Originally Posted by Death
Decline is tricky. But again I refer to the Australian experience where they tend to replace people during the early to mid-point of the decline rather than hanging on to the death throes. It does help if you have a production line of talent. A high class player may still be able to play good innings after they have peaked; they'll just be less frequent and less consistent in doing so. Stewart as you mention him, still had his moments, but he was creaking a while before he retired. I do belive that his overlong tenure stunted the development of a generation of wicketkeepers, though it was not his fault that the selectors kept picking him. The best decsion they made was when Hussain announced that they needed to move on and that Foster would replace him, permanently. Except that Foster then broke his arm, the numpty.
In my view, you need to look at the younger prospects early in the decline, when the established player is past thirty and has had two or three below par series. If it's a truly great player then they might get a bit longer if it is regarded as a temporary loss of form rather than the beginning of the end. Steve waugh certainly managed to fully revive his career late in the day. But he was definitely a great. I suppose it would be called succession planning and management. But in England we tend to wait until the last knockings and then scramble around for the next cab off the rank.
The Australian equivalent to Vaughan, would be Steve Waugh or Mark Taylor. Both of whom were allowed to pick their retirement dates and struggled on for some time. Steve Waugh might have got his century in Sydney in 2003, but earlier in that series Nasser Hussain was offering the likes of Damien Martyn and Adam Gilchrist singles so they could bowl at Steve Waugh.