Average age of test cricketers increasing?

[Pratters]

Test cricket is essentially a skill game. With players becoming fitter by the day, we see the players playing late into their 30s. Are Jayasuriya, Lara and Inzamam playing till 37-38 specks or will we see more of such stuff? Will we see more players playing into their late 30s and some even into their 40s?

Maybe not for tear away fast bowlers who can't adopt (we don't see much of tear aways any way nowadays) but what about some one like a McGrath who is fit and can go on for a fair bit? A spin bowler like Murali, Warne or Kumble could easily go on into their 40s. Among batsmen, you have guys like Hussey who are 32 and can easily go on for 6 years or so.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The increased money in the game would no doubt have something to do with it. Now that players are/have to be professional cricketers, rather than having another occupation to support themselves, means that they have the time to commit to keeping themselves in a condition to play elite sport, as well as them wanting to maintain the financial security for so long.

 

[social]

The increased money in the game would no doubt have something to do with it. Now that players are/have to be professional cricketers, rather than having another occupation to support themselves, means that they have the time to commit to keeping themselves in a condition to play elite sport, as well as them wanting to maintain the financial security for so long.

Exactly.

In days gone by, a test cricketer could earn more money from being a sales rep than by playing the game.

 

[Goughy]

There is little physical reason why guys cant play into their 40s.

As long as they stay relatively injury free and have no longterm problems there is no reason why they cannot perform at the highest level.

The major issue is hunger and desire. Once you get into your late 30s and have a family its hard to have that same desire to train and tour as the young ones do.

Thats the major thing stopping players playing into their 40s. There isnt the same hunger and if they have financial security then other prorities in life are more important than the grind of being a cricketer.

 

[wpdavid]

There is little physical reason why guys cant play into their 40s.

As long as they stay relatively injury free and have no longterm problems there is no reason why they cannot perform at the highest level.

The major issue is hunger and desire. Once you get into your late 30s and have a family its hard to have that same desire to train and tour as the young ones do.

Thats the major thing stopping players playing into their 40s. There isnt the same hunger and if they have financial security then other prorities in life are more important than the grind of being a cricketer.

Agreed, and I think the ever-expanding callender of international games nowadays will cause more players to call it a day earlier than that they physically have to. And the financial rewards probably mean they can afford to do just that.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, as the combination of posters so far have said, reasons for playing on later and being able to are increasing and decreasing at an equal rate.

Anyone who's really good and really wants to can do so with little difficulty, for mine. If we can find the optimum amount of cricket to play, while trying to maintain the level of financial reward, hopefully we'll see more and more of it.

You want to see high-calibre cricketers be high-calibre for as long as possible.

 

[silentstriker]

As a batsman, your eyesight starts fading before the forties and your quickness goes down too. Depending on your style, you can still adjust as people do retain their strength and other attributes into their forties (assuming they keep working out, etc).

 

[Richard]

Your eyesight won't start fading if you do something about keeping it in nick.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Your eyesight won't start fading if you do something about keeping it in nick.

Your reflexes and hand/eye co-ordination can go and there's no laser surgery that can stop it. Any great sportsmen with a special talent never know when they're going to lose it.

 

[Richard]

Obviously. And I didn't say they did.

It's also virtually impossible to know when and whether you really have "lost it".

 

[silentstriker]

Your eyesight won't start fading if you do something about keeping it in nick.

Yea, it will.

 

[Richard]

It won't. Medical science these days can keep muscles in tune for far longer than it was once possible to do.

 

[silentstriker]

It won't. Medical science these days can keep muscles in tune for far longer than it was once possible to do.

What does that have to do with your eyesight? And the eyesight and the slight loss of quickness is why you see Tennis players' performance drop much sooner than in other sports.

 

[Richard]

Loss of "quickness" (I presume you mean speed over the ground) is different to loss of eyesight.

Eyesight can be improved, and any batsman who's ever been good will have superb eyesight, that's a given. If he keeps his eyes trained well he'll still be well, well capable of batting damn well in his 40s.

Loss of running speed, obviously, will affect a fielder, and that's why not that many are good fielders in their old age. Mind, someone like Nasser Hussain was still a fantastic fielder at 36, so it's certainly not impossible.

 

[silentstriker]

Eyesight can be improved, and any batsman who's ever been good will have superb eyesight, that's a given. If he keeps his eyes trained well he'll still be well, well capable of batting damn well in his 40s.

They might be well above average, but most won't be as well as they were in their twenties.

 

[Richard]

They will if they keep them trained, though - as I said, muscles can be kept in fantastic condition if you keep the willpower to keep training them.

Obviously, the older muscles get the more training they need, and often the less training people are prepared to put in, but it's certainly not impossible. Alec Stewart's eyes were as good at 37 as they were at 25.

 

[silentstriker]

Alec Stewart's eyes were as good at 37 as they were at 25.

How in the world could you possibly know this?

 

[White Lightning]

the Australian team has been ageing for a while but its no big deal and in my view is part of the reason Australian cricket has gotten so strong. Time after time players have shown you can play the game at your peak right into your mid 30's.

There is no doubt that the first generation of professional cricketers pushed the ages up as they held on for longer in an attempt to capatalise on their success - i dare say guys like Mark Taylor, Matt Hayden, Mark Waugh, Ian Healy, Steve Waugh, Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath would've left the game earlier. Whilst even the support players got older - Darren Lehmann, Michael Kasprowicz, Brad Hodge, Martin Love, Andrew Bichel etc,.

But i think its been good for Australian cricket. Gives player more a chance to develop their game before being thrust into test cricket.

the kind of timeline players follow now is:

18-22: first class development
23-26: establish themselves as permenant first class fixture
27-28: hit the top echelons of australian first class cricket
29+: just keep going and wait for a chance to play international cricket

there are obviousbly a number of players who have jumped the queues but there's not many - Clarke, Watson, Johnson and Tait the most obvious examples... but of those 4 only Clarke has established himself in the test team. the other 3 have just had a taste and nothing more.

and it's good for the selectors cause it gives them a good time frame to see a player develop and make sure they are picking the right player rather than just taking a gamble on some flashy youngster with 10 good games to his name.

Compare it to the timeline of some other countries, particularly the asian countries where they tend to be very youth orientated:

16-18: get into the first class scene
19-22 yo's: have a good season in FC cricket and suddenly your nearly, or you are, playing test cricket.
and if you haven't established yourself by the age of 25, then you are discared and almost certainly not going to be given a second chance.

the amount of young talent across the world exposed to test cricket at an early age and then just broken because they weren't ready is ludicrous and IMO is one of the biggest reasons Pakistan and India (two cricket mad nations which should be at the top) have not given a more serious challenge to Australia in recent times.

 

[Engle]

A cricketer, esp an established one, must choose the right time to retire or face the indiginities of being pushed out. Even if they're able to perform better than some of the younger ones, they have to make way for the long term smooth transition.

The legendary trio of McGrath, Warne, Lara could easily outperform some of their current colleagues, but for the sake of the team and to allow others a chance to flourish, they have to step aside.

 

[Jono]

How in the world could you possibly know this?