When should Internationals call it a day?

Now that Kallis announced his retirement from test cricket - there is an interesting sce3nario open for discussion.   When should an international player in fact retire from international sport?

We have had some greats retired from internationals over the past two years.  Most players involved realise how they must put in more work in training and physical maintenance then they use to do to off-set the age problem..    

Even though some fans scream and shout that they remain tops, the sportsmen themselves realise that there are two alternatives available to them and those are -

*  to go out in a blaze of glory while on top form; or

*  ignore poor performances and consequently ruin their reputation  in the longer term.

Both scenarios in fact are found in all codes of sport and we can look at some cases and see how they end up.   

Cricket

Here the great three Tendulkar, Ponting and Kallis called it a day during the past 18 months.   All three showed serious signs of decline in batting performances over the year before they in fact announced their retirement.    Ponting never showed any signs of recovery in the last test he played in before retirement - but there were some signs of a wish to leave th game in a blaze of glory on the part of Tendulkar and Kallis in their last tests.

I did not watch the last Tendulkar test, but watched Kallis performance over the last two days in detail - even though he scored at a very slow run rate.  He put up a tremendous effort to achieve the 115 runs to pass Dravid in the total run scoring  stake - but the signs were there that he was tired and not as effective as he used  to be.  Matter of fact is that  the moment he reached the 115 runs required for that purpose he went  out after some treatment on the pitch where it was evident that he had run out of gas.

It seems to  me that he realizes that he would not be able to repeat that effort every test he  plays in in future and that he will not change his mind on the issue of playing on in tests.   It just require too much  physical and mental effort to remains a viable performer.

Rugby

We have the amazing situation here of Bakkies Botha, Gurthro Steenkamp  and Thorn.   Despite the shouts and screams by the AB supporters on the site about the latter the fact   is  that he was just in the AB team because he was making up the numbers and not really performing on top level during the 2011 WC.

He is being used as an example why Bakkies and even Mattfield should be retained in the Springbok team.   Botha was given playing time against the Scots and despite the fact that his performance and statistics indicate that he was in fact below par, the hype on this site created the impression that he was still a top performer.    The same happened in the French test - where he was slightly better, but in reality not up to standard.

When players like Steenkamp and Morne Steyn is not regarded as good enough to make the starting line up of their clubs - then the sigs are loud and clear - they should not be anywhere near test rugby in future.

Other codes of sport

Michael Phelps - the greatest swimmer ever - realized that the physical effort was harder and that the youngsters became a real threat to his aspirations.   He quitted at the age of 27.   That left Ryan Lochte in the competition - but he is not the same competitor he was two years ago and is often enough beaten by younger swimmers.

Federer - the greatest tennis player ever - has not won anything of note in 2013 and the question is whether he should really not retire from professional tennis.

Bolt has already indicated that he intends to retire - but the date has apparently not been set yet.

Summary

The idea of some fans that great performers of the past cannot fail and should continue on test level is a fallacy.   In team sport failure could be detrimental to the team as a whole - in other sport individual failure could ruin reputations.

The wise players realize that to keep physically and mentally fit - they must virtually double up to their previous training regime to maintain the standard they are used to and retire when they think they are still in form.   Others do the opposite and damage their own reputation and in the event of team sport - the performances of their teams.       

I think the problem remains - age of athletes and players is a factor in performances and despite the hype - they should retire themselves or be left out if they persists beyond their sell-by date.   Despite huge hype and a great loss to their teams - their is one thing in evidence in life - nobody in life is irreplaceable,                       

Mozart

Rubbish - I am stating facts - the egg is on you face - since you are the one punting players past their sell-by date.   Kallis is a case in point.    Evn though he did rea ch his objective of trying to make an impression in his last test. before that over the last 12 innings  he played in his batting average before this one was less than 15 run per innings.   That showed a serious decline in performances and I think he himself realized it.  

Yesterday he was batting at a very slow run rate 2,74 rpo, but he was really battling putting in  tremendous effort.   Whether he can repeat that effort in future test is really doubtful - his record in the previous 12 innings he played in indicates otherwise.   I think he realises it - hence his decision to retire from test cricket.

The egg really is in your face.   After the sing song on your part about Bakkies Botha after the Scotland test where you said how good he was the shock must have been terrible when you found out he was in fact way below par.

There is no way that players should be retained in any team based on reputation and not performances.   The problem is you favour some geriatrics without realizing that their performances are sub-par or refusing to recognizing that fact.  

 Ceradyne

I had no problem with Kallis in his last test - he battled on bravely and made the runs he set himself to make.   However, that never was the point in the discussion above - what was the point is when sportsmen do call it a day.

De Villiers once said that he has to put in a massive amount of extra work to maintain his standard of performance compared to what he did at a younger age.  That is the point that decides the fate of older players.   If they still under-perform despite the extra effort in training, the wise ones decide to retire from international competition -  the not so wise ones stay one and get to a stage where they ruin their reputation.

As per normal you miss the point completely and start looking at one performance of an individual in one match.   Take a resolution for New Year not to continue raising silly points about issues you do not unders tand at all.   

Poor old Mozart

He missed out on everything because of his delusional love for all aged players and athletes in every code of sport.   

The team I wanted Smith and Kallis out was for the ODI's and T20 competitions.   And they are both out after the local Pakistani fiasco.  Neither of them are in the T20 squad for the competition later this year.

The problem is you refuses to recognize when in team sport players are not good enough performance wise anymore  and then praising them while there are serious deficiencies in their performances.  You refuse to recognise that performance and not reputation is the final norm that should determine selections. 

By the way - there is no way that Smith and Alviro Petersen will not let us down badly against the Aussies.    They were lucky against the Indians because India does not have top bowlers at present - but against the Aussies low scores by them is a given.    

 Ceradyne

I had no problem with Kallis in his last test - he battled on bravely and made the runs he set himself to make.   However, that never was the point in the discussion above - what was the point is when sportsmen do call it a day.

De Villiers once said that he has to put in a massive amount of extra work to maintain his standard of performance compared to what he did at a younger age.  That is the point that decides the fate of older players.   If they still under-perform despite the extra effort in training, the wise ones decide to retire from international competition -  the not so wise ones stay one and get to a stage where they ruin their reputation.

As per normal you miss the point completely and start looking at one performance of an individual in one match.   Take a resolution for New Year not to continue raising silly points about issues you do not understand at all.   

In the last few days the game has lost what even the most demanding northern England league cricket supporter would describe as "a couple of good 'uns".

The abrupt retirement and ensuing Twitter controversy told us much about the quirky personality of England's highly successful offspinner, Graeme Swann. On the field he was as traditional as they come: an old-school offie who relied on curve and drop from a hard-spun delivery and a simple "straight one", all delivered with a pleasingly clean action in an era where most offspinners lean heavily on the style of Paul Simon's "One-Trick Pony" - "a herky-jerky motion".

Off the field, so I'm told, Swann was an inveterate stirrer with his Twitter observations and eccentric originality, which produced his Ashes celebration "sprinkler dance".

In an era of bland interviews and highly controlled sporting media conferences, Swann will be missed as much for his originality of thought as he will be for his highly efficient offspin.

Just days after Swann's controversial retirement, the game lost the calm and clinical efficiency of the most successful allrounder in Test history, when South Africa's Jacques Kallis pronounced his departure with all the fanfare of an airline announcement. Kallis left the game in the same way he graced it; with no fuss, no controversy, and a lot of dignity. In years to come, as they gaze upon the cold, hard statistics, young cricket fans will wonder what the old-timers were gushing about when they said Garry Sobers is the best cricketer of all time.

Kallis' record is phenomenal. There is no one, not even the highly gifted Sobers, who can match him for statistical all-round efficiency. In Test cricket alone he averaged in the mid-fifties with the bat, bowled at a lively pace to capture nearly 300 victims, and completed 200 catches. Most cricketers would leave the game smugly satisfied with any one of those achievements to their name.

Kallis played with such clinical efficiency that his statistical success crept up on you like a father playing hide-and-seek with his kids. His batting, full of aesthetically pleasing cover drives and powerful pull shots, relied on technical efficiency and consistency rather than headline-grabbing starring roles. Whereas Sobers made news with six sixes in a first-class over, Kallis was a postscript in a match report: "Oh, and incidentally Kallis made a sound century, batting all day to dig his team out of a deep hole."

Kallis never took control of a game when he batted but there was a period in the mid-2000s when it looked like he had mastered it. Even during this period of high-scoring consistency, he was as low-profile as the average MI5 agent. The only information you could glean about the man was what you found in the scorebooks.

However, Kallis' influence in the South African dressing room was far greater than what his glitteringly ample record shows. He was as old-time as cricketers come; enjoying a beer after stumps and readily available if a younger team-mate needed advice or counselling.

By all reports he was a team-mate to be valued, but the only time this was revealed publicly was when his good friend Mark Boucher suffered a career-ending eye injury. Kallis then offered a rare public insight into his feelings but quickly reverted to type by allowing his bat to speak volumes; his first Test innings after Boucher's injury was a clinically constructed century dedicated to his close pal.

Swann and Kallis might be poles apart in personality but in one thing they were closely allied - as cricketers they were distinctly old-school. Swann eschewed a funky action and gimmicky deliveries, relying purely on good old-fashioned guile and guts to bamboozle his opponents. In an era of intense media scrutiny, Kallis defied the odds to become cricket's statistical superstar while remaining a virtual unknown.

Apart from being distinctly old-school, they have one other thing in common - the game will sorely miss them both.

 Ceradyne

Whenever you quote something one has to realize you are a thick prick who understand nothing that I wrote about above.  I never once mentioned Kallis's performances throughout his career.   I never once said he was not a great cricketer.

What I did say was that during the last twelve innings before the last test he played  in he averaged less than 15 runs per innings.   I also wrote about him playing in the tests against the Aussies and said I wish they could convince him to stay on - but I do not think he would.

Let me quote from  your sick and brain dead discussion above:-

"He has retired to play ODI and play in the next Cricket World cup. He has been  going through a slight run drought but a player of his calibre goes through those patched and they get out of it, just like Kallis has shown in this test."

Even the local commentators have realised that the above is likely to be unachievable on Kallis's part.   He will  have virtually no actual  playing time over the next 15 months.  He is not in the T20 squad that will play in the upcoming  T 20 series and his only game time over the period up to the 2015 WC will be -

*   in the IPL;

*   in the one day local competitions; and

*   the few ODI's SA will play in before the WC - that is if he is even selected.

The commentators expressed reservations about him being matchfit and not playing enough cricket over the said period before the World Cup.   But you - brainless as per normal - is not thinking logically about the issue.    Players stay matchfit by playing continuously - something Kallis will not do - and if you think he is going to maintain his present training regime - you must be kidding. 

However - brain dead - the issue is not about Kallis - the issue is about sportsmen in general with a reference to the brain dead who wants players to continue indefinitely purely based on reputation.  In that effort Mozart and you are manufacturing info when  it comes to performance evaluation and when caught out -  you two try and sidestep issues - exactly like you do in this case.