Will the dynamics in test cricket change once the veterans retire?

[L Trumper]

Sure, but did Lara bat as well in 2005-2007 as he did from 2000-2005 I guess is my question.

It's not really a matter of comparing the players. I'm just comparing a certain 3 year pocket.

He did. His record in 2005 as good as it can get. He scored 5 centuries in 8 matches. And in 2006 he had a poor series against ind. But in his last series he played brilliantly, a century followed by a double century in his last series, it will take a lot to do better than that .

 

[Cevno]

He did. His record in 2005 as good as it can get. He scored 5 centuries in 8 matches. And in 2006 he had a poor series against ind. But in his last series he played brilliantly, a century followed by a double century in his last series, it will take a lot to do better than that .

He scored 8 centuries in 19 matches in his last 2 years at an average of 53.11
Including two bad tours of Newzealand and India.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

While from 2000 to 2005 he averaged 54.46.

Si it wasn't as he was any better than what Tendulkar and Kallis have been for the last two years in his last two years,like Richard said.

 

[The_roc]

If you'd asked this question 3 years ago Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Warne and Mc Grath would probably be on your list.

They have gone, time moves on and others come in to replace them. I'm certain in 3 or 4 years time the same will happen.

 

[NUFAN]

I find some of the names on the list in the OP bizarre. Swann at 30 has a potentially long future, Paul Harris will not be missed all that much and Stu Clark realistically will never play for Australia again, even Lee may never.

If you are a fit, professional cricketer who hasn't had a completely injury plagued career, 30 isn't really an age where you should be considering retirement.

 

[WindieWeathers]

I find some of the names on the list in the OP bizarre. Swann at 30 has a potentially long future, Paul Harris will not be missed all that much and Stu Clark realistically will never play for Australia again, even Lee may never.

If you are a fit, professional cricketer who hasn't had a completely injury plagued career, 30 isn't really an age where you should be considering retirement.

I merely named the players 30 or over in all of the top four sides, and said "the majority" i.e 32 or over won't be playing in the next 3 years so it's likely to effect some teams, i know Swann is likely to be around for a while yet and Sehwag too.

 

[DaRick]

Well, yes the dynamics in Test cricket will change. They always have.

Of these, I feel that India will be most affected by their spate of retirements. It shapes up to be a AUS vs ENG 2006/07 scenario, with them maybe finishing up against us. I wonder whether they'll be in any shape to deal with said retirements. Their pace stocks will also be weakened by Khan's absence (though there is promise - albeit unfulfilled - behind him). Badrinath, Kohli, Raina, Rohit, etc. are either talented or fairly accomplished domestically, but I doubt they'll be able to replace Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman with that much ease.

AUS will be affected by Ponting's departure, but Hussey and Katich? Katich has been batting very well of late, but I still wonder about Hussey's Test form. Plus, I can see Jaques or Hughes replacing Katich and doing so with some success.

SA have shown a vulnerability to retirements of key players in the past - Donald, Rhodes and Kirsten left SA cricket during 2002-2004, whilst Pollock declined. As a result, they fell in a heap. Kallis is only one player, true, but I doubt they'll be able to replace him entirely. He simply fills too many roles for them. Boucher is also an important player, although apparently there's a replacement (initials are HK, but forget his name) waiting in the wings. Whether he'll fill Boucher's role well remains to be seen, as does SA's fate.

As for ENG, Strauss and Swann should still have several years left, form permitting. Collingwood might have a couple left.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Well, yes the dynamics in Test cricket will change. They always have.

Of these, I feel that India will be most affected by their spate of retirements. It shapes up to be a AUS vs ENG 2006/07 scenario, with them maybe finishing up against us. I wonder whether they'll be in any shape to deal with said retirements. Their pace stocks will also be weakened by Khan's absence (though there is promise - albeit unfulfilled - behind him). Badrinath, Kohli, Raina, Rohit, etc. are either talented or fairly accomplished domestically, but I doubt they'll be able to replace Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman with that much ease.

AUS will be affected by Ponting's departure, but Hussey and Katich? Katich has been batting very well of late, but I still wonder about Hussey's Test form. Plus, I can see Jaques or Hughes replacing Katich and doing so with some success.

SA have shown a vulnerability to retirements of key players in the past - Donald, Rhodes and Kirsten left SA cricket during 2002-2004, whilst Pollock declined. As a result, they fell in a heap. Kallis is only one player, true, but I doubt they'll be able to replace him entirely. He simply fills too many roles for them. Whether they'll be affected to that extent again is another question.

As for ENG, Strauss and Swann should still have several years left, form permitting. Collingwood might have a couple left.

Good post, i have to admit looking at South Africa's side a lot of them are around 25 so i actually think they might still be very strong in the next 4 years, but don't you think there might be room for other sides to sneak up if India and Australia drop off? i seriously think WI will surprise a lot of people in the next 3 years with the talent we've got coming through right now.

 

[DaRick]

Good post, i have to admit looking at South Africa's side a lot of them are around 25 so i actually think they might still be very strong in the next 4 years, but don't you think there might be room for other sides to sneak up if India and Australia drop off? i seriously think WI will surprise a lot of people in the next 3 years with the talent we've got coming through right now.

This is true - SA does have a young side. It doesn't mean that all the young players will be good, though - at least not simultaneously. Duminy has been woeful, Morkel and co. haven't fully convinced (though they might soon) and de Villiers appears to have plateaued. SA also has problems with quota systems and a lack of FC depth (which is probably part of the reason why they bank on youth). This side might grow with experience, or some may simply find the highest level too daunting. Plus, there are some significant retirements on the horizon and the fact that they always find ways to fall from #1. Anyway, we shall see what happens.

NZ will never be one of the top Test-sides, for fairly obvious reasons (i.e - small population base, rugby union). They have a good lower order, but a shaky top order. Plus, I know little about their attack beyond Martin, Tuffey, Mills and Vettori. Of these, only Martin has consistently been able to get himself on the field.

IND will have more difficulty with its set of retirements than AUS will. For instance, their potential retirees are older and more widespread, plus their FC system is still lacking.

ENG have a reasonable (though by no means great) batting lineup, reasonable (but again not great) fielders and a bowling lineup that thrives in some conditions but is utterly anodyne in others. Not #1 material.

SL have some fine batsmen (especially at home), but their pace attack post-Vaas isn't very impressive, whilst Murali is probably past his prime and is nigh on irreplaceable anyway. As for Mendis, I remain unconvinced as to his longevity as a Test bowler, due to the lack of a requisite stock delivery (in ODI's he should have no problem).

PAK has a super-talented bowling lineup, super crappy fielders and a super mediocre batting lineup. Not #1 material at this stage.

ZIM is likely to remain a non-entity for as long as Mugabe lives, whilst BAN probably need better facilities and a better team culture to exploit their talent and to stop themselves from finding ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

As for WI, there is some talent coming through the ranks. Deonarine could yet be a decent replacement for Chanderpaul, as he has already shown an ability to ground out runs in difficult circumstances. Nash has too, but struggles to rotate the strike. Dowlin and Barath did show enough to demonstrate that they could potentially succeed at this level. Kemar Roach looks good and is definitely quick, but needs to find ways to take wickets more consistently. Taylor and Edwards are not outstanding bowlers, but both have improved quite a bit. They both need to find ways to stay on the park, though. Bravo does too (even though he doesn't do quite enough with ball or bat for mine). Benn and Miller are probably better than any other spinner WI have tried since Ramnarine, but neither have shown themselves to be Test-standard as such. Benn isn't because he's ineffective on most decks, whilst Miller hasn't had much of a chance. I doubt that Rampaul and Tonge are Test-class from what I've seen, but I could be wrong.

 

[Debris]

Australia

Ponting= 35 years old
Hussey= 34 years old
Lee= 33 years old
Katich= 34 years old
Haddin= 32 years old
Clark= 34 years old

.

The retirement of all these players probably improves Australia IMO. The replacements are at least as good for everyone except Ponting.

 

[WindieWeathers]

The retirement of all these players probably improves Australia IMO. The replacements are at least as good for everyone except Ponting.

Care to name the replacements Debris? i've heard of Smith, Vogal and Marsh, and Hazlewood is obviously on his way but apart from those i can't think of many new players coming through for Australia.

 

[Richard]

I find some of the names on the list in the OP bizarre. Swann at 30 has a potentially long future, Paul Harris will not be missed all that much and Stu Clark realistically will never play for Australia again, even Lee may never.

If you are a fit, professional cricketer who hasn't had a completely injury plagued career, 30 isn't really an age where you should be considering retirement.

For a batsman 30 is the sort of age where you should be primed for the prime of your career; only for a seam bowler who relies heavily on athletecism can one even think of 30 being an age where you're beginning to think about retirement - even then it's only beginning to think.

Most decent-quality specialist batsmen will generally be able to play Test cricket until 35; the best will probably be able to play to 38-39 if they want to; good spinners can by-and-large easily play until the same sort of age and in fact can perform to their best for 15 years or so; "metronomic" seam bowlers can easily still perform at their best until 33-34 and can usually play to 36-37.

If one has to give a generic "watershed" sort of age I'd tend to say 33, certainly not 30.

 

[Richard]

Boucher is also an important player, although apparently there's a replacement (initials are HK, but forget his name) waiting in the wings. Whether he'll fill Boucher's role well remains to be seen, as does SA's fate.

Heino Kuhn. And TBF I'll be amazed if he's as good a wicketkeeper-batsman as Boucher - judging by both his early performances and the fact that wicketkeeper-batsmen as good as Boucher don't tend to come around generation after generation.

 

[DaRick]

Heino Kuhn. And TBF I'll be amazed if he's as good a wicketkeeper-batsman as Boucher - judging by both his early performances and the fact that wicketkeeper-batsmen as good as Boucher don't tend to come around generation after generation.

That's him.

Kuhn's record as a batsman, last I checked, was actually fairly good, but in an FC competition that isn't of an enormously high standard. I'd be surprised if he was as good with the gloves as Boucher, though. Plus I haven't seen him bat for myself.