how could u forget Misbah...

Nice article, well researched. A notable exception from your list was Rahul Dravid, currently the world's oldest test player. He scored his 32nd test century yesterday, proving that technique, temperament and experience more than compensate for age.

Imran Khan lifted the WC when he was 40.

Totally agree with Samar, this article could have used more Misbah.

Another one you forgot was Sourav Ganguly, who, though had been at
the forefront of lots of controversies, still has shown an unwavering affection for cricket by playing in IPL-4 at the age of 39.

Sydney Barnes. Born 1873. First match for Warwickshire August 20th 1894. England debut in Australia November 1901. Took 49 wickets in 4 test matches in South Africa in 1913/14, aged 41 - over 12 wickets per test. Took 769 wickets in all matches between 1923 and 1933, between age 50 to 60. In 1928 aged 55 took 12 wickets for Wales against the touring West Indians and was said by Learie Constantine and his teammates to have been the best bowler they encountered on the entire tour. Still regularly running through teams aged 59 in 1932 with ten five fers and 91 wickets in the season. Good enough to take 4 for 42 for Staffordshire against Kent 2nd X1 in July 1935, aged 62. Overall career figures of 23,509.3 overs, 6,784 maidens, 51,890 runs scored off him, 6229 wickets taken, average 8.33.

Not bad.

Dude, Who the hell says Jayasuriya defied age.. He flopped badly in last leg of his career, check out his stats for god sake.

Clarrie Grimmett got his first test opportunity at age 33, and went on to play until he was 44. In that time, he took 216 wickets (then a world record) at 24.21.

Famously, he once demonstrated an ability to hit the stumps with a blindfold on. Age won't ever weary a talent like that.

Nice article! I would like to advance the case for the inclusion of Archie MacLaren, who at the tender age of 51 years led a young MCC touring team to Australia and New Zealand and scored 200* against the full strength of New Zealand, as Michael Down puts it, at Wellington in only 264 minutes, thus ending a first-class career that had spanned 32 years. New Zealand was not at the time recognised as a test nation, the tour was something akin to an A-team tour but even if he was a "nipper" compared to the Doctor, an international double-century at that age is notable.

What's this with age - if you are good enough you are young enough, personally speaking the enjoyment has increased with age although that competitive edge has slightly waned.

India's first Test Captain, C.K. Nayudu (1895-1967), is a notable omission here. CK made is debut (India's first Test) at the age of 37. He went on to play first-class cricket till he well into his 60s. His last Ranji trophy game was at the age of 62 and he even scored a 50 in this match! His last first class match (a charity match) was at the ripe age of 69! His first-class cricket career spanned 48 years (1916-1964)!

Brian Close surely deserved a mention. England's youngest ever test player, no one either younger or older than his 18 (on debut)/45 (last test) has played for England since 1948. His test career is the second longest ever. Though he gave up regular county cricket at 47, his last first-class invitation appearance was at 55.

Hi,
I think Clive Lloyd lifted played the word cup at 39 and Eddi Hemmings played at 42.

In my view Sachin can play to 50.

@Jonathan Darrell: Barnes did nothing of the sort you mentioned. He only picked up 719 wickets in first-class cricket. Check out his Cricinfo page. Also, he retired in 1930, not 1933.

The only person ever to reach 4000 first-class wickets was Wilfred Rhodes. It is pretty much impossible to take 6229 wickets; even with a 26-year career, that comes out to 240 wickets a year, an average even Tich Freeman would have been proud of.

How can you forget King Viv Richards, who played on till almost 40. The peerless Richard Hadlee, who was fit as a fiddle when he retired , almost at 40 and the spunky Coutney Walsh, who was touching 39 when retired. You can also add Glenn Mcgrath who was good enough at 40 in IPL 1 and 2 and Shane Warne who has just retired from IPL at 42.

Where's old man Wilfred Rhodes?

@Mirza Ahmed: Please read to the end of the cricinfo page on Barnes before contradicting these figures! See what his contemporaries said about him. Sydney Barnes played very little first class cricket - he refused to play for a county because he didn't get paid enough! Nothing in the original article specified only first class cricket. Your final sentence only further emphasises what an extraordinary and unique cricketer he must have been! His career extended for 40 years, incredibly. He really deserves to be much better recognised.
A fast medium bowler bowling true leg breaks with in-drift like Shane Warne, swinging it both ways and moving it off the seam. He batted too. In a match against Durham in 1911 he scored 136, then took 17 Durham wickets for 83 from 38 overs in the match!

@Mirza Ahmed: maybe you should check out Sydney Barnes' cricinfo page and actually read it. if you took the time to actually scroll down, you would see a section called SUMMARY OF ALL MATCHES. You will then find out that Barnes did in fact do everything of the sort Jonathan mentioned. if you actually knew anything about cricket you would know Barnes' 8.33 average as well as everyone knows the Don's 99.94. hope that helps. your cricket knowledge needs it.

@Mirza Ahmed
Barnes spent most of his career playing club and Minor County cricket. So his record includes many wickets below first-class level. Nevertheless he remained a feared bowler in his occasional encounters with first-class players.

What about Jack Hobbs and Wilfred Rhodes? Didn't they play into their late forties or something?

what about Graham Gooch? he played his last test at 41(despite getting a pair on debut lol)

At those mentioning Misbah here, come one people! We are talking about legends here and not someone who does not even have 2000 runs in test cricket!

I think that Simon Katich comparing his present case with Tendulkar's about four years ago is outrageous! As far as the whole world knows, since selected, Katich has been performing 'CONSISTENTLY' well for Australia to date - even at his ripe age now. The Aussie selectors therefore have/had no good reason for treating him so unfairly. Tendulkar on the other hand was a completely different kettle of fish. He was not performing at all against the best teams in the world. Hence,Ian Chappell rightly called for him to be dropped. At time, Tendulkar had played for over three and a half years, scoring 'ONE' century against the traditional teams, in 45 innings, at an average of 31 runs. I don't think the Aussie selectors would be that silly to keep a player like that, to just wait on all the teams to get to the mediocre stage where they're all at now, so that he can inflate his records just to call him great and 'GOOD AS BRADMAN'! What would happen to Aussie cricket when such nonsense goes on?

Syd Barnes was still playing competitive league cricket well into his 60's!

@Hanish...maybe you should learn some etiquettes on how to comment in public forums. You can disagree like Mirza did and then was corrected by Warwicks fan...but you should not stoop low enough to divulge into childish accusations which best suit a 3rd grader. So smarten up for next time.

@Victoria Baptiste:
"What would happen to Aussie cricket when such nonsense goes on?"
you mean it would be even worse than it currently is? how is that even possible? And Hanish, do take a lesson on how to contradict someone with decency...it's much more important than knowing Sydney Barnes' bowling average.

Nice article, it's hard to see anyone surpass the old timers in this day and age, particularly in international cricket.

i believe Imran Khan's achievement of lifting world cup at 40 is takes him above all.