Do you agree with my thought that in Indian team no player must be allowed to play after 30?

Answer 1

I do not think it will be fair to make a general rule like that.It depends of the individual player and the fitness level he has been able to maintain.In fact there are some players who blossom late and do well only in late twenties or early thirties.

Answer 2

Yes, not more than three members having special body build up & enough ability left should be allowed. Eye sight, body strength, chances of fatigue syndrome & footwork all matter much & a person above 30 cannot have all simultaneously. Remember , in 1969 , Majid Khan, 23 , a Pakistani opening batsman ( being the last opening batsman to score a century before lunch so far since 1976 in test cricket) was saying ," Footworks are not at all required in batting, only 2 keen eyes are sufficient." During county matches his legs were tied with ropes & all good bowlers were bowling to him to be hit in all directions of the field. After 10 years , while being 33, his eyesight deteriorated so much that he had to go back to utilize footworks. See, what happened to Kapil Dev , Mohinder Amarnath, Sandeep Patilji, Chetan Sharma, Ravi Shastri & A. Gaekwad after 30 ? Except Gavaskarji & Azharuddin no body could play beyond 35 & mostly deteriorated sharply after 30. Thus, definitely age does play its role & deteriorate many things in the body , affecting peformance too. Then why to take such risk at all ?

Answer 3

Don't agree.
Look at the age of austrailians only 2 or 3 out of 11 are below 30 rest are above 30 with average age of the team around 34. It depends on the fitness level and not the age.
Srinath played very well after 30, so did robin singh, ajhar, kumble, kapil and many more...

Answer 4

I certainly do not agree. The touch of experience is always required. Although the World Champs Australia have likes of Shaun Tait, Mitchell Johnson, Nathan Bracken, Brad Williams, Brad Hodge and many more in their Bench Strength
but they still rely on the experienced players like Gilchrist, Hayden , McGrath, Ponting.
So, In my opinion ur choice of dropping the Indian Players after they cross 30 is a decision taken in a sway emotional belief and thought. the best player of reverse sweep Paul Nixon of England is 37. Don't forget the "Sizziling Southpaw" Sanath Jayasuriya....

Answer 5

I beg to disagree with you as Ricky Ponting, Sanath Jayasuriya, Mathew Hayden, Adam Gilchrist, Brian Lara etc. are still playing good cricket though they are all above 30. What matters is the form of the players and not age. Once any cricketer is out of form and fails consistently , he should be dropped irrespective of his age.

Answer 6

If you are seriously asking this then I have to say NO. As many player donot shine untill age of 30. Look at srilankan bats man, steve waugh and alan border. Many are example whom played better after they reached 30. Spartan

Answer 7

No I don't agree. There are many good players that are over 30. Being over 30 doesn't mean you are over the hill. How old are you anyway?

Answer 8

yes i m agree with you becoz 10 and 12 years of playing is enough and player should not be burden on team ..i hope indian cricket board would also agree with you...

Answer 9

no way look at 30+bastmens they are the most mature and normally very good players look at the aussies- Gilcrist,Hayden,Hussey, Ponting etc.. if you removed them from the team imagine what would happen, if you think this is an unique case you can also look at Steve Tickolo he is also a very good batsmen

Answer 10

No I dont agree. You cant drop a player if you only concern the age.