What's new

Should Mohammad Shami have retired with India on 36 for 9? [Ruled out of series due to fracture]

C

Corridor of Uncertainty

First Class Captain
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Runs
5,134
Post of the Week
4
Pros:
1. He was properly hurt and in great deal of pain, possibly unbearable. Maybe broken a bone.
2. There was no recognized batsman at the other end to stick around for.
3. They would have gained another 10 runs or so which wouldn't have made a difference to the eventual outcome.

Cons:
1. Test cricket. You don't give up and walk away. Examples of players playing with broken arms, jaws, hands etc abound in history.

I think the pro's edge it but I wonder what would have happened in the past?

<a href="https://imgbb.com/"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/pLtRd3Z/21a90902-cbe5-4797-9d0e-df6fff26e54d.jpg" alt="21a90902-cbe5-4797-9d0e-df6fff26e54d" border="0"></a>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He should have done whatever it took to stay out there.

Yadav could have clobbered one or two boundaries at the other end, or got out. Which would have happened in 2 overs anyway.
 
We have seen what happened to Phil Hughes, we don't want another tragedy. It would have been too dangerous for a tailender. I agree with cricket cartoons, experts sitting at home commenting as if it was easy for them to bat.
 
I think he would have stayed if he could. I am assuming the pain was too much for him that’s why he went off
 
Salim Malik batted with a broken hand, his one arm was in a cast and he was batting one handed against the WI pace attack in 1986. This is what IK demanded, fight from the tailenders showed all was well in the team dressing room and summed up the fighting spirit of the team.
 
If he can't hold the bat - which can happen if your forearm is struck & goes numb- then you need to retire. You'll just get out straight away or get killed unable to defend yourself.

I've seen all time tough guys like David Boon retire after a blow to the forearm in a similar spot. No shame in it if you are disabled like that.
 
Ashraful_Rox said:
We have seen what happened to Phil Hughes, we don't want another tragedy. It would have been too dangerous for a tailender. I agree with cricket cartoons, experts sitting at home commenting as if it was easy for them to bat.
Click to expand...

Lol this was nothing like that. Besides it wasn’t a killer ball anyway. It was bad judgement. He followed a wide bouncer essentially
 
Varun said:
But that's not the reason you walk off!! Why turn up to bat in the first place then?
Click to expand...

it was lost cause, if he was injured, than no point getting yourself injured more.

its not like he was ffit to score 30 runs
 
If you are injured you are injured, and it’s not as if India was gonna pull a rabbit out of the hat for this one. It was a bad and heartbreaking day for those lads in the office, keep your head down and go for the next test.
 
Well according to Mamoon law.

He should have stayed as its unfair to call this a lowest ever score shama and umesh could have stuck 100's India could have declared at 240/9 and then bowler Aus out for 143 and won the test by 150 runs.
 
Yes he did the right thing. If you are not feeling comfortable on the crease, no matter how much the situation of the match demands, the best thing is to retire. Safety and comfort first and foremost.
 
Corridor of Uncertainty said:
Pros:
1. He was properly hurt and in great deal of pain, possibly unbearable. Maybe broken a bone.
2. There was no recognized batsman at the other end to stick around for.
3. They would have gained another 10 runs or so which wouldn't have made a difference to the eventual outcome.

Cons:
1. Test cricket. You don't give up and walk away. Examples of players playing with broken arms, jaws, hands etc abound in history.

I think the pro's edge it but I wonder what would have happened in the past?
Click to expand...

The only thing he can hit is his wife. Disgraceful human
 
I think therfore I am said:
The only thing he can hit is his wife. Disgraceful human
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
The poor fella couldn't even lift his bat and he was worried about a potentially fractured forearm, so it would have been utter madness staying out in the middle and risk exacerbating the damage.
 
India's Mohammed Shami retired hurt after being struck on the right forearm off Australia pacer Pat Cummins' bowling on the third day of the first Day-Night Test match at the Adelaide Oval.

Out on the crease after none of the India batsmen reached double figures, Shami joined Umesh Yadav with India looking in danger of posting its lowest Test total.

However, India could not prevent it from happening when Shami failed to evade a short delivery. The team folded with 36/9 on the scoreboard.

After checking on Shami, the team physio was called back on the field as India's No. 11 visibly seemed to be in a lot of pain.

"Shami's going for a scan now. He could hardly lift his arm. We'll know more in the evening," said skipper Virat Kohli after the match. An official update from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is pending.

https://sportstar.thehindu.com/cric...alia-adelaide-sports-news/article33370759.ece
 
The way Shami was playing the short ball he was bound to get hurt.

So that's why I've little sympathy for Mamoon's "they were actually 36-9" argument.
 
If he could have stayed out there and helped his team win or draw the match, then fair enough. But given India were gone, there was no point in him staying out there and risking further injury.
 
India pacer Mohammad Shami has been ruled out of the series after suffering a fracture on his arm. He retired hurt while batting in the second innings at the Adelaide Oval on Saturday after he was hit on the right arm by a bouncer from Pat Cummins.
 
I don’t think people have watched the innings. He was struggling big time anyway and getting out with or without injury was inevitable
 
Yeah, no point. This is not boxing or MMA (and even then, I think it's fine to know when you're done- especially when you have a broken orbital bone, arm, etc). It would have been frivolous to stay out there, as there wasn't a recognised batsman remaining.
 
Ofcourse he should have walked away. How is that even a question? The guy is a number 11 tailender, his importance to the side lies in his ability to bowl. And not like he was going to hit a rearguard hundred at 36-9.
 
The world has changed so much. There used to be players who wouldn't think twice about carrying on - left handed or whatever.

Was beating India's lowest score of 43 worth fighting for?

Again, I think it was better to walk away too but to think there is no debate or question at all on Shami's stance is just plain ignorance of history - not just of cricket but all sport.
 
Corridor of Uncertainty said:
The world has changed so much. There used to be players who wouldn't think twice about carrying on - left handed or whatever.

Was beating India's lowest score of 43 worth fighting for?

Again, I think it was better to walk away too but to think there is no debate or question at all on Shami's stance is just plain ignorance of history - not just of cricket but all sport.
Click to expand...

It's ridiculous that you even ask. Tbe guy badly injured and has been ruled out of the series. Of course it was right for him to retire hurt. No idea why you think this is even a debate.
 
Saj said:
If he could have stayed out there and helped his team win or draw the match, then fair enough. But given India were gone, there was no point in him staying out there and risking further injury.
Click to expand...

Save them from having the worst ever Test total in the last 60 years is something. Yadav edging two more boundaries would have made 50.
 
Saj said:
If he could have stayed out there and helped his team win or draw the match, then fair enough. But given India were gone, there was no point in him staying out there and risking further injury.
Click to expand...

Kumble in Antigua with a broken jaw

kumblefb-story_647_072016113408.jpg
 
This Indian team is the perfect image-bearer of international cricket right now.

All show, no substance.

And not even a good show.
 
Corridor of Uncertainty said:
The world has changed so much. There used to be players who wouldn't think twice about carrying on - left handed or whatever.

Was beating India's lowest score of 43 worth fighting for?

Again, I think it was better to walk away too but to think there is no debate or question at all on Shami's stance is just plain ignorance of history - not just of cricket but all sport.
Click to expand...

The match was already done and dusted. Do you think Shami had any idea about an irrelevant record like India’s lowest Test score while he was batting, and especially when he was wincing in pain after fracturing his arm?

If India had a chance of winning the match he probably would have carried on and the team management would have pushed him on as well.

Generally, you tend to be surprisingly perspective and rational for a Pakistani fan, but you are clearly not thinking rationally here.
 
Mamoon said:
The match was already done and dusted. Do you think Shami had any idea about an irrelevant record like India’s lowest Test score while he was batting, and especially when he was wincing in pain after fracturing his arm?

If India had a chance of winning the match he probably would have carried on and the team management would have pushed him on as well.

Generally, you tend to be surprisingly perspective and rational for a Pakistani fan, but you are clearly not thinking rationally here.
Click to expand...

Thank you Mamoon. High praise.

On topic, I did say it was better to walk away. And majority would do that.

However, sporting folklore is made when athletes do the unthinkable.

Now just imagine if Shami had batted left handed for a while and everything came off - e.g. his partner had hit a few blows and Shami had faced a few balls successfully, eyeing the bowler down.

The headlines tomorrow would have been vastly different: Instead of 'sorry India capitulate to their lowest score' to 'Defiant Shami helps India avoid their lowest ever total' and some columns about the face of 'Brave New India' would have shown up tomorrow to divert attention from the disaster. It would have made India feel good despite the defeat and Shami would probably have become a hero.

Worst case though, he would have been hit on the jaw - which is too heavy a price to pay and therefore I lean toward walking away.

But sporting history is filled with stupid, brave, defiant, nonsensical acts of beauty so the romantic in me was urging him to stay on.
 
But now rules say you can have replacement for injured player , i don't understand
 
With him and Kohli out of the rest of the series..can this be called our 'B' team and be saved from the inevitable humiliation??? I mean we are missing Ishant and Jadeja as well.
 
He probably retired hurt because he knew he couldn't carry on. Player safety much more important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top