What is the point in taking a bloke well past his best to a tournament we will most likely be eliminated in the early stages?
We will be learning nothing, give the youngsters a chance, if they fail, so what, the so called golden generation failed time and again.
We need to build the future, Gerrard,Lampard,Terry,Cole are not the future.
Of course in various sports, the idea of going into the world tournaments with predominately your talented young players & discarding your old players (especially if the old players didn't always live up to potential) has merits.
But generally i believe picking your best players regardless of age, for tournaments sports is the best policy.
After the 1999 cricket world cup, i recall ENG selectors embarking on a youth policy by dropping Alec Stewart because they felt he would not be around for the 2003 cup.
Yet 4 years later, Stewart @ 40 was not only the best ODI keeper - but even captained the team during the tournament.
Controversial France coach was backing his youth during the 2006 world cup qualifiers after veterans Fabian Barthez, Zidane & Makelele had retired - but yet recalled them & their presence play a key role in them reaching the world cup final.
They are many other examples in football/cricket of teams backing their older players with much success.
Of the players you listed for ENG of course you got a few young players who pushing them hard. A Cole if he stays on the bench for Chelsea this season, may very well miss out on a place for Kieran Gibbs or Luke Shaw. Same too Lampard with young mid-fielders like Barkley & Henderson doing well.
Steven Gerrard is captain & will go to the world cup unless he is injured, so don't see how you can suggest, a younger player should be picked ahead of him.
And center of defense remains England major weak area & Terry will strengthen it. The ENG world cup squad should be a mixture of the best older players (regardless of what they did not achieve in the past) & the best young players. Simple as.
.
