Table of Contents
The dramatic drawn fourth Test between England and India at Old Trafford has sparked a fiery ‘war of words’ between former South African fast bowlers Dale Steyn and Tabraiz Shamsi, highlighting a fundamental disagreement on cricketing ethics. The controversy ignited when England captain Ben Stokes offered to end the match early, only for Indian batters Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar to reject the proposal, opting to bat on in pursuit of individual centuries.
The clash of perspective between Tabraiz Shamsi and Dale Steyn over controversial handshake in Manchester Test
While Shamsi staunchly defended the Indian duo’s actions as their right, Steyn offered a unique and thought-provoking counter-argument, suggesting that once a draw was secured, pursuing ‘free milestones’ wasn’t entirely in the spirit of the game, even if it was within the rules. The contentious final hour at Old Trafford quickly escalated into a public debate between two prominent South African bowlers, revealing differing philosophies on sportsmanship and player autonomy. Left-arm wrist-spinner.
Shamsi was among the first to vocalize his support for the Indian batters, directly challenging the criticism leveled against them. On X (formerly Twitter), Shamsi passionately questioned the uproar, stating, “Why is there such a big deal being made about the Indians choosing not to accept the offer to end the game in a draw immediately? The offer was made. The offer was rejected n they were fully entitled to make their choice They got their 100s which they worked hard for Game over,” His stance showcased the belief that players are fully justified in utilizing every legitimate opportunity available to them within the rules of the game.
However, legendary pace bowler Steyn did not hesitate to offer a direct and nuanced counter-response to Shamsi, initiating a deeper dive into the ethics of the situation. Steyn began his reply with a compelling metaphor, asserting, “Shamo this onion has many layers to it, and each one will make someone cry. The only issue I see here is the one thing people aren’t realizing, the batters weren’t playing for 100s, they were batting for a DRAW. That was the goal. Draw the game. Once that was accomplished, and a result was out of the question a handshake was offered, that’s the gentlemanly thing to do right? It’s not then the time to realize they safe and now say no we’d prefer some free milestones… although within the rules, just seems a little, well, odd. That said, they did bat well, and maybe with the last hour approaching they should have been more aggressive in reaching those milestones, at least then, we could all agree, no team tried to out do the other in this weird situation,” He then articulated his core contention, arguing that the Indian batters’ primary objective at that late stage was simply to secure a draw, not to chase centuries.
Why is there such a big deal being made about the Indians choosing not to accept the offer to end the game in a draw immediately?
The offer was made..the offer was rejected n they were fully entitled to make their choice
They got their 100s which they worked hard for
Game over
— Tabraiz Shamsi (@shamsi90) July 28, 2025
Shamo this onion has many layers to it, and each one will make someone cry. The only issue I see here is the one thing people aren’t realizing, the batters weren’t playing for 100s, they were batting for a DRAW. That was the goal. Draw the game. Once that was accomplished, and a…
— Dale Steyn (@DaleSteyn62) July 28, 2025
Also READ: James Anderson’s wife still hates Ben Stokes and Brendon McCullum – Here’s why
Steyn’s call for aggression and sporting integrity in dead rubbers
Steyn explained, “The only issue I see here is the one thing people aren’t realizing, the batters weren’t playing for 100s, they were batting for a DRAW. That was the goal. Draw the game,” He firmly believed that once this principal objective was achieved and a result was definitively out of reach, accepting the handshake offered by Ben Stokes would have been the ‘gentlemanly thing to do,” Steyn’s critical point was that, while technically allowed, it wasn’t the appropriate moment for the batters to capitalize on their safe position and pursue ‘free milestones,’ finding such an act ‘a little, well, odd,’
Steyn, while critical of the decision to prolong the match, did acknowledge the impressive batting performance of Ravindra Jadeja and Washington Sundar, stating, ‘That said, they did bat well,” Yet, he suggested an alternative, more sportsmanlike approach if achieving individual centuries was truly their aim. Steyn proposed that if milestones were a significant objective, the batters should have pursued them with greater aggression earlier in their innings, particularly as the final hour approached and the draw became an undeniable certainty.
“Well I don’t think any one individual calls the shots for how long someone can bat, it’s just the rule that teams can shake with a hour left. The game was Eng going for a win, India going for a draw, time says it’s pointless to play on, neither TEAM will win/lose so handshakes and walk off. That final hour isn’t reserved for personal goals. As they say, there’s no I in team… That said, if it were you and me batting on 90 each, it would take a tank to pull us off that field! Haha,”
Well I don’t think any one individual calls the shots for how long someone can bat, it’s just the rule that teams can shake with a hour left.
The game was Eng going for a win, India going for a draw, time says it’s pointless to play on, neither TEAM will win/lose so handshakes…— Dale Steyn (@DaleSteyn62) July 28, 2025
