Is age (young or old) a key criteria in selecting players in a cricket team?

If they are good enough they are old enough !

Couldn’t agree more with Peter. Also if they're good enough they're young enough

Personally, I don’t believe age should form part of the selection process of any cricket team. The adage if you’re good enough, you’re old enough rings true.
I will say however cricket is game played by 11 players and the selectors must pick a balanced team consisting of 6 or so batters, a wicket keeper, a few fast/medium bowlers and hopefully one or two spinners. They simply can’t pick everyone who may or may not be good enough.
Team dynamics and team first mentality could also be drivers of selection.
Selections are never easy and being limited to 11 players means no one player has a given right to be selected in any cricket team. However young or old the player needs to have the performances on the board and be able to do a job with their skills as well as contribute in other aspects such as catching, ground fielding and running between wickets.
Not being selected in a team is not the worst thing that’ll ever happen to a player. Their ability to move forward and get on with the game they enjoy playing has been the making of many the greats of the game.
If the collective of the people involved in and around the team (International, State, County, Association or Club), believe the selectors are getting things consistently wrong then it’s their roles to make changes so the team can move forward and win games of cricket.

There has been a massive shift in player selection policy over the past decade, with the primary focus being Pathways providing Cricket Australia with "future" international cricketers. The downside of this policy is the neglect towards outstanding Premier cricketers who perform year in, year out, but cannot secure contracts with state organisations as they are too old for a Rookie contract, or have not been through the system (U/17, U/19 or Second XI).

There is more importance placed on a player that may have one good innings at the U/19 carnival, than someone who has scored more than 20 1st grade centuries.

I agree with Paul and Peter, if you are good enough (and prove you are good enough, not just reputation or perceived potential), then you should be selected, regardless of age (young or old).

Good theory, but again it focuses on age rather than performance.
I know this is going to make me sound old, but when I started in Grade (now known as Premier) cricket in Sydney, in 1980, you had to pay your dues and work through the grades based on performance. It wasn't just one good performance in fourth grade as a 16 year old and then up to seconds or firsts, it was 4 or 5 years of performance in thirds and seconds, before I got to play first grade.
In the 1980's you still had all of the Sheffield Shield and Test players available for grade cricket, so there were a lot more obstacles for younger players, so unless you were scoring 500 runs a season, you were not getting a chance.
There are far more opportunities now to play higher grades faster for young cricketers, and they seem to get opportunities based on 50s or 2fors, rather than 100s and 5fors.
In regards to 28 year olds "blocking" the way, they are probably players that have stayed loyal to that club, and deserve to have a place, rather than younger club hoppers looking to jump the queue by changing clubs continually. Long gone are the days where players would play 200 or 300 games for the same club.

Another classic!!!!! Selectors pick a team but inform one of the non selected boy that they did not pick him since he was too young and not because of his ability and he is in the radar for next year?

Is it right for the selector to say this to the disappointed boy or not say anything?

Thoughts!!!!!

Ok fine…Why was age mentioned in the conversation instead of selecting based on ability?

Looks like a classic case of is selection an art or a science?

In truth, it's probably a balance between the two and that also factors in the age of players. I would tend to "picking the strongest team", but with an eye on the future to ensure that a talented youngster gets the right opportunity to develop.

The relative strength of the team should be factored into that. Much easier to integrate a young player in a stronger team, than potentially leaving them to sink or swim in a struggling one....