End of Aussie Era

[CC1981]

And I find this bit of your post a bit of a joke really, putting WI and India in the same sentence- a team which has consistently been the only team to challenge Australia over the past decade and one which are at the rank bottom of test rankings.

You clearly missed what i was trying to say. Which is : Warney had been pretty ineffective vs India and West Indies...so not having Warney hardly makes a difference re: Australia winning/losing vs West Indies or India.

BTW, what's even more laughable in your post is that you are trying to prove Australia will be the same without McGrath and Warne by pointing to a series against South Africa in which Warne picked up 15 wickets in 3 tests!!

15 wickets in 3 tests at 30 average isnt anything special. My point is based in precedence: When the Waughs and Warney retired from ODIs, there was exact same 'expect Aussies to come down to the pack' kinda talk...they put that to rest by dominating ODIs even more. Same was the clamour when Martyn,Waughs retired from Test...same came when they were joined by Langer,Warney etc...yet FACT remains that Australia continues to win test series against allcommers...and so long as that continues, the word 'dominance' is appropriate to be used to describe their streak.

[Mr. Wicket]

Australian bowling is probably at it's weakest in the past 10 years or so. And once Hayden and Ponting go' date=' their batting will be at it's weakest in quite a while.[/quote'] By that point you'll have Philip Hughes and Mitchell Marsh in the lineup. A top 6 of Hughes, Jaques, Mitch Marsh, David Hussey, Pommers and Clarke could be just as lethal as this one.

[The Outsider]

You clearly missed what i was trying to say. Which is : Warney had been pretty ineffective vs India and West Indies...so not having Warney hardly makes a difference re: Australia winning/losing vs West Indies or India.

Warne averages around 30 against WI which is pretty decent for a spinner, hardly comparable to his average in the mid 40s against India. Moreover, it was your claim based on a South Africa series that they would be the same without McGrath and Warne.

15 wickets in 3 tests at 30 average isnt anything special. My point is based in precedence: When the Waughs and Warney retired from ODIs, there was exact same 'expect Aussies to come down to the pack' kinda talk...they put that to rest by dominating ODIs even more.

You really need to watch more cricket to comment on things like that else you'll keep on making claims like the above and that Kumble was a better batsman than Tendulkar during the England series by looking at averages. Pitches during that series were not conducive to spin bowling and yet Warne averaged a pretty decent 30 for a spinner getting very crucial wickets.

Same was the clamour when Martyn,Waughs retired from Test...same came when they were joined by Langer,Warney etc...yet FACT remains that Australia continues to win test series against allcommers...and so long as that continues, the word 'dominance' is appropriate to be used to describe their streak.

That's not even a logical argument - first of all I never predicted their decline in any of the above scenarios. My stance has been the same throughout - all time greats like McGrath, Warne, and Gilchrist cannot be replaced overnight. The likes of Langer can. After McGrath and Warne's retirement, Australia have won 5 out of 8 tests, one of them heavily umpire assisted, 4 of them against rank poor opposition like SL(away) and WI. That itself is a step down from their dominance.

[CC1981]

Warne averages around 30 against WI which is pretty decent for a spinner, hardly comparable to his average in the mid 40s against India. Moreover, it was your claim based on a South Africa series that they would be the same without McGrath and Warne.

averaging around 30 with less than 4 wickets/match for a bowler is indicative of being largely a sideshow than being instrumental- and that more or less reflects Warney's career against WI- he has been more or less inconsequential against them. THAT is all i meant when i lumped India and WI together- that Warney didnt do much against them,so not having Warney doesnt matter a jot. As per the Saffies, i rectified it slightly- i said they did well enough to beat the saffies without McGrath...that is good enough indication that their bowling is NOWHERE as bad as you claim to be.

that Kumble was a better batsman than Tendulkar during the England series by looking at averages

I did NOT say that Kumble was a better bat than Tendy- i said that Tendy did POORLY in England and i stand by that...whatever the reasons, averaging under 40 for a specialist middle order bat, when there are SEVERAL players within the two teams averaging 40+ is a sure,categoric sign of failure- even if it encompasses a few nuggety innings. And had YOU watched the series, you'd realize that Warney essentially had one good innings vs the Saffies, being a non-factor in rest 5 innings bowled.

That's not even a logical argument - first of all I never predicted their decline in any of the above scenarios.

1. I never said YOU made that argument- i said that argument was made and was given weight just like the current argument of 'no McWarne= fail'. 2. Quoting factual precedence is not logic ? sorry, you are slipping, prof.

That itself is a step down from their dominance.

That may be a step down from their crushing dominance, but the word 'dominance' can be used so long as their performance is DINSTINCTLY superior to the rest of the teams- and winning 5 outta 8 is DISTINCTLY superior to the rest.

[The Outsider]

averaging around 30 with less than 4 wickets/match for a bowler is indicative of being largely a sideshow than being instrumental- and that more or less reflects Warney's career against WI- he has been more or less inconsequential against them. THAT is all i meant when i lumped India and WI together- that Warney didnt do much against them,so not having Warney doesnt matter a jot.

Averaging 30 and averaging 45 is not even in the same league, no matter how you spin it. Sorry.If Warne doesn't matter a jot, how come WI were able to bat out 100 overs against the penetrative MacGill and could never do so against Warne.

As per the Saffies, i rectified it slightly- i said they did well enough to beat the saffies without McGrath...that is good enough indication that their bowling is NOWHERE as bad as you claim to be.

Not slightly. It was half your argument in McGrath/Warne. How bad am I claiming them to be anyways? I am saying they'll be number 1 even after the retirements, but not number 1s who lead the table so clearly that no one is in sight.

I did NOT say that Kumble was a better bat than Tendy- i said that Tendy did POORLY in England and i stand by that...whatever the reasons, averaging under 40 for a specialist middle order bat, when there are SEVERAL players within the two teams averaging 40+ is a sure,categoric sign of failure- even if it encompasses a few nuggety innings. And had YOU watched the series, you'd realize that Warney essentially had one good innings vs the Saffies, being a non-factor in rest 5 innings bowled.

And you used the logic that since Kumble averaged 40+ during the series, he was better than Tendulkar!!!

2. Quoting factual precedence is not logic ? sorry, you are slipping, prof.

Quote me relevant factual precedence of all time greats like McGrath, Warne, and Gilchrist retiring and the team not taking a dent in it's performance and that would be logic. Not the retirement of merely good batsmen like Langer and Martyn.

That may be a step down from their crushing dominance, but the word 'dominance' can be used so long as their performance is DINSTINCTLY superior to the rest of the teams- and winning 5 outta 8 is DISTINCTLY superior to the rest.

Yeah, let's see how long it lasts given that their next test tour is to India.

[CC1981]

Averaging 30 and averaging 45 is not even in the same league, no matter how you spin it.

You are starting to piss me off with your pedantry and twisting my words. When did i say they were in the same league ? Nomatter how much you twist and turn, fact remains, if you, as a bowler, average 30+ and under 3 wickets/match against an opposition for your WHOLE CAREER, you are a sideshow, not instrumental to your team vs that team.

and could never do so against Warne.

FALSE!

And you used the logic that since Kumble averaged 40+ during the series, he was better than Tendulkar!!!

LIAR! I said EVEN Kumble got a ton....THAT IS ALL!

Quote me relevant factual precedence of all time greats like McGrath, Warne, and Gilchrist retiring and the team not taking a dent in it's performance and that would be logic.

Martyn was very near alltime great in ODIs, Warney was an alltime great in ODIs and all their retirements meant squat. the two Waugh brothers were alltime greats and their retirments meant squat too. That is as categoric as you get for a logical argument on precedence!

Yeah, let's see how long it lasts given that their next test tour is to India

Non-sequitur. Sorry prof, you ARE slipping. They've never done that well in India- so with or without McWarney, there is zero case of using their series in India as a predictor/benchmark for their dominance.

[The Outsider]

You are starting to piss me off with your pedantry and twisting my words. When did i say they were in the same league ?

Huh? You said both performances were equally ineffectual which they are clearly not.

Nomatter how much you twist and turn, fact remains, if you, as a bowler, average 30+ and under 3 wickets/match against an opposition for your WHOLE CAREER, you are a sideshow, not instrumental to your team vs that team.

Warne averages less than 30 against WI and has more than 3 wickets/match so that clearly makes your above argument a sideshow.

FALSE!

Show me one instance when WI batted for more than 100 overs to draw or win the test except the Lara 153* against Warne.

Martyn was very near alltime great in ODIs, Warney was an alltime great in ODIs and all their retirements meant squat. the two Waugh brothers were alltime greats and their retirments meant squat too. That is as categoric as you get for a logical argument on precedence!

Talking about tests here and Martyn was not a near all time great in ODIs unless you think there are 30+ all time greats in ODIs.

Non-sequitur. Sorry prof, you ARE slipping. They've never done that well in India- so with or without McWarney, there is zero case of using their series in India as a predictor/benchmark for their dominance.

Okay, I am willing to wait a bit more.

[CC1981]

Huh? You said both performances were equally ineffectual which they are clearly not.

SHOW ME where i said 'equally ineffectual' !!!! I said Warney was inffective vs INdia and WI...i NEVER used the word 'equally'.

Warne averages less than 30 against WI and has more than 3 wickets/match so that clearly makes your above argument a sideshow.

he averages round about 30 and has LESS THAN 4 wickets/match against WI...which is exactly what i siad....and you gotto be smoking something weird if you think averaging around 30 with less than 4 wickes/match for a bowler against a certain team makes that team fear this said bowler or this bowler's perfmrnace anything high falutan to be 'missed' against this team.

Show me one instance when WI batted for more than 100 overs to draw or win the test except the Lara 153* against Warne.

That was it right there...and WI wernt just batting agaisnt Warne...usually it was Warne,McGrath,Gillespie... Wah, what amazing consistency prof...you make an absolutist statement that is erroneous..i point that out and now you incorporate the exception case (that blows apart your absolutist statement) into your statement and ask again ?!? This is sophistry of the worst kind, really.

Talking about tests here and Martyn was not a near all time great in ODIs unless you think there are 30+ all time greats in ODIs.

I don't care if there are 3,4,30 or 4395834095893408 alltime greats in ODIs....but benchmark for alltime great ODI players has always been an above 40 average and an above average scoring rate...which martyn satisfies...and you will find that Martyn is good enough to walk into the alltime ODI lineups of SEVERAL teams...that alone is indicative of his worth to the team.

[The Outsider]

SHOW ME where i said 'equally ineffectual' !!!! I said Warney was inffective vs INdia and WI...i NEVER used the word 'equally'.

An average of 30 is not ineffective for a spinner.

he averages round about 30 and has LESS THAN 4 wickets/match against WI...which is exactly what i siad....and you gotto be smoking something weird if you think averaging around 30 with less than 4 wickes/match for a bowler against a certain team makes that team fear this said bowler or this bowler's perfmrnace anything high falutan to be 'missed' against this team.

Where did I say WI fear him etc etc. You are the one claiming him to be ineffective, which he clearly is not.

That was it right there...and WI wernt just batting agaisnt Warne...usually it was Warne,McGrath,Gillespie... Wah, what amazing consistency prof...you make an absolutist statement that is erroneous..i point that out and now you incorporate the exception case (that blows apart your absolutist statement) into your statement and ask again ?!? This is sophistry of the worst kind, really.

That your argument was based on the exception of a once in a life time innings leads me to think the sophistry lies elsewhere.

I don't care if there are 3,4,30 or 4395834095893408 alltime greats in ODIs....but benchmark for alltime great ODI players has always been an above 40 average and an above average scoring rate...which martyn satisfies...and you will find that Martyn is good enough to walk into the alltime ODI lineups of SEVERAL teams...that alone is indicative of his worth to the team.

As I said a lot glaring faults can be hidden by ODIs and am talking about tests, but the suggestion that Martyn is an all time great ODI player is pretty amusing.

[CC1981]

An average of 30 is not ineffective for a spinner.

Average of 30 AND less than 4 wickets/match = ineffective by ANY measure! And furthermore, show me where i said 'equally ineffective'.

Where did I say WI fear him etc etc. You are the one claiming him to be ineffective, which he clearly is not.

he clearly was largely ineffective against the WI as his record PROVES

That your argument was based on the exception of a once in a life time innings leads me to think the sophistry lies elsewhere.

Right. You made the absolutist statement which i differed with- and YOU changed it later on to confront me again. We see where the sophistry is!

As I said a lot glaring faults can be hidden by ODIs and am talking about tests, but the suggestion that Martyn is an all time great ODI player is pretty amusing.

Tell me why not- he has over 40 average and over 75 strike rate...he'd WALK in to an alltime ODI team from England,SL,RSA,NZ and probably PAK...thats good enough for me,really. Anyways, point is, their ODI team put up with practically all their main players from 99-2003 world cup retiring and they STILL dominated. Their test team lost irreplacable members like Steve Waugh,Gillespie,Warney (all of which would be a shoo-in in ANY team today) and still hardly made a dent to their juggernaut...all i am saying is, this whole 'everytime one or two aussie greats retire--->their glory days are over' is getting a bit tiring and precedence proves you wrong so far.

[The Outsider]

Average of 30 AND less than 4 wickets/match = ineffective by ANY measure! And furthermore, show me where i said 'equally ineffective'.

No it's not. His wickets/match ratio is less also due to the fact that the pacers did a pretty good job of cleaning up the WI batting. It's a laughable notion to say that Warne was dominated by the WI batting line up.

he clearly was largely ineffective against the WI as his record PROVES

No it doesn't. An average of 30 is not ineffective for a spinner.

Right. You made the absolutist statement which i differed with- and YOU changed it later on to confront me again. We see where the sophistry is!

If you cannot appreciate the spirit of the argument rather than the nitty gritties then there is no point.

Their test team lost irreplacable members like Steve Waugh,Gillespie,Warney (all of which would be a shoo-in in ANY team today) and still hardly made a dent to their juggernaut...all i am saying is, this whole 'everytime one or two aussie greats retire--->their glory days are over' is getting a bit tiring and precedence proves you wrong so far.

When have they coped with Warne's loss from the test team - they are floundering to find a replacement spinner? Finding ODI replacements is much easier than finding test replacements. I don't want to talk about others but this is the first time I have predicted their decline so the argument that it has been done before and proved worng doesn't wash for me. The reason is pretty simple - tests are won by bowlers and without McGrath and Warne Australia won't find it easy to take 20 wickets consistently. You might think otherwise but if the events at Adelaide, Sydney, Perth, and Antigua are any indication my prediction holds a lot of base.

[CC1981]

It's a laughable notion to say that Warne was dominated by the WI batting line up.

Who said he was dominated ? Your usual sophistry is showing again. I said he was INCONSEQUENTIAL against WI...and a record of 65 wickets in 19 tests @ 29.95 PROVES that...

No it doesn't. An average of 30 is not ineffective for a spinner.

An average of 30 with barely 3 wickets/match average is most categorically ineffective in my books.

When have they coped with Warne's loss from the test team - they are floundering to find a replacement spinner?

As long as they keep winning post Warne (which they HAVE), they are coping...doesnt matter if they replace warney with a spinner,pacer,chinaman or whatever.

[The Outsider]

Who said he was dominated ? Your usual sophistry is showing again. I said he was INCONSEQUENTIAL against WI...and a record of 65 wickets in 19 tests @ 29.95 PROVES that...

It doesn't prove jack. Warne had one poor series against WI in '99 when he was struggling with his shoulder and one mediocre series in his first season in international cricket. Besides that he consistently dominated WI like other teams.

An average of 30 with barely 3 wickets/match average is most categorically ineffective in my books.

Skewed by one poor series.

As long as they keep winning post Warne (which they HAVE), they are coping...doesnt matter if they replace warney with a spinner,pacer,chinaman or whatever.

And they are not winning as much as earlier and not in a comprehensive manner. They would have been dominated at Sydney but for some farcical umpiring. They lost at Perth and came out second best in the draw at Adelaide. They huffed and puffed to a win in the first test against WI and were held to a draw in the second. Watch this space over the next season or two to see more ambiguous results rather than clean and dominating series wins they were churning out earlier.

[King Tendulkar]

Face it CC an aussie era is over. Stop being stubborn and just agree with us! Your reasoning that aussies will not be weaker without warne is nuts!

[King Tendulkar]

Aussies struggling again. Further proof of end of era.

[Chandan]

Your reasoning that aussies will not be weaker without warne is nuts!

Australian team is much weaker than what it was when Warne and McGrath were playing. But they'll still be the number one team in the world, though not by a large margin I suppose.

[printex]

This aussie team will be thrashed in India later this year and next year in Pak .

[Gambit]

This aussie team will be thrashed in India later this year and next year in Pak .

Only if India and Pakistan are brave enough to make result oriented tracks and not pattas.

[swami1984]

It's unlikely that WI could have batted out a comfortable draw for 100 overs in the last innings if McGrath and Warne were around as they are doing now. I can't remember many instances of teams playing out last innings draw against the Aussies.

England - Ashes 2005 5th test- KP secures the Ashes with his brilliant 150

[The Outsider]

England - Ashes 2005 5th test- KP secures the Ashes with his brilliant 150

3rd innings of a rain affected Test. A boring draw. Blah!!