I don't think age matters. In cricket, if you have the skill, you can go on playing.

Skill outlasts the calendar

Most of us assume there's a deadline stamped on our abilities—that at some point, the body simply stops cooperating and we're supposed to step aside. But what Steyn suggests is actually about something deeper than physical skill: it's about the gap between what we can still do and what we convince ourselves we can't. In cricket, a forty-year-old with a perfect technique and sharp instincts genuinely performs differently than an untrained twenty-five-year-old. The difference is measurable and real, not sentimentality.

The catch is that this applies far beyond sports. A teacher doesn't lose the ability to inspire at fifty-five. A writer's voice doesn't expire at sixty. A craftsperson's hands don't forget precision just because a calendar changed. What often happens instead is that we internalize the cultural assumption that age means decline, and that belief becomes self-fulfilling—we pull back, stop pushing, accept smaller versions of what we used to do. We decide for ourselves before our actual capacity makes the decision for us.

The uncomfortable part? This cuts both ways. Some people do decline, and pretending otherwise helps no one. But the question worth asking yourself isn't whether you're too old for something. It's whether you've actually lost the skill, or just the confidence to keep using it.