• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Should anyone over 32 be dropped?

Poker Boy

State Vice-Captain
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

Global Moderator
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

RTDAS
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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

Hall of Fame Member
Should anyone whose name doesnt contain minimum three vowels be dropped ??
 

SJS

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

Raghav

International Vice-Captain
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

Cricket Web Staff Member
..... 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

Cricket Web Staff Member
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?
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

Whatever it takes!!!
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

Cricket Web Staff Member
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

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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?
 

pasag

RTDAS
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?
What's the point of Tests or any series?

Obviously the World Cup is the most important tournament in one-day cricket, but I still value the other ones throughout the year and I still think they are important, just to a lesser degree to the World Cup and an even lesser degree to Tests.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
So then there's no point to Test cricket?
Nope, Richard... Look at this this way, you have a team like Australia who win everything everywhere and then come to the WC and have a bad day in the semis or finals and lose. It doesn't make whoever wins the WC a better team than Australia, does it?


Therefore, every series is important in its own way. Of course, there is no denying that WC is the showpiece event of cricket and so 2 or 2 and half years before the WC, teams all over the world will start preparing for the same and start trying out players and combinations with the WC in mind. But to think of all ODIs in between WCs as meaningless is stretching it, tbh.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I certainly don't think ODIs between World Cups are meaningless - not at all. In fact there'd be no point at all in a World Cup if you didn't play other ODIs, because no-one would be any good at the game. Either that or it'd just be a-la 1975 and a glorified Test-match with a bit of difference.

But seriously - who takes any long-term pleasure from the result of a ODI series? This is a genuine question - me, I couldn't care less about winning a ODI series, it's all about developing a team to win the World Cup for me. It's no consolation whatsoever to me that we either won the CB Series or beat South Africa in 2003 now. None at all. If we'd been hammered in 2003 and Vikram Solanki and the like had been chucked-out the team sooner, meaning we had a better team this World Cup, I'd have been delighted.

I see the point about winning the Chappell-Hadlee series being nice for Aussies and Kiwis, but... how many Kiwis are going to be celebrating that in the event of an all-Tasman WC final and an Aussie victory? Not many, I'd guess. Maybe I'm wrong.

As to what's the point in Test cricket: to me, every series is a thrill in itself. You're not building for anything, you're not looking towards any event on the horizon, you're just playing the team who you're touring or hosting. Test cricket is a continuous event. ODI cricket is not. It goes in discreet 4-year cycles.

And that's why "prepare for the next Ashes" angers me such a lot.
 

open365

International Vice-Captain
But ODI series still carry the same positives that test series do just in smaller amounts.

Hands up who remembers the natwest final between India and England?

Hands up who remembers the Aus England tied game in 05?

Hands up who remembers the wanderers 06?

Hands up who remembers England being hammered 5-0 by Sri Lanka?

Hands up who remembers KP scoring 3 hundreds in SA or his magnificent 92* against Australia in 05?

Yes i agree that test series are still better and long lasting, but at the time ODI series' are important and you do remember some of the more special games, and no they are special in their own right, not just because the WC is in 4/3/2/1 years time.
 

jammay123

State 12th Man
if people over the age of 32 are dropped then hussey aint got long left and he has only played a few years
 

Top