Golden Oldies vs Gilded Youth
 

As some of you may be aware (although I’m sure the majority of you really couldn’t a monkey’s :D ) I turn 30 later this year. Big moment in a chap’s life, etc, etc & it sets one thinking. In this day & age is 30 “old” for a sportsman? It’s been well documented that the current Oz team is a bit long in the tooth & several of the touted alternatives (Hussey, Hodge, Love) are around the big 3-0 mark too.

So, to break the monotony of the rain break, I got to thinking about who would win a hypothetical test: the under 30s or the over 30s? I’ve named my possible 11s below & I think the older boys may just have the edge, despite perhaps being a bit light in the seam dept. I couldn’t bring myself to leave out Tendulkar for the extra bowler & most of the other 30+ seamers (Dizzy, Kasper, Streak) aren’t exactly in prime form just now. I’ve given Warne the spinning berth ahead of Murali mainly for his superior batting & Vaughan makes the 11 as skipper and specialist opener. Not too many 30+ openers around just now (Hayden’s ton nothwithsatnding).

Thoughts, anyone? Alternative teams?


Under 30 XI
Sehwag (26)
Strauss (28)
G Smith* (24)
Kallis (29)
Younis Khan (26)
Sangakkara+ (27)
Flintoff (27)
Vettori (26)
Lee (28)
Harmison (26)
S Jones (26)

30 & Over XI
Langer (34)
Vaughan* (30)
Dravid (32)
Ponting (30)
Tendulkar (32)
Lara (36)
Gilchrist+ (33)
Pollock (32)
Warne (35)
Akhtar (30)
McGrath (35)

You're turning 30? Damn, my age estimation is way off. :wacko:

I think i'd give the nod to the older team, purley because the seam attack might be a bit light, but if we're going on current form they could have Zimbabwe's pace attack and Warne and they'd still take all 20. :p

Great idea for a thread :D I think the 30+ XI would win fairly comfortably. It'd be an interesting contest though. 30+ XI's batting is far better, although Under 30 XI are obviously no mugs (I never knew Younis Kahn was that young). Still, Lara, Ponting, Tendulkar, Dravid, Gilchrist. That's amazing and far too good for Under 30 XI's bowlers to get all 5 of them out twice without them doing too much damage. Add to that, McGrath and Warne are all-time greats, and if Akhtar came through at his best I think that bowling line-up would betoo good for Under 30 XI's batting.

Personally I'd be tempted to squeeze Murali in that team. Where is a tough question. Taking Pollock out would definitely hurt the 30+ XI's pace line-up and Kallis nowadays can't be relied upon as a consistent pace asset. Added to that Pollock is a superior bat. Hmmm toughie. Sachin's leggies could probably help out if they played on a turner. Anyway With or without Murali I think 30+ XI have it.

Over 30's win that easily, IMO. At least six match-winners (whatever that entails...) in Lara, Gilchrist, Tendulkar, McGrath, Pollock and Warne. Murali too, if you can fit him in.

I think the Over 30s shade it. However, if it was Over 32s and Under 32s, it would be a much closer match-up - many of the players in the Over 30s (Vaughan, Dravid, Ponting, Tendulkar, Pollock, Akhtar) would be reassigned.

Its a great idea for a real life series too :)

Yep :) If it were to be planned we'd have to do it before Kallis turns 30 though :p Or else it could be a bit too one-sided despite the great youth of today's cricket.

Was going to suggest Bond for the under-30s, but he's a shade over 30 as well. An over/under 32s would be a lot closer, as Mr. Rubble suggested.

My oldies side would be
Langer,
Vaughan,
Dravid,
Tendulkar,
Lara,
Gilchrist
Warne
Pollock
MCGrath
Akhtar
Murali

12th Man Ponting :p

If Bond is over thirty I would replace Akhtar with him.

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.

Yeah, I thought he was 50. :p

Yep definitely. All we're saying is 32 would even it up a bit. You'd have Dravid, Ponting, Vaughan and Tendulkar Akhtar/Bond and Pollockjump over to the other side, but you'd still have Lara and Gilly to cause some damage for the 32+.

Here's a question. If we had it 32+, with those that I have already mentioned jumping into the other team (or just simply not being valid) who would be the replacements? Inzy? Martyn? Atapattu? Astle? Hayden?

Yeah the Over 30s would probably win that one even if most of the side are probably slightly passed there best they are comtorbly the best team