Fakhar Zaman's Century, Saad Baig's Fifty and Shaheen's Finish: Pakistan Chase 326 to Beat Sri Lanka

Pakistan chased down Sri Lanka's 326 in the tri-series final with three wickets in hand. Fakhar Zaman's 127 was at the centre of the victory, but the scoreboard does not say what the numbers hide: this was not a one-man win. Saad Baig's 74, a 94-run stand between Arafat Minhas and Mohammad Nawaz, and Shaheen Afridi's contribution with both ball and bat — the journey from a side bundled out for 110 four days earlier to one chasing 326 was the sum of all of these. Batting first, Sri Lanka built a strong platform. Pavan Rathnayake and Kamindu Mendis laid a foundation from which a total above 330 looked certain. At 41 overs the score was 255 for 2 — nine overs remained and eight wickets were in hand. Rathnayake made 77. Across the series he had 427 runs at an average of 106.75, but that figure rests on just four dismissals. An average built on so few innings should not be read as a statistical conclusion; it is a small-sample number. Kamindu Mendis made 131. It was the highest score of his career and more than double his previous best, which had been below 65 — this innings almost doubled his personal ceiling. He played the role that underpins a big total: settle first, then gradually raise the tempo. That mattered for Sri Lanka because the tempo of the final overs was going to be set by him. Sri Lanka's innings featured two major stands — one of 87 and one of 146. Together they created the structure on which the plan for a late assault rested. But as clearly as the partnership numbers read, it is equally clear that what happened after 41 overs overturned the entire plan. 255 for 2 became 325 for 8 — six wickets in nine overs. That was the first decisive turn of the match. Sri Lanka lost six wickets in the last nine overs. In cricket, the gap between 255 for 2 at 41 overs and 325 for 8 at 50 says the side had lost its rhythm in the final phase. The collapse is not the story of one bowler — Pakistan applied pressure collectively and gave Sri Lanka's middle and lower order no chance to settle. The two most important wickets in that slide belonged to Shaheen Afridi — Kamindu Mendis and Dasun Shanaka. Kamindu had made 131 by then and his wicket was the spine of Sri Lanka's innings. Once he went, Sri Lanka could not find the tempo they had held until the 41st over. Shanaka's wicket fell in the closing overs, exactly where quick runs were expected from him. Sri Lanka's innings ended at 325 for 8. The target was 326. On paper it was a big score, and given the position at 41 overs Sri Lanka should have reached 345-350. But losing six wickets in nine overs meant the side had capped its own total. For Pakistan it was a comeback — and an important one, because it moved 326 from 'impossible' into 'difficult but possible'. Pakistan's innings began with early shocks. Two wickets had fallen by the time the score reached 14. Maaz went as the first wicket, and then Babar Azam — expected to anchor the chase — returned to the pavilion without scoring. Losing Babar at 14 for 2 was a heavy blow for a side that had been bowled out for 110 four days earlier. At that point 312 runs were still needed with eight wickets in hand. One detail about Babar's form deserves note: he had gone nine innings without a half-century. When a side is chasing 326 and its most experienced top-order batsman has not passed fifty in nine innings, pressure builds on its own. It was assumed before the match that the chase would require a big innings from Babar — which is why his duck was not merely a wicket but a psychological weight on the entire team. Into that pressure walked Saad Baig. Nineteen years old, with his twentieth birthday only hours away, he played the innings that kept Pakistan in the contest. He made 74, his first international half-century. In a situation where the team was 14 for 2 chasing 326, a young batsman's first fifty is not just a statistic — it is the moment that changes the direction of an innings. What stood out in Saad Baig's knock was the absence of haste. At 14 for 2 the need was to hold the run rate, not to force the scoring. He played the role that lays the base of an innings. It mattered personally too — a first international fifty on the eve of turning 20 is a moment no player forgets. For Pakistan it was a signal that there is depth in the middle order. But the real acceleration came from Fakhar Zaman. He made 127 and reached his century off 84 balls. That rate was extraordinary — a century in 84 balls means he moved the scoreboard in almost every over. When chasing 326, that tempo matters most, because a slow scoreboard only inflates the pressure and the required rate together. Yet that innings conceals an important fact — he was reprieved three times. At 6, at 69, and at 106. The three chances came in three different phases of his innings, and all three kept the possibility of a century alive. The reprieve at 106 was the most important — had that catch been taken, Fakhar would have gone at 106 and missed the hundred altogether. There is a further detail about those three reprieves: Maheesh Theekshana dropped him twice. That is, Sri Lanka's most experienced spinner gave the same batsman two lives. It is a fact that deserves as much space in any match report as Fakhar's 127 — because a dropped catch and a century are two parts of the same story. Fakhar was dismissed for 127. The innings proved decisive for Pakistan, but without the reprieve at 106 he would never have got there. Which is why crediting his century alone for the win does not do full justice to the facts. His hundred was necessary, but it stood on three reprieves and the rest of the team's contributions. One point needs to be made clear: there is no need to diminish Fakhar's innings. Scoring 127 while chasing 326 is a major achievement in any circumstances. But cricket reporting tends to hand the entire credit for a win to one batsman, when in reality the result is a sum of many contributions. That is what happened here too — Fakhar's century made the headlines, the rest stayed at the margins. Among those other contributions, the most important was the 94-run stand between Minhas and Nawaz. It came at a time when Pakistan's top order had stumbled and the contest looked like tilting one way. The 94-run partnership gave Pakistan the chance to steady the situation. It pushed the match from 'difficult' towards 'manageable' — but it did not seal the win. That distinction matters. If someone says the 94-run stand 'secured' the game, it does not match the facts, because even after it Pakistan lost two wickets with two runs still needed. The partnership reduced the difficulty to an easier level, but the winning runs came off Shaheen Afridi's bat. The partnership's importance lay in its role, not in a 'secured result'. Meanwhile Sri Lanka's bowlers kept the pressure on. When Pakistan needed 46 from 30 balls, the contest was very close. In that phase came one big over yielding 15 runs — which held the required rate in check for a while and tilted the momentum Pakistan's way. But that momentum did not last long; Sri Lanka pressed again and Pakistan looked to be struggling once more. At the tightest turn, Minhas and Faheem fell in quick succession — and that too with Pakistan needing only 2 runs. It is one of those passages in cricket that show how even 'two runs' can feel enormous. Even after two wickets fell, Pakistan had three in hand, and that margin made the difference in the end. One more wicket and the shape of the contest could have changed. The final runs came from Shaheen Afridi — and over the boundary. It was a finish that will be remembered, but it should also be remembered as the last blow, not the foundation of the win. When a side loses two wickets with two runs needed, it is clear the victory was built much earlier, from many small contributions. Shaheen contributed in both departments. With the ball he took two key wickets — Kamindu Mendis and Dasun Shanaka, the innings' top scorer and its main late-overs striker. With the bat he hit the winning blow. It is a direct example of contributing on both fronts — and that was his biggest contribution in this match. Haris Rauf's two late wickets were also important for Pakistan's bowling effort — both came in the closing stages. Haris bowled short in the final overs and the plan worked. It was the same approach that was denying Sri Lanka's batsmen time to settle. It shows that every bowler had some part in Pakistan's fightback — there was no single hero. Pakistan took six Sri Lankan wickets in the last nine overs — the only hard number in this match that directly proves the bowling comeback. Elsewhere, the bowlers' performances are described in words — 'brought Pakistan back', 'stopped the scoring rate' — without their figures. Minhas's left-arm spin was called 'expensive', without saying how expensive. That imbalance is worth noting. For batsmen there are precise numbers — 127, 74, 131, 77, 94, 146 — but for bowlers there are only events, not figures. It means the reader cannot judge how much weight the 'bowling comeback' carried and how much was simply the pressure of the closing overs. In such a case the reader has to trust the writer's judgement. Another aspect of the match comes into view — four days earlier Pakistan had been bowled out for 110. The same side chased 326 four days later. What changed? The pitch, the opposition attack, or the approach? The report offers no answers. The change is presented as an interesting contrast, but no attempt is made to explain it. This connects to the structure of the tri-series. It featured Pakistan, Sri Lanka and a third team — England. That is not clear from the report; the reader has to infer it from scattered data points. Never naming the third team in a long report on a tri-series is a significant omission, because the value of the series is tied to its difficulty. Some essential match information is missing. Who won the toss, who chose to bat, whether Sri Lanka reached 325 for 8 or were bowled out, how many matches the series had, how many points were at stake, who was player of the match — the reader gets none of this. Most of these are mandatory in a full match report. The most striking absence is any word from the players. There is not a single quote from a captain, coach or player after the match. When a young batsman scores his first international fifty before turning 20, when a side chasing 326 loses two wickets with two runs needed — there is no way to know what the players made of it. These analyses also make clear that the match report is rich in batting numbers but short on bowling detail. Who bowled which over while the 326 chase was being resisted — the reader must look elsewhere to find out. That is the limit of a reporting style that keeps the story around the batsmen and pushes the bowlers into the background. In terms of the result, this is a very big win for Pakistan. Chasing 326 after being bowled out for 110 four days earlier is a major shift in morale. But one win does not solve a team's entire batting problem. If the top order collapses to 14 for 2 again and the middle order has to rescue the innings, it cannot be called permanent progress — it is one extraordinary performance in one match. The real lesson of this match is this: in cricket a win is not built by one batsman's century but by the sum of many small contributions. Fakhar's 127, Saad Baig's 74, the 94-run Minhas-Nawaz stand, Shaheen's two key wickets and the final blow, Haris's wickets in the closing overs — not all equal in weight, but all necessary. When one player is credited with the entire win, the contributions of the rest fade away — and so does the real story of the match.