Originally Posted by SJS
This is purely to make the "younger" (not really if it is 32 limit) lot win.
Thirty is a very good cut off. A player at 30 is probably more than halfway through his career.
It gives maturity to batsmen but makes the bowlers less fit (surely less fast) and the fielding side weaker too. Yes they would be more experienced, naturally.
Nothing wrong with 30 as the cutoff, just suggesting that 32 would be a lot closer, now that we've already ascertained that the over-30s will put the young whippersnappers in their place.
I would be reluctant to replace Akhtar with Bond. Akhtar's Test record is exemplary, as is Bond's, but the latter has only played twelve Tests, and certainly hasn't played any recently. (I'm assuming these are Test teams, given the players BB picked.) Akhtar's strike rate of 45(-ish) complements the McGrath/Warne/Pollock attack better than Bond, as well.