The Age Barrier

Since the Australian team won the Frank Worrell Trophy in 1995, they've been acknowledged as the best cricket-playing nation in the world. Notwithstanding a few challenges from South Africa to their title, few would argue that Australia has been consistently producing very good cricketers for many years now and this has reaped rewards thus far. In the past three years has Australia streaked ahead of all other teams and has demonstrated a capacity to not merely beat teams but to beat them convincingly and at a record rate. Players who have played in this team are able to score quickly against all attacks and take wickets at regular intervals. This they have done for a few years now.

But as will all great teams, there comes a time when the changing of the guard must occur. As soon as players arrive at and go beyond the 30-year-old mark, their public perception changes as it's thought that maybe they should make-way for the coming generation of young guns snapping at their heels. My question is why is this so?

No-one doubts that 30 is a pivotal time in life. And has been shown in cricketing history, players (particularly batsmen) tend to hit the peak of their playing powers at age 30 as their natural ability, dulled a little by the passing of time, is mated with years of experience and usually results in a player who knows their game well and can focus on succeeding from that point onwards.

Of course, all good things come to an end and once the milestone of passing 30 years old gets turns into a more distant memory, players' powers can fade and as has been the case in the past, most players tend to wind-up their career a few years after passing 30. This point is further amplified by specific examples; Viv Richards averaged almost 10 runs less per innings in Test cricket, Ian Botham was half the player post-30 than he was pre-30 and Greg Chappell was certainly an inferior player (albeit only slightly) after he turned 30.

So, it follows that public perception revolves around the idea that a player is naturally inferior when they pass 30 by too much. With only a few notable exceptions of players who played better after they turned 30 (Graham Gooch comes to mind), this rule seems to hold true. But, is it definite and all-encompassing?

Yes and no.

Yes, players are physically inferior after 30 years of age. Physical decline happens to us all. It's one of those infuriating 'facts of life'. You will not be able to run as fast, bowl as fast or hit the ball as hard after 30 as you did before 30 (notwithstanding gym work etc.). Your reactions won't be as fast and your ability to focus will almost certainly be less. None of this is in dispute.

Where things have changed in my view is in the rate of decline from the age of 30-years-old onwards. With poor diets, poorer drinking habits and poor training habits (in terms of bad technique and frequency, application etc.), players of the past would find that they lose their physical ability at a younger age than a player would now. Even as recently as ten years ago, player training habits were vastly inferior to other sports such as football, soccer etc.

Now, things are different. Players eat better, train smarter and are much better athletes than they used to be and are more professional in their approach. The results of this are players who are physically able to sustain their peak performance for a longer period of time in terms of within a match and in years. Players are playing at the highest level for longer than ever before and maintain their fitness, in general and fitness terms, for much longer.

The net effect is that players can continue to be world-class well beyond what would ordinarily be the case. Let's face it, the Australian top 7 aren't exactly chipper but although 6 of them are over 30, they are still performing at the peak of their powers and in some cases, better than they would have if their training wasn't so efficient. Matthew Hayden is averaging 50+, Justin Langer has hit hundreds against most teams and is batting in a more attacking style than at any time in his career, Steve Waugh is in the best form of his life at 38 and Adam Gilchrist averages 58 in Test cricket. It's feasible that players with preparation and training such as these practice regularly could play on well into their late 30's and even as far as 40 without a noticeable dip in their performances.

So is the 30-year-old mark redundant in cricket these days? I say yes. You cannot judge these players in terms of their longevity using the same criteria as players even 10 years ago. As pointed out, they train differently, eat differently and therefore play differently. We've all heard the calls for youngsters such as Michael Clarke to be included in the Australian Test side and the most common reason is that 'all of the Australian top-order is over 30 and too old'. Well in my opinion, the 30 age-barrier is becoming more redundant with each passing generation for reasons demonstrated above. This, to me, also makes the argument for the exclusion of these players from the Australian side due to their age equally redundant.

The current Australian top-order isn't preventing younger players from having long careers by playing on well beyond 30. Far from it. They are extending the physical boundaries for players who have passed 30 years of age so that they may play longer and cope with the physical demands of cricket at the highest level for much longer. Mike Clarke may have to wait for a little while longer but considering he's working through the same program as the current Australian players and has been doing it from a younger age, his longevity at the top-level is conceivably much higher than even the current team. So the Australians are in fact building an advantage over other teams by picking players later so that they are as fresh at 27 as others are at 23, but with 4 years of experience at first-class level, as an example.

To my mind, this is a smarter option because it also ensures that players have a firmer foundation for physical fitness in their older age than the previous generation had. Your body doesn't reach its full physiological age until the mid-20's so any techniques which enhance the body's ability to stay supple longer have the indirect effect of allowing players to play longer. The other side-effect is that it allows you to pick players later, giving the benefit of years of experience, knowing that their time as a supreme athlete is not as limited as it used to be and certainly as some would have you believe.

So I say that the argument for playing players at younger ages purely because the current players are getting older is redundant and has little basis in fact, particularly physiological science. Players play for longer and any antiquated notions of when a player should retire are erroneous, particularly in the modern game of cricket.

Posted by Corey