of Australia with the changing of the guard.

[ll0OoO0ll]

Originally Posted by greg

4 gone and the possibility of Gilchrist and Hayden after the world cup.Quite an exciting time for Australians as you can debate long and hard the merits of various players to replace the stars.

Obviously short term it may hinder the team but long term we just don't know how good the replacements will be until they are given a chance.For all we know McGrath's longterm replacement may be just as good.

I wont be surprised to see Ponting joining the list after world cup. That might make things a bit more interesting.

[tim93au]

Originally Posted by ll0OoO0ll

I wont be surprised to see Ponting joining the list after world cup. That might make things a bit more interesting.

Ponting is only 31, why would he retire?

[KennyG]

Ponting is at his peak right now.
He has at least five years left to collect most of the batting records and captain Australia through the transitional period coming up.
He can build his own team now so his retirment date is in the distant future.