Should anyone over 32 be dropped?

[Poker Boy]

As anyone who watches Sky will know, RGD Willis came in off his long run last night after the SA fiasco (I hope county chairmen weren't listening, they'd have earache).One interesting thing though. He said anyone who is 32 should be dropped as they will not be playing by the next WC. But look at Hayden,Brad Hogg, McGrath, Muali, Sanath...surely if you're good enough should play? Is Bob really suggesting none of those players should be at this WC? And Nixon was a (reletive) succsess for us - well compared to the crap in the top three anyway - so I reckon Bob is over simplyfing things. Some players can play on longer than others -you can't generalise like that.But what do you think?

[Prince EWS]

I think Willis was merely suggesting that they should be dropped after this WC, in preperation for the next one, as they won't be there. I don't think he was suggesting that everyone should be dropped on their 32nd birthday - simply that England should start building for the next WC now rather than picking a stack of players who will retire before it comes around anyway. Obviously no-one at this WC should have been dropped based on age going into the tournament, as they lasted the test of time to play in it.

[pasag]

No. The World Cup isn't everything and I don't think 4 years should be spent building up to it. Maybe 1 year at the most. Not a huge fan of the ageism that goes on as well in sport.

Another thing, even if a player isn't going to be there at the next World Cup, surely it's beneficial to have him/them around the squad for the younger players in a transitional sort of sense.

[Perm]

No point dropping a player for the sole reason that he won't be around at the next World Cup, especially if they are going to assist in the team in winning games at the moment. Do you think New Zealand are going to drop Bond (if he doesn't retire) purely because he isn't going to be around at the next World Cup? No, because he is a star performer who is still good enough to make the side.

[SJS]

Should anyone whose name doesnt contain minimum three vowels be dropped ??

[SJS]

..... and should all international limited overs cricket between this and the next World Cup be deemed sub-standard ?

[Raghav]

What if a cricketer starts his International career at 32? Age should not be strict restriction for selection. It should be on fitness & performance basis.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by SJS

..... and should all international limited overs cricket between this and the next World Cup be deemed sub-standard ?

Certainly not. But it should be taken in the context it is designed for IMO - how many Englishmen do you think are currently taking comfort from our 3-1 thrashing of South Africa in 2003 after they removed us from the tournament? Or Indians from their 6-1 demolition of the Lankans in 2005\06?

I'd bet roughly none.

The fact of the matter is, IMO, that ODIs would not be played if there was no World Cup. The World Cup is what all ODI cricket is geared towards. I don't, myself, see any point at all in a player playing ODIs if he's not going to be around for the next World Cup. None at all. Some (Gelman, Jono, Perm) feel differently, and that's fair enough. But I'd be happiest if, say, Michael Bevan and Darren Lehmann had left Australia's side after WC2003, rather than the time and style they did.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Poker Boy

As anyone who watches Sky will know, RGD Willis came in off his long run last night after the SA fiasco (I hope county chairmen weren't listening, they'd have earache).One interesting thing though. He said anyone who is 32 should be dropped as they will not be playing by the next WC. But look at Hayden,Brad Hogg, McGrath, Muali, Sanath...surely if you're good enough should play? Is Bob really suggesting none of those players should be at this WC? And Nixon was a (reletive) succsess for us - well compared to the crap in the top three anyway - so I reckon Bob is over simplyfing things. Some players can play on longer than others -you can't generalise like that.But what do you think?

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I think Willis was merely suggesting that they should be dropped after this WC, in preperation for the next one, as they won't be there. I don't think he was suggesting that everyone should be dropped on their 32nd birthday - simply that England should start building for the next WC now rather than picking a stack of players who will retire before it comes around anyway. Obviously no-one at this WC should have been dropped based on age going into the tournament, as they lasted the test of time to play in it.

Yes, think Rob has got the gist a bit better than PB did.

I'm not sure there should be an exact cut-off age, in fact I'm damn sure there shouldn't.

But I'd be much happiest if, as far as England are concerned, Nixon's ODI career ended here. Perhaps to come out and say "I'm retiring" would make him look a bit silly, but I honestly hope he was called-up with the attached-asterisk that it was just for this winter. Aside from him, I can't think of anyone whose age precludes them from the likelihood of the next Cup - far, far more importantly I can think of a hell of a lot of players who should never, ever have been picked ITFP.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by pasag

No. The World Cup isn't everything and I don't think 4 years should be spent building up to it. Maybe 1 year at the most. Not a huge fan of the ageism that goes on as well in sport.

Another thing, even if a player isn't going to be there at the next World Cup, surely it's beneficial to have him/them around the squad for the younger players in a transitional sort of sense.

I agree. I think the best time to start building for a WC (or any big series) is a couple of years or maybe some 28-30 months ahead of the event. 4 years is a long time and making changes just for that sake won't cut it, I think.

[Richard]

So what are the point of the ODIs in the meantime?

To make money alone?

To savage the cricketers who play in them further still?

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Richard

So what are the point of the ODIs in the meantime?

To make money alone?

To savage the cricketers who play in them further still?

The point of ODI's in the meantime are for the players to play limited overs cricket. Argue all you want, but ODI's are cricket too and deserve to be played.

[Richard]

But is there any long-term interest outside World Cups?

I honestly don't think there really is.

As I say - ODIs are most certainly a form of cricket that deserve to be played, I've said that countless hundreds of times. But if there were no World Cup I'd probably be of a different opinion.

However, even with a Twenty20 World Cup I still can't get remotely into that format.

[vic_orthdox]

So then there's no point to Test cricket?

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Richard

But is there any long-term interest outside World Cups?

I honestly don't think there really is.

As I say - ODIs are most certainly a form of cricket that deserve to be played, I've said that countless hundreds of times. But if there were no World Cup I'd probably be of a different opinion.

However, even with a Twenty20 World Cup I still can't get remotely into that format.

Of course there is, India vs Pakistan clashes are always eagerly awaited, as are the Chappell Hadlee series. To say that there is no point playing ODI's betwen World Cups is a ridiculous statement, seeing as how there is no Test World Cup then why do you play them?