• 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.

Retirement of McGrath/Warne: Good for cricket?

Will Warne/McGrath retiring be good for cricket?

  • Yes, it is good for cricket.

    Votes: 8 26.7%

  • No, it is not good for cricket.

    Votes: 10 33.3%

  • Australia will still be just as dominant, so its irrelevent.

    Votes: 3 10.0%

  • Australia will be crap, so it won't be good for cricket.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Australia will be crap, but it will be good for cricket.

    Votes: 4 13.3%

  • Silentstriker is immortal.

    Votes: 5 16.7%
  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
It seems anathema to suggest this, but is the retirement of the two legends good for the game of cricket? Now, obviously Warne revived a dying art and he was good for the game.

But if Australia fall back to the pack, even if just a little bit, and resulting in a mad dash to see who can topple them as the best team in the world, won't it make for more exciting and better cricket? Perhaps its time that the Aussie dominance ended (if it does end). Now, I personally think they will still be the best team in the world, but it may not be by such a huge margin anymore.

I never want Australia to be rubbish. Australia, in my mind, are part of the Big Three. I think that for cricket to be healthy and exciting, all the big three members have to have strong sides. Ideally, everyone would have strong sides but if I had to pick three sides which would be eternally strong to keep the game of cricket running (i.e rivalries running, excitement high, etc) then Australia, England and West Indies all need to have very good sides.

So I am not advocating them being bad, and in fact they can continue being the best, but if they are the best by a lesser margin, I think it would be very good for cricket.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
The idea that Aussies will be crap is just....crap. They have way too much talent, already in the team, and coming up through the ranks, to be a bad team anytime in the next five-eight years. I just can't see that happening.
 
L

Laurrz

International Debutant
no, because the level of bowling will significantly drop

we already have flat tracks, big bats, boundaries dragged in... and now the level of bowling IMO has gone a lot lower..
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
McGrath-Lee-Clark-Warne >>> Lee-Clark-Johnson-MacGill.
Australia will still be a damn good team because they still have a good attack and a world-class top 7.

Will it be good for cricket? Not straight away. Losing two legends of such quality can never be good for cricket.
There are definitely positives in the long run though; they don't outweigh the negatives right now but they are definitely significant.
We will no longer be able to rely on the older generation to make the standard of bowling look good - the current crop of bowlers will have to step up to the plate.
This is the time for the legends of tomorrow to emerge. Asif? Johnson? Panesar? Taylor? Sreesanth? Steyn? The next few years will be both lacking and exciting.
 
Last edited:
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
adharcric said:
McGrath-Lee-Clark-Warne >>> Lee-Clark-Johnson-MacGill.
Australia will still be a damn good team because that's still a good attack and they still have a world-class top 7.
Click to expand...
So your answer to the question is that they will still be dominant so its irrelevant that they retire?
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
silentstriker said:
So your answer to the question is that they will still be dominant so its irrelevant that they retire?
Click to expand...
Please read my entire post. I've developed a bad habit of submitting an unpolished post and then editing it.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
adharcric said:
Please read my entire post. I've developed a bad habit of submitting an unpolished post and then editing it.
Click to expand...
Haha nice. Works most of the time, but with someone like me eternally prowling the boards, every second counts. :ph34r: I'm like the Jonty Rhodes of CW, nothing will get past me.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Losing all time players can never - directly - be good for the game of cricket. And if it means a long term decline in the quality of the side (i.e West Indians) then it also cannot be good for cricket.

However, if all the retirements do is to simply knock a side down a notch, and while still being the best in the world, make the others more competitive with them...then its good for cricket. Most people would agree that England are the second best side in the world. And they just got demolished in every department. And though it is fun and exciting to have such things for a short amount of time, no one wants to see one sided contests (except perhaps the home fans).

I think interest in cricket, the quality of cricket, and the overall fun in cricket is deadened if sides come to Australia knowing they are going to lose 3-0, and 2-0 seems like some sort of moral victory. Its OK to have a best team, but there has to be at least a realistic chance at an upset.

The other side, as you mention, is losing the 'caliber' of players such as Warne and McGrath. That hurts, but though individuals burn brightly, in the end there will be new stars to take their place. Perhaps they won't be as talented, but it doesn't matter if they can excite you just the same by producing memorable cricket matches. And eventually, someone will come along and stake their place as the successor to McGrath.

This of course assumes that there will be a dip in performance from Australia, which though likely, is hardly guaranteed. Some of the new fast bowling talent looks frighteningly good, and though the spin cupboard seems dry at the moment, perhaps someone will take up the challenge and be a worthy successor. Even if there isn't, it is still possible that Aussies are ahead by so much in other areas that they will still win every match, though perhaps by lesser margins (again, a good thing considering that would mean more excitement). So I suppose the short answer to your question is: Yes.

We all get attached to big time stars, and as you may have been able to guess, I love McGrath. But you know what? I love good quality cricket even more. If the retirement of McGrath and Warne is what it takes to produce more competitive cricket, then it should be welcomed with open arms, and something that we can all look forward to.

Is lower quality, but more exciting cricket, better than cricket with all time greats such as these two? I would say no, but I do not believe that cricket will be of 'lower quality'. Though there is no heir apparent to Warne, there are still excellent players who will prove themselves worthy of the Baggy Green and will perform all the same.

The faces change, but the game lives eternal.
 
Last edited:
Tim

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
As was mentioned, it's just evolution. Everybody knows this was going to happen at some point in the near future. Players only have a certain number of years in them.
Losing Warne and McGrath will be a huge blow for Australia no doubt as they pretty much guarantee you wickets every match.
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
Spot on SS. This will not necessarily produce more competitive cricket, but rather a different type of competitive cricket with different cricketers paving the way.
It remains to be seen what the future holds, but as you put it quite well, the game lives eternal.
 
Matt79

Matt79

Global Moderator
Losing the plot a bit here SS - given that its not likely that England or West Indies are going to become significantly better teams anytime soon, how is it good for international cricket to become further weakened by Australia (hypothetically at this stage) declining. At least for the last decade they've set the benchmark, and provided a goal for the other teams to work towards...
 
H

Hayden_29437

Cricket Spectator
The retirement of Warne and Mcgrath will bring Australia closer to the other Good Test playing nations. ie, England, South Africa and India
But Australia could well still have the number 1 position because there are good players out there ( Johnson, Tait, Cullen, Casson, White and Clark)
 
Anil

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
it'll lower australia's standards a tad in the short term, but they will remain the best team and over a period of time, it will peak again and level out to somewhere slightly below the warne-mcgrath heights as the new generation takes over...i think they have seen this coming for a long time and have good, adequate replacements, so it's not like the 1980s when they went into a cricketing ice age with only border and a couple of emerging players saving them from complete mediocrity....

as to whether it's good or bad for cricket, the question itself is irrelevant, it's an inevitable process....it happens to everyone, every team, the important point is how the australians have learnt from the previous lessons and have managed it this time, impressive....
 
Last edited:
Nate

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
1) Cullen a good player? :laugh: Maybe in ODIs. Maybe.

2) This will be an excellent test of Ponting`s captaincy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top