So,doesn't this aus winning the ashes 5-0 another evidence that you don't need to build a young team?
Aus played an unchanged 11 for first time for all 5 tests of this series & except David warner & Steve smith who r youngsters , all the other players in their team are 30+. Haddin & Rogers re-established themselves in the team & became one of the main reason for Australia's success after being 35+. Australia were very good with their fielding as well throughout the series.
Doesn't this prove that it doesn't matter whether you have a young team or a old team & what matters is the passion, desire & determination to compete at this level,& if u have that u can achieve any kind of success?
Ur thoughts ?
And England team is comparatively young with players like Cook,Root,Ben stokes, Johnny bairstow, Stuart Broad, Boyd rankin , Gary ballance , etc who all are youngsters & all below 30+.
In the last ashes series , apart from Steve smith & warner, Australia had youngsters like phil Hughes,usman khawaja,Ashton agar,Mitchell starc,Jackson bird,Pattinson,etc. This time all of them were replaced with seniors who are 30+ & that move paid off.
I don't believe a lot in this concept of building a young team & gaining experience. A out of form Senior can come back to the team & perform better than any youngster. A player should be selected based on form & age doesn't matter.