What's new

[VIDEO] Tactical refusal to appeal? Could this become a regular occurrence?

BouncerGuy

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2023
Runs
40,541
In the ILT20 clash between Desert Vipers and MI Emirates, we saw one of the strangest passages of play this year. Nicholas Pooran had a straightforward chance to stump Max Holden in the 16th over—but he chose not to remove the bails. The very next ball, the Vipers themselves retired Holden out, a tactical move that stunned fans and commentators alike.

At that point, Holden had top-scored but was struggling to accelerate, with the innings stuck at 110 for 1 after four quiet overs. By retiring him, the Vipers freed up their middle-order hitters like Shimron Hetmyer and Dan Lawrence to take charge. The gamble paid off: they scraped to a total that eventually set up a one-run thriller win.

Pooran’s refusal to stump raised eyebrows—was he trying to avoid giving Holden a “cheap” dismissal, or was it a subtle psychological ploy? And did the Vipers’ retirement trick cross a line, or was it simply within the rules?

 
After t20 wc 22, I recollect one babar azam spoof video by pak fan was exactly like that. Have Pooran saw it too 😀
 
In 1979 WC final Geoff Boycott was batting very slowly - chasing big total set by West Indies. At 1 point Boycott hit straight to Clive Lloyd - who dropped a dolly
 
Holden must have thought he had a concussion.

His own team wanted him out but the opposition didn't want him to lose his wicket.

Tactical not out is a risky play. I always think a wicket can then open up the rest of the team and gives a chance to skittles the opposition or trigger a collapse.
 
Lucky it was not a pak wicketkeeper allegations of match fixing would have been all over the forum
 
I think in T20 Cricket retired hurt tactic should be used more

There is a difference between retired hurt and retired out.

Retired hurt means batter can come back later. Also, it has to be a legitimate injury. If batter is not injured, it cannot be used.

Retired out means batter voluntarily leaves. He can't return. It is a dismissal and he is out.
 
There is a difference between retired hurt and retired out.

Retired hurt means batter can come back later. Also, it has to be a legitimate injury. If batter is not injured, it cannot be used.

Retired out means batter voluntarily leaves. He can't return. It is a dismissal and he is out.
Yea then they should use retired out tactic more.
 
This tactic can only be used if you have team players and not selfish players.

Bowlers are too much focus on their own stats, and if a wicket opportunity is missed they tend to go crazy.

For such a tactic to work you need a bowler that is a team player aswell. And than you also need a team that could give context to the bowlers performance aswell.

Cricket analysis is too much stats focussed and not focussed on what happens on ground.
 
Most of the debate shows one thing that decisions were within the rules, but they exposed how T20 is shifting from ego and optics to pure tactics

Now, teams will happily sacrifice ‘traditional logic’ if it wins them the game.
 
Funny that Pooran made 32 at a lower SR than Holden’s and his team ended up losing by 1 run.
 
The problem with this tactic is what if you go on to regret not taking the wicket later on…

What is the batsman accelerates or stays until the end to guide his team home.

Imagine if we deliberately missed Kohlis stumping in the 2022 WorldT20 in MCG… Imagine the outrage
 
The problem with this tactic is what if you go on to regret not taking the wicket later on…

What is the batsman accelerates or stays until the end to guide his team home.

Imagine if we deliberately missed Kohlis stumping in the 2022 WorldT20 in MCG… Imagine the outrage

Exactly.

Good batters can make up for it by late accelerations.

Not dismissing a frontline batter can come back to bite. :inti
 
This type of tactic is foolish because team can always retire out a batter. :inti

The batter shortly retired himself out after that incident but still did nothing for another ball or two afterwards iirc.

It's a risky tactic but if the batter has been batting for long enough and the team clearly knows he is struggling big time, then it makes strategic sense to do this.
 
The batter shortly retired himself out after that incident but still did nothing for another ball or two afterwards iirc.

It's a risky tactic but if the batter has been batting for long enough and the team clearly knows he is struggling big time, then it makes strategic sense to do this.

Yeah. I guess it depends on the game situation.

For example, when team needs 50 from 20 balls, there is no time to experiment. Need to retire out the struggling batter I guess.
 
We can already see some of this 'isko khilate raho' mentality in ODIs as well.

For e.g. if a Bavuma is batting on 40(50) on a road wicket most teams would rather let him cook than let guys like Breetzke, Brevis, Markram bat. The downside is limited because at best Bavuma will catch up to a 105-110 SR inns and if you can get through weaker bowlers' quota at 5-7 rpo vs Bavuma then better prepared for death phase against big hitters
 
Back
Top