Australia will feel the absence of McGrath and Warne, Richard Hadlee tells Mobile ESPN’s Shreyas Sharma in an exclusive.

Shreyas: Do you think India have exposed the weakest Australian Test team in years?

Hadlee: All teams go through phases. The West Indies were so dominant in the 70s and 80s, Australia have been dominant for more than 10 years, but when you lose four-five of your top players then there is a problem. (Glenn) McGrath and (Shane) Warne almost always got half the wickets between them, now that's a big gap to fill. Australia have got some young players coming into the side, its going to take them time to develop their own records and be future superstars.

You never underestimate Australian sport, because we know their dogged determination, we know they like to advance the game at their pace. They will be competitive - obviously they'll lose some games - but they're still going to keep winning. But they might lose more than they used to.

Shreyas: How would you analyse the Indian performance?

Hadlee: I think India have played very well, and sent a very clear message to the world - that India is a powerhouse, or a future powerhouse. I think they've got the depth, the talent and the direction to be successful not just at home, but around the world. It'll be interesting when they come to New Zealand in the new year, I think that's a big tour for them, because the last time they came, they were disappointing - it was almost as if they gave up in bowler-friendly conditions, right before the 2003 World Cup. They need to come back and look to redeem themselves there and look to play more gutsy cricket. If they can do that, they'll be able to handle themselves in anything.

Shreyas: With your experience of Indian conditions, why do you think Brett Lee has struggled in the series, whereas the Indian quickies, Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma did well?

Hadlee: Bowling in subcontinent conditions is very hard, especially for an express fast bowler. Sharma has been good, Khan has been good. But Brett Lee has been distracted with personal issues, and that has probably affected his preparations. I expect that against New Zealand at the Gabba in two weeks' time, he will be looking to get those 4 wickets he needs to reach 300. He's been at the peak of his powers for the last few years, really, the number one strike bowler. And you're going to have a time when you'll struggle - Dennis Lillee never got a wicket in the subcontinent, and he's arguably the greatest ever. I don't think he ever toured India, but hardly got a wicket in Pakistan. So I wouldn't dismiss, or be too concerned about Lee's performance, because he's good enough to come back.

Shreyas: For someone who suffered mental and emotional problems during the 1980s, and motivated himself again after a self-imposed exile, how do you think someone like an Andrew Symonds can bounce back after his mental rehabilitation?

Hadlee: I can't talk specifically about his situation, but as a high-profile sportsperson, there are a lot of expectations. There are a lot of pressures on your own individual performance, and being a part of the team, representing your country. You have media responsibilities, sponsorship responsibilities, family... Trying to put it all together and balance it all is quite hard. Then, obviously, there's the financial security - it's no different to a high-powered CEOs of companies. And sometimes it gets on top of you, and you get into a phase where it just all clouds in. That's where self doubt comes in.

International sport is no place to be, when you're not well, because you won't get any better. It takes time to get over it, sometimes you do need advice from others. You don't wish it on anyone, but you can learn from it.

Shreyas: Do you think that the cricket's quick rise to a high-profile professional sport has also contributed to these mental problems?

Hadlee: Well, professional cricket has been around for a long time, but yes, recent times have upped the ante a little bit. When you hear about a 20 million dollar winner-takes-all one-off game, you often wonder where the game's going, because you know where the focus is (laughs). You're putting a lot of pressure on everybody, and I'm not so sure that's good for the game. For a fair day's work, you get a fair day's pay - that's the rule of thumb for anyone in anything that they do. It's not sour grapes or anything of that nature, it's just a fact that money can be a very destructive thing. If you've got your priorities right, you're performing consistently, the rewards will take care of themselves. The game's got to be controlled a little bit better.

Shreyas: In that sense, if you talk about Shane Bond, who was statistically the best fast bowler that NZ produced after you, do you think the injuries and the expectations forced him to take the first bit of money that came along and join the rebel Indian Cricket League?

Hadlee: You can't blame the players. In Bond's case, he was offered money that you dream of, it was like winning the lotto, a few times over! It made an economical, business sense for him to say - ‘Hey! That'll do me! Thank you very much!' But it's a huge loss to our game, not to have him involved. But he'd never earn that playing Test cricket or ODI cricket, if it wasn't for the rebel league.

Shreyas: Do you think the way forward is for the ICC and the BCCI to try and work the rebel league into the international cricket setup, so that this mass exodus from countries like New Zealand and Bangladesh can be stopped?

Hadlee: I think we should look back to the Packer era, and take our lessons from there. When Packer took the cream of international cricketers away, it took about two and a half years for a reconciliation. But the benefits that came out of Packer cricket - white balls, coloured clothing, razzmatazz of the game - are what we see today. Common sense suggests, there needs to be peace. And you need to get all the sides talking and find common ground, so that you can get the top players back into the international arena. You want to see the best on show, at times there's quite a lot of mediocrity out there for big paychecks. That's not a fair game.

Shreyas: Hadlee, Botham, Kapil and Imran - the four all-rounders that defined a whole generation of cricket. Do you think there are any modern all-rounders that come close to forming another quartet?

Hadlee: I don't think they would achieve what we did, although (Jacques) Kallis is up there... Even (Shaun) Pollock did - over 3000 Test runs, 400 Test wickets, that's pretty much what I did! Kallis is 200 wickets and almost 10,000 runs, so he's like Sobers, when you look at the stats - he's been an extraordinary performer. It's pretty tough to be an all-rounder today - an efficient, capable, matchwinning one - with Test cricket, 50-over cricket and Twenty20 cricket. The burnout rate - it's just tough to get out there to bowl with the new ball or first change, and then get out there and bat and try and turn, or win, a game. (Andrew) Flintoff is pretty handy, obviously, though he's a few wickets short of the others. I think in time, (Shane) Watson is developing into a very handy cricketer. I thought he had a tremendous IPL, becoming the player of the tournament. So, if there's going to be some new ones in the future, only history will determine that.

Shreyas: And finally, now that England have arrived in India to play a series, what with the high of the South Africa series win under Kevin Pietersen and the low of the Stanford series behind them, do you expect a tough fight, or will India end up walking all over the visitors?

Hadlee: I think India should win, and win quite comfortably. India in their own conditions will always be the favourites, and England will have to dig deep and get out of the Stanford situation quickly, and focus on the game. And plus, the Stanford thing was a one off, that too Twenty20, where anything can happen. And it happened very negatively for England. But Pietersen, I think, has certainly added a bit of spice and character to the team.