• 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.

'Fab five' told to plan for retirement

Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
silentstriker said:
What do you mean 'allowed' to? It's not a dictatorship, they can quit whenever they want. The question is what should BCCI encourage?
Click to expand...
They should encourage whatever is best for the players in question individually. As long as a player maintains his skill to be worth a place, he should continue to be picked, regardless of the situation of any other player. If they all cease to be good enough or cease to want to play at the same time, no-one should be unhappy to see them go together.
If they are at the point where the selection of all five isn't warranted, they need to have a plan so that the team just doesn't lose 600 wickets and 40000 runs worth of experience in one sitting.

If you stagger it over two years, you have some time to try out replacements, and while this is happening, they have the benefit of the experiences, and you minimize the radical changes. So by the time the last one leaves, you hopefully have 2-3 settled replacements.
Click to expand...
Or alternatively, if you try staggering it when it'd be best for them all to go at the same time (not neccessarily the way things'll happen, obviously) then you'll end-up with a situation where players are not in the team on merit but rather on past performances. 600 wickets and 40000 runs is just that - the past. These are of no use if the players aren't churning-out those sorts of performances any more. If so, best to give a shot to the Yuvrajs, Badrinaths, Rainas, etc. and see if they can do better (I don't think we can really expect many of them to be Dravids or Tendulkars). I don't feel their performances are likely to be affected positively by having a Dravid in the team if he's averaging 25. I think they'd be far better off being themselves and being allowed to be themselves. And if they want to go and talk to a Tendulkar or a Laxman, it's the BCCI's responsibility to ensure those ex-players stay involved in some capacity.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
archie mac said:
It should be remembered what happened to Aust when they lost Lillee, Chappell and Marsh all at the same time. CA have stated that they will do their best to make sure that does not happen again, and that was three players not five:)
Click to expand...
Well it happened again recently (Martyn, Warne, McGrath, Langer and then soon after Gilchrist) and it doesn't seem to have done any real harm.

Why not? Because the replacements have been up-to-scratch. The trouble '84-'89 wasn't that Chappell, Marsh and Lillee all left together, it was that this happened, then Hughes, Yallop, Wessels, Hogg and Alderman went on Rebel tours, then Lawson got injured, and the David Hookeses, Steve Smiths, Graeme Woods, Andew Hilditchs, Wayne Phillipses, Tim Zoehrers, Greg Dyers, Simon O'Donnells, David Gilberts, Tom Hogans, Greg Matthewses, Bob Hollands, Ray Brights, Murray Bennetts, Peter Sleeps, Peter Taylors, Tim Mays, Trevor Hohnses and more (including initially the David Boons, Stephen Waughs, Craig McDermotts, Bruce Reids and Merv Hugheses) simply weren't good enough.

And there's nothing you can do to control how good the replacement players are. And you won't make them any better by making older players carry-on a bit longer than they'd be best-served doing.
 
Last edited:
archie mac

archie mac

International Coach
Sanz said:
Common AM, let's not hold that against cricketers.



Let's see, looking at some of the top players of last 30 years :-

Geoff Boycott 41 when retired,
Imran Khan - 40
Richards, Border, Javed Miandad - 39
Gooch - 42
Gavaskar, Sobers - 38

Infact looking at the retirement age of some the greats of the past and it seems that 36-40 is the standard pretty much across all eras.
Click to expand...
Not holding the money thing against them, just an observation that was all:) And the English players have always retired later because it has always been a full time job

Sanz said:
Bobby Simpson comes to mind ;)
Click to expand...
I was thinking the late 60s early 70s, players such as Redpath (come back because of WSC), Edwards, Cowper, Davidson etc

Simpson also retired fairly young and but for WSC would not have been heard of again:)
 
archie mac

archie mac

International Coach
Richard said:
Well it happened again recently (Martyn, Warne, McGrath, Langer and then soon after Gilchrist) and it doesn't seem to have done any real harm.

Why not? Because the replacements have been up-to-scratch. The trouble '84-'89 wasn't that Chappell, Marsh and Lillee all left together, it was that this happened, then Hughes, Yallop, Wessels, Hogg and Alderman went on Rebel tours, then Lawson got injured, and the David Hookeses, Steve Smiths, Graeme Woods, Andew Hilditchs, Wayne Phillipses, Tim Zoehrers, Greg Dyers, Simon O'Donnells, David Gilberts, Tom Hogans, Greg Matthewses, Bob Hollands, Ray Brights, Murray Bennetts, Peter Sleeps, Peter Taylors, Tim Mays, Trevor Hohnses and more (including initially the David Boons, Stephen Waughs, Craig McDermotts and Merv Hugheses) simply weren't good enough.

And there's nothing you can do to control how good the replacement players are. And you won't make them any better by making older players carry-on a bit longer than they'd be best-served doing.
Click to expand...
It was done much better, and like you said they were a stronger team, but still CA has done their best to make sure it does not happen on mass again. See the Steve Waugh 'retirement''
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well I can't comment on whether or not they have, but if they have and have forced players out early, it's Australia's loss.

Who will ever know whether Stephen Waugh could have played on for longer - for all we know the timing of his departure might've been perfect. But he was still a damn fine batsman at the time of it and it's certainly far from impossible he could've had another good year or two in him. That of course would've encompassed the 2005 Ashes, and while many fine batsmen were made to look novices by the bowling in that series and he could quite possibly have been another, who knows - he might have made all the difference.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well not neccessarily - yet. Let's wait and see Kumble's, Tendulkar's etc. movements.
 
haroon510

haroon510

International 12th Man
it will be a shame to keep Sachin out of the team.. i mean the guy has done so much in the past for india..i mean look at Sri Lanka they still have Sanath despite his shaky form and his age..simply because of his past conterbutions.. it will be very very disrespectful if they even think about omiting sachin..
 
sanga1337

sanga1337

U19 Captain
haroon510 said:
it will be a shame to keep Sachin out of the team.. i mean the guy has done so much in the past for india..i mean look at Sri Lanka they still have Sanath despite his shaky form and his age..simply because of his past conterbutions.. it will be very very disrespectful if they even think about omiting sachin..
Click to expand...
More of to do with the lack of options Sri Lanka have in terms of openers in ODIs, than with past contributations
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top