A fiery Mohammed Shami has doubled down on his stance, refusing to back down from Ajit Agarkar's comments about his fitness. This ongoing controversy has sparked a heated debate within the cricket community.
The Story Unfolds
Mohammed Shami, a veteran Indian pacer, was notably absent from India's ODI squad for the series against Australia. This decision by the BCCI's selection panel came as a surprise, especially considering Shami's pivotal role in India's triumph at the ICC Champions Trophy.
The exclusion sparked a verbal clash between Shami and the chief selector, Ajit Agarkar. Currently representing Bengal in the Ranji Trophy, Shami dismissed Agarkar's remarks with a hint of sarcasm. When asked about Agarkar's fitness-related comments, Shami retorted, "Let him say whatever he wants. My performance speaks for itself."
Shami's actions on the field further fueled the controversy. During the Ranji opener at Eden Gardens, he took the final three wickets of Uttarakhand's first innings in a single over, showcasing his dominance. This feat seemed to be Shami's response to Agarkar's assessment, suggesting that fitness wasn't the sole issue.
Agarkar's Perspective
Agarkar had previously commented on Shami's non-inclusion, stating, "If Shami were here, I'd give him an answer. A bowler of his caliber would be an asset if fit." He explained that Shami's fitness had been a concern over the past months, adding, "If he maintains his fitness, the narrative could change, but he wasn't fit for the England tour."
Shami's Anger and Displeasure
Shami's anger towards Agarkar and the selectors is palpable. He has criticized their rationale, pointing out that fitness shouldn't be an issue given his participation in four-day events. He also took issue with the selectors' approach of expecting players to announce their fitness, rather than communicating with the NCA's Center of Excellence, which is responsible for player rehabilitation.
The Bitter Truth?
India may have moved on from the 35-year-old Shami, who has been battling knee injuries. However, Shami's response suggests a sense of bitterness and displeasure, especially if he believes the reason for his non-inclusion isn't being communicated honestly.
And this is where it gets interesting... What do you think? Is Shami being unfairly treated, or is there more to this story? The cricket world is divided, and we want to hear your thoughts! Comment below and let's discuss!
