Has age got anything to do with it?

Question

In the England team of recent years promising young players have been given a few caps only to be dropped from the side quickly after poor performances (Plunkett, Mahmood, Bopara...etc)

Do you think that it would be better for the long term future of teams if players were NOT given their break at an early age? Instead wait a few years for them to learn their trade at county cricket level. Sidebottom has benefited immensely from his time there.

That being said, sometimes it actually works introducing players early on in their career and we benefit by having that player in the team for a long period of time. Cook has been excellent, why wait if he’s ready now? How many fewer test wickets would Warne and McGrath have taken if they'd started their international careers at the same time as Sidebottom or Clark? And of course Tendulkar did it straight from his teens.

So does age really have anything to do with it or is it more just a question of judging a players temperament?

Answer 1

Just look at the players you've cited for your answer. All-time greats such as Warne, Tendulkar and McGrath are old enough when they're good enough (and even then Warne's debut was a disaster). Players who are merely "good" (Sidebottom, Clark) need time to mature to a point where their talent, attitude and experience are all of a high enough standard to prosper.

If Cook keeps up his numbers over the next 2 years we can start looking at him as a member of the first group. Same goes for Hussey - a great start to his career has tailed off a little recently, we have to see where he is in a couple of years' time.

If Plunkett, Mahmood and Bopara play more than 30 tests between them in their entire careers it will be a damning indictment of English cricket.

Your question also doesn't mention players who never really got a chance, such as Stuart Law (who would have played 100 tests if he'd been anything other than Australian), or Ottis Gibson (if only he was 10 years younger and equipped with a British passport...). If either of them had been given a run in the test side, what would they have achieved?

Answer 2

If as in any sport if you are good enough then age should not matter. Out of the three mentioned only Bopara will make the Grade.

Answer 3

No.

Good enough then don't matter abt age.

I.e, Tendulkar, Shahid Afridi etc.

Answer 4

well i agree with what ian chappell has been saying for many many years

"if your good enough, then your old enough!"

obviously tendulkar is the prime argument in this case, he was good enough at 16 to be playing test cricket, whereas someone like sidebottom wasnt good enough when he was first picked, but matured and was good enough when he was picked again, if you are not good enough, then it doesn't matter whether they pick you aged 18 or 34, you still wont be good enough!

i dont think age matters, ability does!

Answer 5

I think it all really depends on the player's temperament. Youngsters are consistently inconsistent: Plunkett, Mahmood, Bopara, Broad, Anderson etc all started playing for England in their early twenties, and have had a mixture of good and bad games. You have to remember that as well as developing as players, they are developing as adults too.

Some players, such as Sidebottom, have benefited from 'learning their trade', and then being brought back into the international scene. It is worth noting that Sidebottom has been an England player since 2001, when he was of a similar age to the current crop of 'young guns'. Had he fired immediately, or had the selectors shown a little more patience with him, he could have been an established member of the attack for years.

Not picking players until they are deemed ready could also have a negative impact. Owais Shah, for instance, has been talked up as the next great batsman since he was 17. He was left in county cricket to 'mature'. He is still no nearer to cementing a regular, or even semi-regular place in the side.

The key to selecting a player at a young age often depends on how the team is performing around him. Warne was picked when Australia were emerging as a powerful force. Ditto McGrath. Brian Lara toured with West Indies, and was on the fringes for a good eighteen months before they picked him. Tendulkar was a prodigy and an anomaly: he is so special that the dynamics of the team around him were irrelevant.

If a player has enough ability, he will benefit more from being in and around the Test team, rather than plying his trade in county cricket. If left for too long at a lower level, a player can pick up bad habits, and accustom himself to being at that level. A great player needs challenges. So I would always advocate getting a young player involved. The right balance needs to be struck between exposure to international cricket, and getting enough games at county level to learn how to play the game properly.

Answer 6

I think you may be on to something. Just look at Michael Hussey for Australia.

Answer 7

Depends on the players if the are mentally up to it. It's up to the selectors and coaches to determine.

Answer 8

The England selectors have a different mindset to most (if not all) other countries. They select players for long-term goals rather than selecting the best XI.

Cook's done well but Ramprakash/Shah wouldn't have done any worse. Broad is called the greatest thing since sliced bread after knocking over some Kiwis yet Chris Tremlett took more wickets against a stronger India and is told to get to the back of the cue.

The best example of picking your best XI came a few years ago when Mark Waugh retired and who replaced him? Was it 21 year old Michael Clarke who had had a good season with NSW averaging 39 or was it 32 year old Darren Lehmann who'd averaged 59 with SA (in 01/02) and 67 with Yorks (in 02). Australia went with Lehmann and got two seasons out of him. Clarke averaged 48 in 02/03, made his ODI debut in 03/04 and got his Test chance in 04/05.

I'm not saying you should hold back a youngster just because of his age. If he's good enough, he's old enough. But England selectors have an attitude of chucking a youngster in and seeing if they sink or swim, so if they do swim they can get a maximum amount of Tests out of them.

For the likes of Plunkett, Mahmood, Bopara if they’re mentally strong and can put their Test ‘failures’ behind them and concentrate on score runs/taking wickets at County level then there’s no reason why they won’t get a second chance like Ryan Sidebottom.

Answer 9

Actually yes, age has got to do with it!

Sachin Tendulkar

Sanjay Manjarekar

Hanif Muhammad

Saqlain Mushtaq

Shahid Afridi

Wasim Akram

Ramnaresh Sarwan

Brian Lara

Stephen Fleming

Graeme Smith

Mahela Jayawardena