Stirling and Hales fifties help Islamabad ace 169 chase

Pakistan
Report

Rutherford made an unbeaten 70 to lift Peshawar from the doldrums of 35 for 4 but it wasn’t enough

Islamabad United 172 for 1 (Hales 82*, Stirling 57) beat Peshawar Zalmi 168 for 6 (Rutherford 70, Ashraf 2-23, Hasan 2-34) by nine wickets

Paul Stirling struck the third fastest fifty in PSL history. Alex Hales sent every fourth ball he faced to the boundary and finished 82 not out. And Islamabad United overhauled a target of 169 with nine wickets and 25 deliveries to spare. This was pure domination.
The only time Peshawar Zalmi even stood a chance was when Sherfane Rutherford was batting. Coming in at 35 for 4 in the seventh over, the big-hitting West Indies allrounder marshalled an incredible lower-order fightback. He scored 70 of the 133 runs added to the scoreboard while he was at the crease with an unbridled array of shots that defied the whole match situation. A hat-trick of boundaries – 6, 4, 6 – against the Islamabad captain Shadab Khan was the pick of the lot, and for a while the total he got his team up to – 168 for 6 – seemed competitive.
But then Stirling opened up his shoulders and started breaking records. The Ireland batter struck seven of the ten balls he faced to the fence. Wahab Riaz, Sohail Khan, Usman Qadir – none of them were spared. Islamabad flew to 78 for 0 at the end of the powerplay – an aggregate second only to their own 97 for 0 in 2021. From then on, there was very little jeopardy left in the chase. The two openers cruised to their respective half-centuries – Stirling in 18 balls, Hales in 32 – and the result of the match became a foregone conclusion.

Products You May Like

Articles You May Like

Rohit tight-lipped on India’s four-spinner plan for T20 World Cup
No concerns about Kohli’s strike rate, says Agarkar
Champions Trophy 2025: PCB draft schedule has all India games in Lahore
“Constant Personal Attacks”: Hardik Pandya Sent ‘Stay Strong’ Message Amid Criticism
Australia replace India as No. 1 Test team in ICC rankings after annual update

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *