Wouldn't call it a useless example, but a good example, it is not.
Well, it certainly has the use in my view to show why many people think wizards are so powerful - rules misinterpretations (or at least wizard-friendly interpretations) as well as what opponents can do to thwart wizard tactics (thanks, phaedrusxy for providing the link to a long dicussion thread on that).
And are you actually the same Sir Giaccomo? That was incredibly well reasoned and I have come to expect the exact opposite from this name.
Yes, it is really me
(the same who defended core monks so devotedly over at Giant in the Playground).
I have had some to time to think about the whole game balance issue within core rules again, but it is not complete yet...
But thanks that you liked my analysis in this thread - maybe you wish to read some of what I said in earlier posts, at brilliantgameologists and in giant in the playground; you'll notice some similar lines of argument there (and similarities to some tactics and suggestions that SorO_Lost just ported over, already back in 2008/2009), although certainly not without mistakes.
I would argue that given the proper level of optimization any character can pull off game breaking combos and maneuvers. But the chassis that the wizard comes with makes it very easy for it to reach a very high power and flexibility level without going outside of the intent of the game designers (And thus what most dm's will allow).
As I said above, a lot is often ruled in favour of wizards and that makes the balancing thing not really easier.
Versatility and spell choices are great in theory, but in practice often fail to deliver - at least that's my gaming experience, and also reflected often in game reports that I saw on some boards.
There is no question, though, that the more rules material and splatbooks you play with, the more versatility and power the wizard gets.