patriot Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Jacques Kallis is not even 35 and he seems to have been playing forever. Still fit as a fiddle and strong as an ox. He can easily play as a pure test batsman for South Africa for another 5 years. IMO along with Ponting, Kallis is the biggest threat to test record for number of runs.
Lurker Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Your reflxes and overall skill levels decline with Age. That is a universal truth which was true back in 30s just as it is now. you might still somehow have the stamina to last 5 days but you cannot simply last beyond 40 in the ruthless modern game ( I wont even talk about fielding) ... those who do will be very rare exceptions to the rule ... unlike back in the 30s when even 50 year olds would fancy playing FC cricket. And quite a few of those 38 were bowlers. Gooch and Alec Stewart were supreme fitness freaks and even then they largely made the cut due to weak nature on Eng sides back then. You are being intellactually dishonest there BB. Gooch was picked as England was weak?? His last 5 years were more productive than his first 10-15 years. I would be very interested if you could pull out stats and show how his performance deteriorated, and hence he did not deserve a place. Similarly for Alec Stewart. I would be interested to see how he performed in last 5 years. You have other examples as well that I dont need to reiterate. On the other hand you have 25 year olds with pathetic reflexes. In the 70s India would sport spinners, all-time greats, who were absolutely atrocious(Bedi/Chandra/Prasanna) in the field. By that token batting was easy in 70s?? Pound for pound Indian team fielding of today may not be very much better than that in 70s, back then we had Solkar, venkat, Abid Ali etc these days we have primma donna who cant bend down. Point being all these mumbo jumbo about fitness, reflex hardly has mattered(atleast on Indian spectrum). It the end it is down to the individual. Sachin even in his late 30s is taking blinders, while Yuvraj is looking like a sack of potato. So yes age to me is just a number. xxxx
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Imran played that WC pretty much thru painkillers .... And FWIW he was not 40 yet and played just a handfull of testmatches in the last 4-5 yrs often as a medium pacer. So, do you agree that players between 1970 and 2000 were crap because 21 cricketers played till they were over 40 and only 1 has since 2000?
Lurker Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Gee by saying we get slower by age Iam being dishonest ... Wow can you pls let me know where this world is where you live in which this is not true ? Iam going to bloody need it ... screw the Indian players Thats true for many a people really. Although my assertion was largely about you being dismissive about Gooch and Stewart I would say that it is not uncommon to meet people in late 30s and 40s who are in better shape than when they started. This holds true even for sportsmen who tend to understand their body better and "mature" better as they age. Of course it will also depend on how you take care of your body, which is why it is very individualistic. The work ethics of Gooch in 90s was much better than Akhtar in 2000s. Simple. Gooch started the 90s with about 70 tests behind him and a jaw dropping avg of 37. Now unless you are going to tell me that he played all of those 70 odd tests on juicy tracks there is no way you can substantiate someone like that being in a test side purely as a batsman and then going on to captain the side unless the rest of the side was equally crap. Lets not even bring the age factor here. Ditto with Alec Stewart. Its common knowledge that the english sides in the 90s upuntill 2003-2005 were really poor. You have done a political turnabout there, havent you? :giggle: The issue here is NOT Gooch's performance before 90s but after it. What we are arguing is how age affects a person's skills. In Gooch's example you are simply proving my point, and that is he performed much better as he went past 35, even 40. Same with Alec Stewart. Not only can you make a case that they were contributing brilliantly for Engalnd you can also see they were in better form of their entire career. I think you will find that the spin quartet declined pretty quickly as age set in .... dont think anyone played beyond 35 certainly not 40. Indeed. Again my point was great players but absolutely pathetic fielders(even in their 20s). Their performance on field had little to do with age as such. Watch the team management take UV to task if he doesnt shape up. Happened to Sehwag of all people. You have to be at the very top of your game to make the cut else there are a million others breathing down your neck. A simple reality of all professional sport as opposed to amateur sports. The point you are missing is that there is no co-relation between age and fitness. Both of your examples - Yuvraj and Sehwag - are men in late 20s/early 30s. And their fitness came under question. Clearly age has little to do with it, its about work ethics and discipline. xxx
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Before I waste anymore time on something that is sooo obvious to anyone ... are you trying to argue the merits of middle age over youth in sports ? I am not doing anything so profound. I am merely extending your "logic". You claimed the cricketers in 30s and 40s were crap because 38 of them played when they were 40+ and only 1 such cricketer was there in 2000s. The same "logic" should apply when you consider 21 cricketers played at 40+ from 70s-90s and only 1 such cricketer has in the 2000s.
vvvslaxman Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Premises they use to discredit to Bradman .. it keeps getting laughable and ridiculous. First Modern batsmen have to endure gruelling schedule. Yea right. In that case what about modern bowlers. Are they provided with jet pack to get to the ground :hysterical: . Now 1930s players were above 40.. Modern players are young, fit and energetic.. Entire Bangladesh team is below 25. Sure they have a "hot streak" going . For the love of god...
Lurker Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 the performanes of Gooch tell a diff tale .... last 15 tests avg of 38 ... but then again Eng have bonafide greats with those sorts of records Oh so your criteria of fitness is last 15 tests? I just ran some numbers, hate doing it lekin kya karein, and his performance in last 5 years(90-95) reads 3800 runs@51.26. A very healthy return against his 42.58 overall. Seems like Gooch did get better with age. no you cant. unless you overlook how pitifull eng were and are willing to accept a avg of about 40 as brilliant contributions. I will take 40 during 80s and 90s as very meaningful contributions. I am sure you are delighted with everyone averaging 50 these days but I am more comfortable with Amarnath, Gooch, Arvinda de Silva, Greenidge, Lloyd averaging very healthy 40 plus. By the way if you are willing to look past the stats, or maybe look at the right slices of stats, you would find Gooch was brilliant against most countries except Australia(and one can thank Aldermann for that). He was one of the best players against Windies, without doubt the best team of the time, and aside from Gavaskar I doubt any other opener was better against pace battery. And even with Gavaskar one can question if he played West Indies pace battery as much as Gooch did. In fact dare I say without Australian performance Gooch would average close to 50, very healthy for 80s. The point here is in days bygone UV and Sehwag would have gotten a automatic life time membership into the test teams based on their reputation. Aint no longer true. Not true. Both Yuvraj and Sehwag were thrust out not only because of fitness issues, but also their performance. You are trying to sound as if BCCI is so fitness crazy that it chugged out Sehwag and Yuvraj the moment pot belly appeared. Reality is completely opposite. On the other hand Hobbs(say) was performing brilliantly when he was past 40. Why would you drop him? Surely if age is the concern Sachin should be long gone, I mean whats the big difference between 38 and 40??? xxx
yoda Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Regarding the 40 years old argument, let's FForward 50 years and say hypothetically players retire by 30 due to hectic schedules, too much money earned, or whatever, do they have the right to laugh at the achievements of the current 36 and 38 year olds?
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Regarding the 40 years old argument' date=' let's FForward 50 years and say hypothetically players retire by 30 due to hectic schedules, too much money earned, or whatever, do they have the right to laugh at the achievements of the current 36 and 38 year olds?[/quote'] Why fast forward? It's already happened - there were 21 40+ year old who played between 1970 and 2000 and only 1 since then. By the age argument it should make the likes of Gavaskar, Richards, Hadlee, and Kapil crap players compared to Tamim Iqbal, Taufeeq Umar, Sami, and Agarkar.
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 21 over 800+ tests as opposed to 38 over 120+ tests featuring 2-3 countries ... and then one or two over the next 400 tests ... the progression is quite apparant ... Even more startling is the fact that a guy scored 100 Firstclass 100s after 40 ... you can pls keep your theories of people posessing superhuman capabilities back then and that cricketers are all pretty soft these days to yourself. For someone who swears by historical accounts you seem to be quite oblivious to the easy nature of cricket back in those days. Right, so you agree that the likes of Gavaskar, Richards, Hadlee, and Kapil were crap players compared to Tamim Iqbal, Taufeeq Umar, Sami, and Agarkar because in their times 21 players over 800 tests were 40+ and post 2000 only 1 player in 400 tests?
goose Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Mildly off-topic I'm sure but I reckon the overwhelming majority of the human population if made to undergo an appropriate fitness program at the age of 33 and sustained till age 40 could end up being in the shape of their entire life. That includes lean muscle mass, endurance, speed, and reflexes.
Lurker Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Mildly off-topic I'm sure but I reckon the overwhelming majority of the human population if made to undergo an appropriate fitness program at the age of 33 and sustained till age 40 could end up being in the shape of their entire life. That includes lean muscle mass' date= endurance, speed, and reflexes. I would concur with that. Purely from health and well-being that would be the peak time for most men..should they choose to make their choices judiciously of course.
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 For starters none of them played past 40 yrs ... and its common knowledge that most of these guys with rare exceptions were not really lighting the scene with their cricket in their twilight yrs. Quite a few have been known to prolong their careers by throwing their weight around. Doesnt mean that old players are automatically good. I never said that these guys were over 40, but they did play against 21 40+ players and 45 38+ players which should call into question their achievement compared to Tamim Iqbal and Sami who have only played against the young and fit ones.
Lurker Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 21 over 800+ tests as opposed to 38 over 120+ tests featuring 2-3 countries ... and then one or two over the next 400 tests ... the progression is quite apparant ... Even more startling is the fact that a guy scored 100 Firstclass 100s after 40 ... you can pls keep your theories of people posessing superhuman capabilities back then and that cricketers are all pretty soft these days to yourself. For someone who swears by historical accounts you seem to be quite oblivious to the easy nature of cricket back in those days. Arre bhaiya everything was easy(ier) back in those days. JP Morgan(the person) is reputed to have bailed out US Govt in late 1890s and early 1900s. Supposedly hundred of millions of dollars were spent back then. Now you can marvel at the man, his contributions to bail out an entire nation all pretty much by himself OR you can be yourself and suggest - Meh, millions of dollars?? Bill Gates has billions and hence he is better than JP Morgan, plus of course Bill gates gave us SQL Server :hysterical:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now