Pakistan Test players prepare for the second Test against England at Lord’s as questions surround Babar Azam’s return, team selection and the visitors’ chances of making a series comeback.

Can Pakistan Bounce Back in England? Babar Azam May Help, but Lord’s Demands Much More

Pakistan head to Lord’s 1-0 down and under pressure after their Headingley defeat. With Babar Azam’s fitness uncertain, questions over the openers, Salman Ali Agha, Mohammad Rizwan, bowling variety and fielding standards could decide whether Pakistan revive the series or fall further behind.

Published

2 days ago

August 24, 2026

Jawad Hussain

Pakistan need Babar Azam back at Lord’s.

They probably need him badly.

What they need even more, however, is a functioning Test team around him.

England’s innings-and-103-run victory at Headingley exposed problems that cannot be solved by inserting one elite batter into the middle order. Pakistan were bowled out for 171 and 135. They conceded 409. England’s seamers controlled both innings, Pakistan’s batting repeatedly lost shape after brief periods of resistance, and the visitors were beaten before tea on the third day.

Now comes Lord’s.

The second Test begins on August 27 with Pakistan 1-0 down in the three-match series and facing a simple mathematical reality. Another defeat ends their chance of winning the series. A draw keeps the contest alive. Victory would transform everything and send the teams to Edgbaston level at 1-1.

Pakistan have recovered from ugly Test defeats before. Only weeks ago, they lost the opening Test in the West Indies by 90 runs before making four changes, altering the balance of the XI and winning the second Test by eight wickets. That result ended an eight-match overseas losing streak and showed that this squad can respond when selection matches conditions. The Sports Encounter’s West Indies series review examined how radically Pakistan changed their approach between those two Tests.

Lord’s therefore presents a familiar question in a much harsher environment.

Does Pakistan react intelligently, or does it merely change names?

Babar’s fitness is the most obvious selection issue. Mohammad Rizwan’s place is being debated. Salman Ali Agha has gone too long without producing the sort of innings expected from a senior all-rounder. Imam-ul-Haq and Azan Awais have not established a convincing opening partnership. Shan Masood is still rebuilding confidence after injury. Abdullah Shafique is carrying an increasingly heavy burden.

Pakistan’s bowling attack, despite Ali Usman’s five wickets at Headingley, also lacks the range of threats that once made the country so difficult to prepare for overseas.

Those questions are connected.

Pakistan cannot solve Lord’s by answering them separately.

Headingley Explained the Size of Pakistan’s Problem

Headingley Test	Pakistan	England
First innings	171	409
Second innings	135	Did not bat
Result	England won by an innings and 103 runs

The scoreline looks brutal because the match itself was brutal.

Abdullah Shafique made 61 in the first innings. Imam contributed 42. Their 91-run partnership briefly gave Pakistan something resembling stability after Azan Awais fell to the first ball of the match and Shan Masood followed for five.

Then the innings collapsed.

Saud Shakeel made five.

Salman Ali Agha made 21.

Mohammad Rizwan made 12.

Pakistan were dismissed for 171 in 48.1 overs.

Ollie Robinson took 5 for 51 and Josh Tongue 5 for 46, meaning England did not require a wicket from Jofra Archer or Gus Atkinson to destroy Pakistan’s first innings. The complete figures are available through the official PCB Headingley Test scorecard.

England then turned Pakistan’s weak total into a 238-run first-innings deficit.

Harry Brook made 91.

Jordan Cox scored 72.

Joe Root contributed 66.

Dan Lawrence made 51.

Ali Usman’s maiden Test five-wicket haul was a genuine achievement, while Khurram Shahzad took three wickets. But England still reached 409.

The second Pakistan innings was even more damaging.

Rizwan top-scored with 41 from 39 balls. Shan made 29. Abdullah followed his first-innings fifty with 15. Saud made 14. Salman made four.

Pakistan disappeared for 135 in 37.3 overs.

Robinson, Tongue and Archer took three wickets each, and Atkinson claimed the other dismissal. Robinson and Tongue therefore finished with eight wickets apiece across the match.

This matters when discussing selection because Headingley was not lost by one malfunctioning department.

England were better at batting.

England were better at seam bowling.

England were better in the field.

England handled the conditions better.

And England looked like a side with clearer individual roles.

Pakistan looked like a team still trying to discover what its best Test XI actually is.

Will Babar Azam Return at Lord’s?

This remains the biggest question before the second Test.

Babar missed Headingley after being struck on the right hand during Pakistan’s warm-up match in Beckenham. Head coach Sarfaraz Ahmed publicly expressed hope before the first Test that the captain would return at Lord’s.

That optimism has not yet produced a confirmed clearance.

According to The Express Tribune’s August 24 report, swelling in Babar’s injured finger was still present and he had not practised for four days. Pakistan planned further sessions in London before the Test, leaving his availability dependent on how the hand responds.

Before the series, The Sports Encounter examined why Pakistan had to make a medical decision rather than an emotional one over Babar’s hand injury.

That principle remains unchanged.

If Babar can grip the bat normally, field without protecting the hand and face short-pitched bowling without hesitation, he should play.

If he cannot, Pakistan should not send a compromised version of their captain into a Test merely because the series is slipping away.

Babar Would Improve Pakistan, but He Cannot Repair Everything

The temptation will be to frame his return as the missing ingredient.

That is too simplistic.

Babar would immediately strengthen three areas:

Pakistan regain their most experienced specialist batter.
They regain their designated Test captain.
England have to prepare for the Pakistan batter most capable of producing a long innings under pressure.

His importance was visible during the West Indies tour. In the opening Test, Babar remained unbeaten on 58 while Pakistan collapsed to 120 chasing 211. Our analysis of that defeat showed how isolated Babar became while wickets disappeared around him.

That same problem would remain at Lord’s if the rest of the batting order does not improve.

Babar can transform a fragile middle order.

He cannot repeatedly rescue an entire innings without support.

If Babar Returns, Who Makes Way?

This is where Pakistan’s selection becomes complicated.

Babar should not be pushed into the opening role simply because Imam and Azan have struggled to establish themselves as a pair.

His greatest value remains in the middle order, preferably at No. 4.

Pakistan therefore have two broad routes.

Option One: Leave Out Azan and Move Abdullah Shafique Up

This is the cleaner batting solution.

Abdullah is a natural top-order player who has opened successfully in Test cricket before.

He also enters Lord’s with the strongest recent batting case in Pakistan’s squad.

Abdullah produced an unbeaten 160 in Trinidad after returning to the side, a performance that powered Pakistan’s series-leveling victory. That innings ended Pakistan’s eight-match overseas Test losing streak.

He then made 61 at Headingley.

If Pakistan want to restore Babar without disrupting the middle order unnecessarily, moving Abdullah to the top alongside Imam has considerable logic.

Position	Batter
1	Imam-ul-Haq
2	Abdullah Shafique
3	Shan Masood
4	Babar Azam
5	Saud Shakeel
6	Mohammad Rizwan
7	All-rounder or seventh batter depending on conditions

Azan would be unfortunate to lose his place after one Test in England, particularly when his first innings began with arguably the most difficult possible introduction.

But Test selection cannot be separated from the balance of the XI.

Option Two: Babar Replaces Salman Ali Agha

Pakistan could instead retain Azan and Imam while removing Salman.

That would protect the young opener from a one-Test judgment and leave Abdullah in the middle order.

The concern is balance.

Salman provides off-spin and has traditionally occupied the flexible No. 7 role.

If Pakistan remove him, the selectors need either enough bowling from the top six or an all-rounder capable of preventing the tail from beginning too early.

That is where Aamir Jamal becomes particularly relevant.

Are Imam-ul-Haq and Azan Awais Running Out of Time?

Imam’s 42 at Headingley was valuable.

It should not be described as a failure.

The concern is that Pakistan desperately need their opening combination to survive enough of the new ball that Shan, Babar, Saud and Rizwan are not constantly beginning against fresh seamers while the Dukes ball is still moving sharply.

Azan’s first-ball dismissal was the worst possible beginning.

He should not be discarded purely because Robinson trapped him lbw with the first delivery of the series.

He made nine in the second innings before Archer removed him.

Those scores are poor, but they remain a tiny sample in extremely difficult conditions.

The problem for Azan is not only his own output.

It is competition.

Abdullah is scoring runs.

Babar may return.

Saud is available.

Pakistan therefore have more specialist batters than positions if the captain is cleared.

If Babar plays, Azan becomes one obvious omission unless the management decides Salman’s lack of batting output has become the bigger problem.

Is Pakistan Asking Too Much From Abdullah Shafique?

Possibly.

Abdullah returned in the West Indies and responded with an unbeaten 160.

He then arrived at Headingley and made 61 while Pakistan’s first innings broke down around him.

Now he may be asked to change position again and help solve the opening problem.

That is a lot of responsibility for one batter.

The answer is not to protect Abdullah from responsibility. Test batters are supposed to carry it.

The answer is to stop making him responsible for everybody else.

If Abdullah opens at Lord’s, Pakistan should not expect another hundred merely because he currently looks like their most secure batter.

Imam needs to contribute.

Shan needs to contribute.

Babar, if fit, needs to contribute.

Saud needs to contribute.

Rizwan needs to contribute.

Pakistan’s recent batting problem has repeatedly been that one substantial innings becomes a substitute for collective output. Our analysis before the second West Indies Test examined how severely Pakistan’s batting had been deteriorating when pressure increased.

Headingley produced another version of the same problem.

Mohammad Rizwan or Muhammad Ghazi Ghori?

This debate needs perspective.

Muhammad Ghazi Ghori is an uncapped wicketkeeper-batter in Pakistan’s England Test squad. His presence means Rizwan no longer operates without a younger alternative behind him.

That does not mean Lord’s is automatically the right place to make the change.

Rizwan had a poor first innings at Headingley, making 12.

He then top-scored with 41 from 39 balls in the second innings while Pakistan collapsed around him.

Dropping the only Pakistan batter to reach 40 in that innings would be difficult to justify based purely on Headingley.

Rizwan also offers extensive wicketkeeping experience in conditions where late movement after the ball passes the bat can make standing behind the stumps unusually demanding.

Ghori should be viewed as a legitimate future competitor.

The PCB’s original Test squad announcement identified him among the uncapped players deliberately brought into Pakistan’s red-ball setup.

For Lord’s, however, wicketkeeper is not Pakistan’s most urgent problem.

Rizwan should retain his place.

Salman Ali Agha: How Much Longer Can Pakistan Wait?

This is a more serious selection question.

Salman made 21 in Pakistan’s first innings at Headingley and four in the second.

Those scores are disappointing, but the concern extends beyond one Test.

Pakistan increasingly require Salman to function as a senior middle-order batter, secondary spinner and leadership figure. That package only retains its value if the primary disciplines are producing enough.

At Headingley, captaincy added another responsibility.

If Babar returns, that burden disappears.

The selectors then have to ask a straightforward question:

Is Salman currently among Pakistan’s best seven batting options for Lord’s?

If the answer is no, part-time off-spin should not guarantee his position.

His place becomes particularly vulnerable if Pakistan retain Ali Usman as the frontline spinner or add Sajid Khan, because the XI already contains dedicated slow bowling.

Salman still offers flexibility.

He can bat at seven.

He can break partnerships.

He has international experience.

But versatility only matters when it produces tangible value.

Shan Masood Is Fighting Two Opponents at Once

Shan’s Headingley scores were five and 29.

The second innings offered more resistance, but he remains in a difficult phase.

He fractured his left index finger during the first West Indies Test, missed the second Test and only returned to full batting work shortly before the England series.

Physical recovery and batting confidence are not always the same thing.

A player can be medically cleared while still subconsciously protecting an injured hand.

That becomes particularly relevant in England, where the ball can climb unexpectedly and attack the gloves from a good length.

Shan’s challenge at Lord’s is therefore technical and psychological.

He needs to trust the hand.

He also needs to rediscover the decisive movement and controlled aggression that have helped him succeed in county cricket.

Pakistan should persist with him.

Replacing an experienced batter immediately after his return from injury would create another layer of instability.

Pakistan’s Bowling Problem Is More Complicated Than Mohammad Abbas

Headingley produced one apparently contradictory statistic.

Pakistan conceded 409, yet Ali Usman took five wickets and Khurram Shahzad took three.

Those figures might suggest the bowling attack worked reasonably well.

The 238-run first-innings deficit says otherwise.

Pakistan took wickets, but they did not control enough phases of England’s innings.

The problem was not only wicket-taking ability.

It was the absence of sustained pressure and variety.

Pakistan once arrived in England with attacks containing combinations of left-arm pace, high pace, reverse swing and wrist-spin, forcing batters to continually alter their methods.

The current squad contains competent seam bowlers.

Competence and variety are not the same thing.

The Sports Encounter previously examined this wider issue through Shaheen Shah Afridi’s red-ball career crossroads and Pakistan’s changing pace identity.

Mohammad Abbas: Has the Formula Become Too Predictable?

English conditions should theoretically suit Abbas better than almost anywhere else.

He bowls straight.

He attacks the edge.

He can maintain an excellent line when his rhythm is right.

At Headingley, however, he returned 1 for 78 from 25 overs.

When the ball stops moving, his lack of pace reduces the margin for error.

England’s batters can leave confidently, move down the pitch or wait for anything overpitched.

At 36, Abbas is not suddenly going to become a 145kph fast bowler.

Pakistan therefore have to judge whether his present version can still create enough uncertainty at Lord’s.

The reputation of English conditions should not make his selection automatic.

Khurram Shahzad Took Three Wickets, but at a Heavy Cost

Khurram’s three wickets complicate any decision to remove him.

Wickets matter.

So does conceding 133 runs from 21.5 overs.

Pakistan need at least one seamer capable of maintaining pressure while another attacks.

Khurram created chances and took wickets, but the scoring rate was too high to provide that control.

What Bowling Options Can Pakistan Use at Lord’s?

For this Test, the debate should stay within the resources Pakistan actually brought to England.

The selectors cannot redesign the entire national bowling pool three days before a Test match.

Bowler	Type	What He Offers
Ubaid Shah	Right-arm fast	Youth, additional pace potential and a more attacking profile
Aamir Jamal	Right-arm fast-medium all-rounder	Seam option plus valuable lower-order batting
Sajid Khan	Right-arm off-spin	Experienced frontline spin and attacking temperament
Ali Usman	Slow left-arm orthodox	Different angle, control and a five-wicket haul at Headingley
Mohammad Ali	Right-arm medium-fast	Seam movement, persistence and control
Mohammad Abbas	Right-arm medium-fast	Experience and precision if the ball moves
Khurram Shahzad	Right-arm fast-medium	Wicket-taking ability but needs greater control

The broader question about players such as Naseem Shah, Shaheen Afridi, Abrar Ahmed, Sufiyan Muqeem, Akif Javed, Ali Raza, Hunain Shah and Shadab Khan belongs in Pakistan’s longer-term Test planning after this series.

Lord’s is about making the best use of the squad already in England.

Should Ubaid Shah Play at Lord’s?

This would be the bold selection call.

Ubaid potentially gives Pakistan something Abbas cannot: greater pace and youthful aggression.

Lord’s can reward a fuller length with the new ball, but the ground’s slope and bounce can also help a bowler willing to attack the splice and body.

England already know what Abbas wants to do.

They know what Mohammad Ali wants to do.

Ubaid would at least pose a different examination.

The risk is obvious.

A young fast bowler can disappear quickly at Lord’s if his length is wrong.

But Pakistan are 1-0 down.

There comes a point when repeating the safer combination becomes more dangerous than trying something different.

Could Aamir Jamal Solve Two Problems at Once?

Aamir Jamal may be the most interesting balance option if Pakistan believe he is physically ready for a proper Test workload.

He offers seam bowling while strengthening the lower order.

That could allow Pakistan to remove Salman, retain a frontline spinner and still avoid a dangerously long tail.

Jamal also gives the captain greater flexibility if one specialist seamer struggles.

His inclusion should depend on bowling readiness, not merely his batting value.

A Test all-rounder has to be capable of contributing meaningful overs.

Ali Usman Has Earned Another Test

This should be one of the simpler calls.

Ali Usman took his maiden Test five-wicket haul at Headingley and became the first Pakistan left-arm spinner to take a Test five-for in England.

Pakistan cannot complain about a lack of bowling variety and then remove the bowler who provides the clearest different angle.

He can bowl long spells.

He can attack right-handers from around the wicket.

He gives Pakistan control when the pitch flattens.

Unless the Lord’s surface is so green that Pakistan decide on an extreme seam-heavy combination, Ali should retain his place.

What Is Pakistan’s Best XI at Lord’s?

Assuming Babar is fully fit and Aamir Jamal is ready to bowl a genuine Test workload, Pakistan can make meaningful changes without turning the XI upside down.

TSE Preferred Pakistan XI

No.	Player	Role
1	Imam-ul-Haq	Opener
2	Abdullah Shafique	Opener
3	Shan Masood	Top-order batter
4	Babar Azam	Captain, specialist batter
5	Saud Shakeel	Middle-order batter
6	Mohammad Rizwan	Wicketkeeper-batter
7	Aamir Jamal	Seam-bowling all-rounder
8	Ali Usman	Left-arm spinner
9	Ubaid Shah	Fast bowler
10	Khurram Shahzad	Fast bowler
11	Mohammad Ali or Mohammad Abbas	Seamer

That XI carries conditions-based assumptions.

If Jamal cannot handle a significant bowling workload, Salman becomes more difficult to leave out because Pakistan need a seventh batter and another bowling option.

If the pitch looks exceptionally green, another specialist seamer could replace the spinner.

If Lord’s looks dry, Sajid Khan enters the discussion.

The principles matter more than locking in the XI two days before the toss:

Bring Babar back only if he is genuinely fit.
Consider Abdullah for an opening role rather than moving Babar out of his strongest position.
Retain Rizwan.
Retain Ali Usman.
Add more pace or all-round flexibility through Ubaid or Jamal if conditions support it.
Do not select Abbas simply because the match is being played in England.

Could Pakistan Play Sajid Khan and Ali Usman Together?

Yes, but only if the Lord’s pitch justifies it.

Pakistan used Sajid and Ali together successfully in Trinidad. Both took four wickets in West Indies’ second innings as Pakistan won by eight wickets. That spin combination was central to Pakistan’s comeback in the Caribbean.

Lord’s is different.

Pakistan cannot pick a combination because it worked in Port of Spain.

If conditions demand seam, they need seam.

If the surface is dry enough to bring spin increasingly into the match, Sajid and Ali could offer England two very different challenges.

The decision should be made after inspecting the surface and considering the weather, not before.

Pakistan’s Fielding Has Become a Competitive Handicap

Fielding receives less attention than batting because a dropped catch is not recorded beside a batter’s name like a duck.

It can be equally damaging.

England’s fielding at Headingley was sharp and energetic.

Joe Root’s field placements also created wickets. Azan’s second-innings dismissal at leg slip gave Root his 219th Test catch as a fielder, taking him past Steven Smith’s 218 according to the PCB match report.

Pakistan’s standards have been less reliable.

That cannot continue at Lord’s.

English conditions produce edges. Every slip chance matters.

A seamer can spend six overs constructing a dismissal.

If the catch is dropped, much of that work disappears instantly.

Who Can Inspire the Fielding Improvement?

Babar’s return would help because leadership tone matters, but fielding excellence cannot belong to one man.

Rizwan remains one of the most energetic senior figures.

Abdullah is a strong catcher.

Saud and Salman need to raise their intensity.

The coaches should also settle the slip cordon instead of continually moving personnel.

Pakistan need specialists who know their positions and build familiarity with the angles produced by each bowler.

Fielding in England demands anticipation.

Reacting only after the edge is already travelling is often too late.

Pakistan Have Won at Lord’s Before

There is genuine historical evidence that Pakistan can compete at the ground.

According to the PCB, Pakistan have won five Tests at Lord’s: 1982, 1992, 1996, 2016 and 2018.

That history should not be treated as a prediction.

It is still relevant.

Lord’s has rewarded Pakistan teams that bowled with discipline and had enough batting resilience to survive difficult periods.

The 2016 side possessed something this current team is still searching for: clarity.

Misbah-ul-Haq knew his role.

Younis Khan knew his role.

Yasir Shah provided genuine wicket-taking spin.

Mohammad Amir and Rahat Ali offered contrasting seam angles.

The modern team does not need to reproduce those names.

It needs to reproduce that level of role definition.

Can Shan Masood Recover His Best at Lord’s?

Pakistan need him to.

Shan has county experience and understands the rhythm of batting in England better than most players in the touring group.

His second-innings 29 at Headingley was hardly a major score, but it represented greater resistance than his first-innings five.

Pakistan cannot afford Shan becoming trapped between survival and scoring.

His better Test innings usually involve controlled positive intent.

That does not mean chasing wide deliveries.

It means committing fully when the ball is there to score from and leaving decisively when it is not.

The injured finger cannot dominate his thinking.

If Shan is still mentally protecting his hand, England will notice quickly and attack his body and gloves.

The Real Question Is Whether Pakistan Can Score 300

Almost every other tactical debate becomes secondary if Pakistan continue producing totals of 171 and 135.

The first target at Lord’s should be straightforward:

Pakistan need a competitive first-innings total, preferably around or above 300.

The Sports Encounter’s pre-series analysis identified first-innings batting as one of the decisive areas of this tour.

Headingley demonstrated why.

Pakistan made 171.

England replied with 409.

The match was effectively broken before Pakistan started their second innings.

At Lord’s, Pakistan need to make England bat under scoreboard pressure at least once.

What Pakistan Must Do Differently at Lord’s

Headingley Problem	Lord’s Response
Top-order instability	Consider Abdullah in the top two if Babar returns
Middle-order collapses	Restore Babar if medically fit and demand longer partnerships
Similar bowling profiles	Consider Ubaid or Jamal while retaining Ali Usman
Senior players underperforming	No automatic selection based solely on reputation
Weak fielding	Settle the slip cordon and demand higher catching standards
England controlling the game	Put a competitive first-innings total on the board
Reactive selection	Pick for the Lord’s pitch and weather rather than emotion after Headingley

Can Pakistan Actually Beat England at Lord’s?

Yes.

That answer should not be confused with saying Pakistan are favorites.

England deserve that status after Headingley.

Robinson and Tongue took 16 wickets between them across the match.

England produced four individual scores above 50 in their only innings.

Root looked comfortable in his return to the captaincy.

The fielding was sharper.

The seamers understood how to exploit the conditions.

Pakistan’s situation is still not hopeless.

They have won at Lord’s five times.

They already recovered from a 1-0 deficit once this summer in the Caribbean.

Abdullah is in form.

Ali Usman has just taken a Test five-for.

Rizwan showed second-innings resistance.

Saud remains capable of occupying the crease.

Shan knows English conditions.

And Babar may return.

The ingredients exist.

The problem is that Pakistan have not yet put enough of them together in the same Test.

Babar Azam Is an Answer, Not the Answer

This distinction should frame Pakistan’s entire preparation.

Babar’s inclusion improves the XI.

It does not correct Imam’s judgment outside off stump.

It does not remove pressure from Abdullah.

It does not make Salman score runs.

It does not restore Shan’s confidence.

It does not add pace to Abbas.

It does not create bowling variety that is not present in the touring squad.

It does not take catches.

Pakistan returned to Babar as Test captain because the previous leadership cycle had failed to arrest the team’s red-ball decline. The Sports Encounter’s analysis of his captaincy return warned that changing the leader would not automatically repair Pakistan’s Test structure.

The same warning applies now.

Changing one batter will not repair the team unless the players around him take responsibility.

A Draw Would Matter More Than It Sounds

Pakistan should not walk into Lord’s playing for a draw.

That is different from understanding what a draw would achieve.

If Pakistan leave London still 1-0 behind, the third Test at Edgbaston remains alive.

England cannot treat the series as completed.

Babar receives more recovery time if the hand remains an issue.

The tourists gain another Test’s worth of experience in English conditions.

Most importantly, Pakistan halt the psychological damage caused by Headingley.

A competitive draw built around a substantial first-innings total, long partnerships and disciplined bowling could restore considerably more confidence than another reckless collapse in pursuit of a low-percentage victory.

Victory would obviously change the series completely.

But Pakistan first need to become competitive again.

The Lord’s Test Could Define Several Careers, Not Only the Series

Salman’s place is under pressure.

Azan’s opportunity could disappear if Babar returns.

Imam needs to turn starts into substantial innings.

Abbas has to prove that control still compensates for reduced pace.

Khurram must show that wickets can come without conceding runs at an unsustainable rate.

Shan needs runs after injury.

Rizwan has a younger wicketkeeper waiting in the squad.

Even Babar faces a personal test.

If he returns, he does so not only as Pakistan’s premier batter but as the captain being asked to help rescue a series immediately after injury.

That gives Lord’s considerably more weight than an ordinary second Test.

Pakistan Have Already Shown They Can Respond to a Heavy Defeat

The most encouraging precedent is recent.

Pakistan lost the first Test in the West Indies and then changed four players for the second.

Abdullah returned and made 160 not out.

Sajid Khan and Ali Usman combined to destroy West Indies in the second innings.

Pakistan won by eight wickets and ended an eight-match overseas losing sequence.

The turnaround came because the team changed according to conditions rather than simply asking the same combination to perform better.

The Caribbean tour had begun as the first major test of Babar’s restored red-ball leadership. It ended with evidence that Pakistan can still make intelligent corrections during a series.

Lord’s requires another correction.

This one will be harder.

England are stronger than West Indies and already possess detailed evidence of where Pakistan’s batters struggled at Headingley.

Robinson, Tongue, Archer and Atkinson give Root several different seam options.

Pakistan will have to adjust rather than simply hope conditions become easier.

TSE Verdict: Pakistan Can Come Back, but Selection Must Match Reality

Pakistan have enough cricketing ability to compete with England at Lord’s.

What they do not have is enough margin for another confused selection or another collective batting failure.

If Babar is fully fit, he should return in the middle order.

Abdullah Shafique should be considered for an opening role if that is the cleanest way to accommodate the captain.

Rizwan should keep his place.

Ali Usman should play again after his five wickets at Headingley.

Pakistan should seriously consider greater pace or all-round flexibility through Ubaid Shah or Aamir Jamal rather than automatically repeating the same seam combination.

Salman Ali Agha should face genuine selection pressure.

Shan Masood deserves another Test but now needs to convert experience into runs.

Fielding standards must improve immediately.

And the entire batting order needs to understand that Abdullah cannot be expected to keep rescuing innings because he happens to be Pakistan’s most convincing recent run-scorer.

The Sports Encounter’s review of the drawn West Indies series showed that Pakistan are capable of responding when the selectors identify the correct problem rather than merely replacing a player.

Lord’s now demands the same clarity.

Test series can change quickly.

A substantial opening partnership can change a morning.

A first-innings hundred can transform the scoreboard.

A new-ball spell can put England 30 for three.

A difficult catch can remove Root or Brook before either settles.

A Babar Azam innings can alter the emotional state of an entire dressing room.

Pakistan do have enough talent to win at Lord’s.

The uncomfortable question is whether enough of that talent can deliver at the same time.

Babar can help turn the series.

He cannot turn it alone.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Pakistan still win the Test series against England?

Yes. England lead 1-0 with Tests remaining at Lord’s and Edgbaston. Pakistan need to avoid defeat at Lord’s to remain alive in the series and must win both remaining Tests if they want to win the series outright.

When is the second England vs Pakistan Test?

The second Test is scheduled at Lord’s from August 27 to 31, 2026.

Will Babar Azam play the second Test at Lord’s?

His participation has not yet been officially confirmed. As of the August 24 fitness update, swelling remained in his injured finger and he had not practised for four days. Pakistan are monitoring his recovery before making the final decision.

Who should Babar replace if he returns?

One logical option is to leave out Azan Awais, move Abdullah Shafique into the opening position with Imam-ul-Haq and restore Babar in the middle order. Pakistan could alternatively leave out Salman Ali Agha if they can maintain the bowling balance through Aamir Jamal or another combination.

Should Pakistan drop Mohammad Rizwan for Muhammad Ghazi Ghori?

Probably not for Lord’s. Rizwan scored 41 in Pakistan’s second innings at Headingley and remains the more experienced wicketkeeper in English Test conditions. Ghori should remain a genuine future competitor.

How many runs did Salman Ali Agha score at Headingley?

Salman scored 21 in Pakistan’s first innings and four in the second innings.

Should Salman Ali Agha retain his place?

His place should be under genuine pressure. His off-spin and lower-order flexibility remain useful, but Pakistan need substantially more batting output from a senior player occupying a top-seven position.

Who can replace Mohammad Abbas or Khurram Shahzad?

The alternatives already in Pakistan’s England squad include Ubaid Shah and Aamir Jamal. Mohammad Ali is another seam option, while Sajid Khan becomes relevant if Pakistan want an additional frontline spinner.

Should Ali Usman play the second Test?

Yes, unless the Lord’s pitch overwhelmingly demands an all-seam attack. Ali took five wickets in England’s first innings at Headingley and gives Pakistan an important left-arm spin angle.

How many Tests have Pakistan won at Lord’s?

Pakistan have won five Tests at Lord’s, in 1982, 1992, 1996, 2016 and 2018.

What does Pakistan need most at Lord’s?

Pakistan need collective batting responsibility. A competitive first-innings total around or above 300 would give the bowlers something meaningful to work with and prevent England from controlling the match immediately as they did at Headingley.

Up Next

Shaedon Sharpe Injury Changes Portland’s Season: Can Lillard, Ja Morant and Henderson Carry the Blazers?

Don't Miss

Roger Federer Returns to Flushing Meadows for the Farewell New York Never Got

Jawad Hussain

Jawad Hussain is a Dubai-based journalist, editor, and content leader with 28 years of experience across international journalism, editorial management, digital media, corporate communications, and content operations. His career has included reporting, editing, newsroom leadership, large-scale team building, and the development of editorial systems across multiple industries and markets. At The Sports Encounter, Jawad contributes analysis, features, breaking news, and major-event coverage across cricket, soccer, basketball, tennis, and international sport. His work combines traditional newsroom judgment with digital publishing strategy, statistical context, historical perspective, and a strong focus on what matters most to readers. Over the course of his career, he has covered major international events, worked with global news organizations, led editorial teams, and built content operations from the ground up. His approach to sports journalism emphasizes accuracy, context, originality, and clear analysis that goes beyond the headline or final score.

A Celebration of 5000 ODIs

A Celebration of 5000 ODIs Match 12: Warne Turns 165 for 2 Into West Indies Heartbreak

West Indies were cruising toward the 1996 World Cup final at 165/2. Shane Warne then dragged Australia back from almost certain defeat in Mohali.

Published

2 hours ago

August 26, 2026

Hamad Hussain

A Celebration of 5000 ODIs Match 12: Warne Turns 165 for 2 Into West Indies Heartbreak

West Indies were 165 for two, chasing 208, with Richie Richardson and Shivnarine Chanderpaul at the crease and enough overs remaining to make the finish look almost routine.

Australia had already escaped 15 for four earlier in the day. Asking them to manufacture another recovery felt unreasonable.

Then Chanderpaul fell.

Within 49 balls, West Indies lost eight wickets for 37 runs. Shane Warne attacked the middle and lower order, Damien Fleming finished the job, and Richardson stood unbeaten at the other end as a World Cup semifinal that appeared safely under Caribbean control disappeared by five runs.

Australia’s victory at Mohali on March 14, 1996 belongs in A Celebration of 5000 ODIs because it produced two reversals inside the same knockout match. Australia first recovered from a position that should have ended its innings. West Indies then surrendered a chase that should have taken them into the final.

TL;DR

Australia recovered from 15/4 to score 207/8 in 50 overs.
Stuart Law made 72 and Michael Bevan 69 in a 138-run fifth-wicket partnership.
West Indies reached 165/2 while chasing 208.
Shivnarine Chanderpaul top-scored with 80, while Brian Lara made 45.
Shane Warne took 4/36, including three wickets during the decisive late collapse.
West Indies lost their final eight wickets for 37 runs and were dismissed for 202.
Australia won by five runs and reached its third World Cup final.

Australia vs West Indies 1996: Match Information

Detail	Information
Match	Australia vs West Indies, second semifinal
Tournament	1996 Cricket World Cup
Date	March 14, 1996
Venue	Punjab Cricket Association Stadium, Mohali
Toss	Australia won the toss and batted
Australia	207/8 in 50 overs
West Indies	202 all out in 49.3 overs
Result	Australia won by five runs
Player of the Match	Shane Warne, 4/36
Australia’s top scorer	Stuart Law, 72
West Indies’ top scorer	Shivnarine Chanderpaul, 80
Key partnership	Law and Bevan, 138 for fifth wicket
Turning point	West Indies collapsed after reaching 165/2
Tournament impact	Australia advanced to the World Cup final
Historical note	Richie Richardson played his final ODI

The ICC’s official history of the 1996 Cricket World Cup also identifies the Mohali collapse as one of the defining moments of the tournament.

Why Match 12 Belongs in A Celebration of 5000 ODIs

The five-run margin alone makes this a thriller. The route toward that margin makes it unforgettable.

Australia were 15 for four after just 9.1 overs. Mark Waugh and Ricky Ponting had made ducks. Mark Taylor scored one. Steve Waugh managed three.

West Indies then reached 165 for two while chasing 208.

Either position could have decided an ordinary ODI.

This semifinal survived both.

That is exactly the type of match this series was designed to preserve: pressure, improbability, individual brilliance, World Cup consequence and a scorecard that still makes little sense until the entire story is reconstructed.

The same theme runs through earlier installments such as Gary Gilmour rescuing Australia after they collapsed to 39 for six in 1975 and India defending 183 against West Indies in the 1983 final.

Mohali produced both types of tension in one afternoon.

Stuart Law Rebuilds Australia From 15 for Four

Curtly Ambrose and Ian Bishop made Australia look finished during the opening ten overs.

Ambrose trapped Mark Waugh lbw with the second ball and later removed Ponting. Bishop bowled Taylor and Steve Waugh. Four of Australia’s first five batters had contributed just four runs between them.

Stuart Law walked into a semifinal already slipping away.

His response was patient rather than desperate.

Law made 72 from 105 balls, hitting five fours and giving Australia enough stability to move beyond survival. Against Ambrose, Bishop and Courtney Walsh, trying to manufacture quick runs would probably have accelerated the collapse.

Law instead stayed long enough for Michael Bevan to join him.

Michael Bevan Gives Australia a Total to Defend

Bevan’s 69 from 110 balls carried all the qualities that made him one of the defining ODI batters of his generation.

He understood the situation immediately.

Australia did not need spectacle at 15 for four. They needed time, wickets in hand and a total capable of giving Warne and the bowlers something to work with.

Law and Bevan added 138 for the fifth wicket, taking Australia from 15/4 to 153/5. It was the partnership that restored the semifinal.

Ian Healy then provided the late acceleration with 31 from 28 balls as Australia reached 207/8.

It looked competitive.

For much of the West Indian chase, it did not look enough.

Shivnarine Chanderpaul Takes West Indies to the Door

Shivnarine Chanderpaul was only 21 years old.

He batted like the calmest man at Mohali.

After Courtney Browne fell for ten, Chanderpaul rebuilt with Brian Lara and refused to allow Australia’s bowlers to create sustained pressure. Lara made 45 from 45 balls and helped take the score to 93 before Steve Waugh bowled him.

Richie Richardson then joined Chanderpaul.

The pair carried West Indies to 165 for two.

Chanderpaul’s 80 came from 126 deliveries, including seven boundaries. His innings lacked the violence usually associated with West Indies batting of the period, but the situation required control.

He had almost provided enough.

Glenn McGrath removed him at 165.

The match changed immediately.

Shane Warne Turns a Chase Into Panic

Warne had already dismissed Browne with his first delivery of the innings.

His most important work came much later.

Once Chanderpaul departed, West Indies still had Richardson established and required only 43 more runs. Roger Harper fell to McGrath for two before Warne entered the center of the collapse.

Ottis Gibson was caught behind.

Jimmy Adams was trapped lbw.

Ian Bishop followed lbw three deliveries into his stay.

Warne finished with 4/36 from nine overs.

Numbers describe the spell. Timing explains its greatness.

He took wickets precisely when West Indies needed composure and Australia needed something disruptive. The required rate remained manageable throughout. Warne made wickets, rather than runs, the problem.

That is why he received the Player of the Match award.

Richie Richardson Watches the Final Collapse

Richardson’s unbeaten 49 deserves attention because he remained at the crease while everything collapsed around him.

After Chanderpaul departed, West Indies lost Harper, Gibson, Adams, Keith Arthurton and Bishop.

Still, Richardson remained.

Even at 194 for eight, the contest had not completely disappeared. West Indies needed 14 with two wickets remaining.

Curtly Ambrose helped take the score to 202 before Ian Healy ran him out.

One wicket remained. Six runs were required.

Damien Fleming bowled Courtney Walsh with the next delivery.

Richardson stood unbeaten on 49 in his final ODI as Australia celebrated a five-run victory.

Curtly Ambrose and Ian Bishop Nearly Win It in the First Ten Overs

West Indies should also be remembered for how convincingly they began the semifinal.

Ambrose took 2/26 from ten overs.

Bishop returned 2/35.

Their opening spells reduced Australia’s highly rated batting order to 15 for four, a position from which very few teams should recover in a World Cup knockout match.

Ambrose was particularly economical, conceding only 2.60 runs per over. Walsh also gave away just 33 from his ten overs.

The bowling created the winning position.

West Indies simply failed to finish from it.

Complete Match Scorecard

Australia Innings: 207/8 in 50 Overs

Batter	Dismissal	Runs	Balls	4s	6s
Mark Waugh	lbw b Ambrose	0	2	0	0
Mark Taylor	b Bishop	1	11	0	0
Ricky Ponting	lbw b Ambrose	0	15	0	0
Steve Waugh	b Bishop	3	18	0	0
Stuart Law	run out	72	105	5	0
Michael Bevan	c Richardson b Harper	69	110	4	1
Ian Healy	run out	31	28	2	0
Paul Reiffel	run out	7	11	0	0
Shane Warne	not out	6	6	0	0
Extras	11 lb, 5 w, 2 nb	18
Total	8 wickets, 50 overs	207

Did not bat: Damien Fleming, Glenn McGrath.

Fall of wickets: 0/1, 7/2, 8/3, 15/4, 153/5, 171/6, 186/7, 207/8.

West Indies Bowling

Bowler	Overs	Maidens	Runs	Wickets
Curtly Ambrose	10	1	26	2
Ian Bishop	10	1	35	2
Courtney Walsh	10	1	33	0
Ottis Gibson	2	0	13	0
Roger Harper	9	0	47	1
Jimmy Adams	9	0	42	0

West Indies Innings: 202 All Out in 49.3 Overs

Batter	Dismissal	Runs	Balls	4s	6s
Shivnarine Chanderpaul	c Fleming b McGrath	80	126	7	0
Courtney Browne	c & b Warne	10	18	0	0
Brian Lara	b Steve Waugh	45	45	4	0
Richie Richardson	not out	49	83	4	0
Roger Harper	lbw b McGrath	2	5	0	0
Ottis Gibson	c Healy b Warne	1	2	0	0
Jimmy Adams	lbw b Warne	2	11	0	0
Keith Arthurton	c Healy b Fleming	0	4	0	0
Ian Bishop	lbw b Warne	3	3	0	0
Curtly Ambrose	run out (Healy)	2	2	0	0
Courtney Walsh	b Fleming	0	1	0	0
Extras	4 lb, 2 w, 2 nb	8
Total	All out, 49.3 overs	202

Fall of wickets: 25/1, 93/2, 165/3, 173/4, 178/5, 183/6, 187/7, 194/8, 202/9, 202/10.

Australia Bowling

Bowler	Overs	Maidens	Runs	Wickets
Glenn McGrath	10	2	30	2
Damien Fleming	8.3	0	48	2
Shane Warne	9	0	36	4
Mark Waugh	4	0	16	0
Steve Waugh	7	0	30	1
Paul Reiffel	5	0	13	0
Michael Bevan	4	1	12	0
Stuart Law	2	0	13	0

The Match Changed Twice

The first turning point came before Australia had reached 20.

At 15 for four, West Indies had one foot in the final. Law and Bevan refused to allow that advantage to become decisive.

The second turning point arrived at 165 for two.

McGrath removed Chanderpaul and Australia suddenly found a route back into the contest. Warne then attacked that opening so effectively that West Indies lost their final eight wickets for just 37 runs.

It remains one of the sharpest late collapses in World Cup history.

The Sports Encounter has already revisited other Australian World Cup escapes, including the one-run victory over India in Chennai in 1987 and the seven-run 1987 final victory over England.

This one may have required even greater belief.

What the Result Meant

Australia reached its third men’s World Cup final after appearances in 1975 and 1987.

Sri Lanka ultimately defeated Mark Taylor’s team in Lahore, but Mohali helped confirm a trait that would define Australian World Cup cricket for the next two decades: they remained dangerous even when a match appeared lost.

West Indies faced the opposite emotion.

They had knocked South Africa out in the quarterfinal and were within 43 runs of returning to a World Cup final for the first time since 1983. Instead, the lower order disappeared around Richardson.

The result also ended Richardson’s international career.

Readers can continue the full historical journey through the A Celebration of 5000 ODIs main article or explore current and historical reporting through The Sports Encounter Cricket Hub.

For another example of a modest World Cup total becoming unexpectedly dangerous, revisit Eddo Brandes and Zimbabwe defending 134 against England in 1992.

Final Takeaway: 165 for Two Was Never the Finish

The score that explains this match is neither 207 nor 202.

It is 165 for two.

West Indies had eight wickets standing, an experienced captain at the crease, Chanderpaul set on 80 and fewer than 50 runs left to reach a World Cup final.

From there, Australia found ten minutes of belief and West Indies found panic.

Law and Bevan had already rescued Australia once. Warne made them do it again.

That double escape is why Mohali belongs among the 100 matches in A Celebration of 5000 ODIs, and why a five-run result from 1996 still feels impossible when you read the scorecard three decades later.

Cricket

Sri Lanka Avoid Innings Defeat as Sooriyabandara Leads Colombo Fightback

Sri Lanka avoided an innings defeat in Colombo after being forced to follow on by India, with Pasindu Sooriyabandara’s 92 and Kamindu Mendis’ 55 driving a spirited Day 4 recovery. The hosts closed on 229/6, leading by 16 runs before rain ended play.

Published

2 hours ago

August 26, 2026

Serina Ramgopallan

Pasindu Sooriyabandara leads Sri Lanka’s fightback against India during Day 4 of the second Test at the Sinhalese Sports Club Ground in Colombo.

COLOMBO: Sri Lanka began the fourth day of the second Test trying to delay an innings defeat. By the time rain covered the Sinhalese Sports Club Ground, they had removed that possibility completely and forced India to return on Thursday needing four more wickets before they can even think about completing a 2-0 series sweep.

Asked to follow on after being bowled out for 290 in reply to India’s imposing 503 for nine declared, Sri Lanka reached 229 for six in their second innings before rain ended play after 72.4 overs. They now lead by 16 runs.

The scoreboard still favors India. Sri Lanka have only four wickets remaining, their lead is small, and the visitors could yet finish the match quickly on the final morning.

But Day 4 changed the nature of the contest.

Pasindu Sooriyabandara produced a superb 92 from 173 balls, Kamindu Mendis made 55, and their 115-run third-wicket partnership transformed a follow-on innings that had begun under enormous pressure. Sri Lanka were 63 for two when the pair came together. By the time India finally separated them, the possibility of an innings victory had started slipping away.

India eventually fought back through Prasidh Krishna, Manav Suthar and Saransh Jain, reducing Sri Lanka from 178 for two to 218 for six. Rain then intervened at 229 for six, leaving Sonal Dinusha unbeaten on seven and Keshara Nuwantha on three.

The final day now begins with a simple equation carrying several possible endings: Sri Lanka lead by 16 with four wickets left. India still control the Test, but they must complete the job.

Sri Lanka vs India 2nd Test: Day 4 at a Glance

Match Detail	Position
Match	Sri Lanka vs India, 2nd Test
Venue	Sinhalese Sports Club Ground, Colombo
India first innings	503/9 declared
Sri Lanka first innings	290
First-innings deficit	213 runs
Follow-on	Enforced by India
Sri Lanka second innings	229/6 in 72.4 overs
Current lead	Sri Lanka lead by 16 runs
Top scorer	Pasindu Sooriyabandara 92
Kamindu Mendis	55
India’s second-innings wickets	Suthar 2, Siraj 1, Prasidh 1, Jadeja 1, Jain 1
Overnight batters	Sonal Dinusha 7, Keshara Nuwantha 3
Day 5 situation	India need four wickets before beginning any chase

TL;DR

India bowled Sri Lanka out for 290 after declaring their first innings on 503 for nine.
Sri Lanka therefore trailed by 213 runs and were asked to follow on.
Lahiru Udara fell for three and Kamil Mishara made 32 before Sri Lanka slipped to 63 for two.
Pasindu Sooriyabandara and Kamindu Mendis added 115 for the third wicket.
Sooriyabandara scored 92 from 173 balls after making 80 in the first innings.
Kamindu contributed 55 from 92 balls.
Prasidh Krishna broke the partnership by removing Kamindu.
Manav Suthar then dismissed Dhananjaya de Silva and Sooriyabandara as India regained control.
Sri Lanka closed on 229 for six, leading by 16 runs.
Rain ended play early, leaving India four wickets away from setting up a final-innings chase.

Dinusha Completes His Century Before India Enforce the Follow-On

Day 4 began with Sri Lanka still completing the first innings that had occupied most of the previous day.

They resumed on 265 for eight, with Sonal Dinusha unbeaten on 85 and Lahiru Kumara on eight. India had already done enough to ensure the follow-on remained available unless Sri Lanka could extend their resistance considerably.

Dinusha nevertheless gave the home crowd another reason to appreciate what has been an outstanding series for him.

He reached his hundred from 147 deliveries, hitting eight fours and three sixes, and eventually finished with 103 from 162 balls. Kumara contributed 12 before Saransh Jain removed him, while Dinusha became the final wicket at 290.

India had a 213-run advantage.

Shubman Gill enforced the follow-on.

The decision followed logically from the position India had constructed across the opening three days. Their 503 for nine declared had been built around Devdutt Padikkal’s 117, Dhruv Jurel’s unbeaten 115, Rishabh Pant’s 63 and contributions throughout the batting order.

The Sports Encounter’s earlier report from Colombo detailed how Jurel and Pant turned India’s already strong first innings into a total that placed Sri Lanka under sustained scoreboard pressure.

By the start of the second innings, Sri Lanka were effectively being asked to bat again with one objective before anything else mattered: make India bat again.

Sri Lanka Lose Udara Again but Mishara Counterattacks

The follow-on started badly.

Mohammed Siraj removed Lahiru Udara for three from 15 balls, leaving Sri Lanka five for one.

India had taken three wickets for just 13 runs across the end of Sri Lanka’s first innings and the beginning of the second. Another collapse appeared possible.

Kamil Mishara refused to allow the innings to become completely defensive.

The Test debutant made 32 from 39 balls, hitting three fours and a six. His scoring rate mattered because it stopped India from immediately settling into a cycle of attacking fields and maiden overs.

Ravindra Jadeja eventually trapped Mishara lbw at 63 for two. Sri Lanka reviewed the decision, but umpire’s call preserved the wicket.

Lunch arrived with the hosts on 83 for two.

The deficit remained enormous, but Sri Lanka had survived the most dangerous phase after being sent straight back out to bat.

Sooriyabandara Takes the Fight to India

The defining innings of the day belonged to Pasindu Sooriyabandara.

He had already made 80 in Sri Lanka’s first innings, one of the few substantial scores around Dinusha’s century. Asked to begin again almost immediately, he produced an even better innings under much greater pressure.

Sooriyabandara did not simply occupy the crease.

He challenged India’s spinners.

Against Manav Suthar in particular, he repeatedly used the sweep and reverse sweep to disturb length and field placement. When the opportunity appeared, he also came down the pitch rather than allowing India’s slow bowlers to dictate where he could score.

It was intelligent counterattacking Test batting rather than uncontrolled aggression.

He reached fifty from 78 balls with seven fours.

By then, Sri Lanka had passed 100 and the innings had begun to look substantially different from the desperate follow-on survival exercise India had expected.

Kamindu Mendis Gives Sri Lanka the Partnership They Needed

Kamindu Mendis provided the ideal partner.

The left-hander took time to settle before gradually becoming more assertive. His fifty came from 87 balls and contained two fours and three sixes.

More importantly, he gave Sooriyabandara stability at the other end.

The partnership reached 50 from 102 deliveries and then crossed 100 from 156 balls.

At drinks in the afternoon session, Sri Lanka were 163 for two. Sooriyabandara had 69 and Kamindu was on 54.

India had entered the day expecting to use a 213-run first-innings lead to finish the Test without batting again. Instead, they were suddenly spending another long session in the field against two batters prepared to attack spin rather than merely survive it.

It was the strongest passage Sri Lanka produced during Day 4.

The resistance also followed a pattern already visible during this series. In the first Test at Galle, Sri Lanka recovered from 90 for five through a major middle-order stand, a fightback covered in our Day 3 report from Galle.

Colombo demanded another rescue.

This time, Sooriyabandara and Kamindu supplied it.

Prasidh Turns to the Short Ball and Finally Breaks Through

There was little conventional assistance available for India’s fast bowlers.

The surface offered neither significant movement nor the kind of consistent seam response that would allow Prasidh Krishna and Siraj to attack through traditional methods.

India therefore used the short ball repeatedly as a change of pace and method.

Prasidh eventually made it work.

Kamindu moved to 55 before a short delivery produced the breakthrough, with Shubman Gill completing the catch.

Sri Lanka were 178 for three.

The wicket ended a 115-run partnership and changed the final part of the day.

India had spent much of the second session being pushed backward. Now there was a new batter at the crease and Sooriyabandara was approaching a century.

The visitors had an opening again.

Sooriyabandara Reaches 90 but Misses a Deserved Century

By tea, Sooriyabandara had reached 90.

Sri Lanka were 199 for three.

An innings defeat was almost gone, and a maiden Test century appeared within touching distance.

Neither milestone arrived quite the way Sooriyabandara would have wanted.

Dhananjaya de Silva was dismissed for 23 when Suthar struck at 209 for four.

Three runs later came the day’s most painful moment for Sri Lanka.

Sooriyabandara advanced to Suthar, was beaten, and Rishabh Pant completed the stumping.

He was out for 92 from 173 balls.

His innings included 10 fours and a six.

The missing eight runs will hurt, particularly after he had reached 80 in the first innings without converting that start either.

But the significance of the innings was much larger than the century he missed.

When Sooriyabandara began his second innings, Sri Lanka were 213 runs behind and facing the prospect of losing without India batting again.

When he departed, they had reached 212 for five.

The innings defeat had effectively disappeared.

Manav Suthar Takes Two Quick Wickets as India Hit Back

Suthar had been put under more pressure than any Indian spinner during Sooriyabandara’s attack.

His final figures reflected that contest. He conceded 81 runs from 18 overs, comfortably more expensive than India’s other frontline bowlers.

But he also took two of the wickets that stopped Sri Lanka from turning resistance into genuine control.

Dhananjaya fell for 23.

Sooriyabandara followed three runs later.

Then Saransh Jain trapped Niroshan Dickwella lbw for six, reducing Sri Lanka to 218 for six.

India had suddenly taken four wickets for 40 runs after the hosts reached 178 for two.

That late spell shifted the balance back toward the visitors.

By this stage, Sri Lanka had achieved their first target. India would have to bat again.

The next question was how large a chase they could create.

Rain Protects Sri Lanka’s Last Four Wickets

Sonal Dinusha and Keshara Nuwantha slowed the game dramatically after Dickwella’s dismissal.

Dinusha, who had scored 103 earlier in the day, moved to seven from 37 balls.

Nuwantha reached three from 29.

The final 10 overs of the day produced only 11 runs for the loss of one wicket.

There was nothing mysterious about the approach.

Sri Lanka no longer needed to chase the deficit aggressively. Every delivery survived increased the possibility of extending the game and every additional run increased the target India may eventually have to chase.

Then the sky changed.

Conditions had been growing darker before rain arrived at 4:37 p.m. local time. Ground staff quickly covered the pitch and surrounding areas, and heavier rain followed.

With the ground almost entirely covered and light deteriorating further, play was eventually called off.

Sri Lanka finished on 229 for six.

India Have Bowled More Than 160 Overs in Two Sri Lankan Innings

There is another element India must manage on Day 5.

Workload.

The visitors bowled 89.4 overs during Sri Lanka’s first innings and another 72.4 in the second. That is more than 162 overs in the field across consecutive innings.

India are also without Jasprit Bumrah and Kuldeep Yadav in Colombo, while the squad entered the tour with several availability and injury issues. The wider personnel pressure around the series was one of the central themes of The Sports Encounter’s pre-series analysis.

Siraj has remained extremely economical in the second innings, taking one for 11 from nine overs. Prasidh has one for 31 from 10. Jadeja has one for 48 from 18, while Jain has one for 55 from 17.4 overs.

Those workloads are manageable individually, but the cumulative effect of bowling across almost two complete Sri Lankan innings matters.

India need four wickets quickly enough to leave themselves comfortable time for the chase.

Why the Final Morning Could Still Become Complicated

India remain overwhelming favorites from the current position.

Four wickets separate them from Sri Lanka’s final total.

The lead is only 16.

Three of the four remaining batters are Prabath Jayasuriya, Lahiru Kumara and Asitha Fernando.

But Test matches become awkward when the expected ending does not arrive on schedule.

If Dinusha and Nuwantha can survive the first hour and push the lead toward 50 or 60, India will have to spend more time bowling before beginning a chase.

If rain removes another portion of the final day, the clock becomes relevant again.

If Sri Lanka lose two wickets immediately, India could be chasing a very small target before lunch.

That range of possibilities is why the first hour matters so much.

Sri Lanka Have Repeatedly Made India Work for the Final Wickets

The resistance of the lower order has already been visible twice during this Test.

In the first innings, Sri Lanka were 230 for eight before Dinusha and Kumara added 58 runs for the ninth wicket. Dinusha reached his century during that stand and stretched the innings to 290.

Now Dinusha is there again.

He has already faced 199 deliveries across the two innings and scored 110 runs in the match.

India therefore know that dismissing the recognized top order has not automatically ended Sri Lanka’s resistance.

That theme also appeared during the final stages of the opening Test in Galle, where India entered Day 5 needing six wickets before eventually completing a 165-run victory.

Colombo now presents a different version of the same challenge.

Sooriyabandara Has Changed His Place in This Sri Lankan Team

Whatever happens on Day 5, Pasindu Sooriyabandara leaves this Test with a stronger claim to a permanent role in Sri Lanka’s batting order.

He made 80 from 133 balls in the first innings.

He followed it with 92 from 173 in the second.

That gives him 172 runs in the match.

More importantly, both innings came with Sri Lanka under substantial pressure.

The methods were different enough to matter.

The first innings required recovery after early wickets.

The second demanded immediate mental reset after the follow-on, followed by tactical aggression against spin.

His willingness to sweep, reverse sweep and use his feet prevented Suthar and Jadeja from settling into uninterrupted attacking rhythms during the middle session.

For a Sri Lankan batting group still searching for greater stability, that adaptability could matter long after this match is finished.

India Still Hold the Advantage, but the Innings Victory Is Gone

India should still expect to win this Test.

They have controlled most of the match since compiling 503 for nine declared. Padikkal, Jurel and Pant built the scoreboard advantage. Prasidh, Suthar and the rest of the attack then bowled Sri Lanka out for 290.

Enforcing the follow-on was therefore entirely justified.

Sri Lanka’s response simply made India work much harder than the first-innings deficit suggested they would have to.

The hosts now lead by 16.

That means one result has already disappeared.

India cannot win by an innings anymore.

They need four wickets and then a successful chase.

Sri Lanka need time, runs and preferably more help from the weather.

This series forms part of the ICC World Test Championship 2025-27, which makes the result more important than the series score alone. India entered the Colombo Test already 1-0 ahead after their victory in Galle and are pursuing valuable WTC points as they attempt to move back toward the championship’s top two.

The unusual scheduling context is also part of a larger month of red-ball cricket. Colombo is one component of 19 consecutive calendar days with Test cricket scheduled during August, alongside Australia against Bangladesh and England against Pakistan.

TSE Verdict: Sri Lanka Won the Middle of Day 4, India Still Own the Match

Sri Lanka did something important on Wednesday.

They changed the manner in which this Test can end.

An innings defeat appeared entirely realistic when India enforced the follow-on with a 213-run lead. Sooriyabandara and Kamindu then produced the partnership the hosts needed, scoring with enough freedom to prevent India from simply surrounding the bat and waiting for mistakes.

For one full session, India looked frustrated rather than dominant.

The response after Kamindu’s dismissal was equally important.

Suthar recovered from being attacked to remove Dhananjaya and Sooriyabandara. Jain dismissed Dickwella. Four wickets fell between 178 and 218, preventing Sri Lanka from turning a rescue into a serious attempt to build a match-winning lead.

Rain ultimately froze the contest at 229 for six.

India remain in front.

Sri Lanka have finally made them look toward the clock as well as the wickets.

That is enough to give the second Test one meaningful final day.

Follow The Sports Encounter’s cricket coverage for the Day 5 report, international Test cricket, tournament news, player performances and analysis from across the game.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the score after Day 4 of the Sri Lanka vs India second Test?

Sri Lanka are 229 for six in their second innings after following on. They lead India by 16 runs with four wickets remaining.

Did Sri Lanka avoid an innings defeat?

Yes. Sri Lanka moved past India’s 213-run first-innings advantage during their second innings, which means India must bat again to win the Test.

Why did India enforce the follow-on?

India scored 503 for nine declared before bowling Sri Lanka out for 290. The 213-run deficit exceeded the 200-run requirement for enforcing the follow-on in a five-day Test.

How many runs did Pasindu Sooriyabandara score?

Sooriyabandara scored 92 from 173 balls in Sri Lanka’s second innings, with 10 fours and one six. He had already made 80 in the first innings.

How many runs did Kamindu Mendis score?

Kamindu made 55 from 92 deliveries, hitting two fours and three sixes.

How many runs did Sooriyabandara and Kamindu add?

They shared a 115-run partnership for the third wicket, taking Sri Lanka from 63 for two to 178 for three.

Who took the wickets for India in Sri Lanka’s second innings?

Manav Suthar has two wickets, while Mohammed Siraj, Prasidh Krishna, Ravindra Jadeja and Saransh Jain have taken one each.

Who is unbeaten for Sri Lanka?

Sonal Dinusha is unbeaten on seven and Keshara Nuwantha is three not out.

How many runs did Sonal Dinusha score in Sri Lanka’s first innings?

Dinusha scored 103 from 162 balls, including eight fours and three sixes.

Can Sri Lanka still win the second Test?

Yes, mathematically. Sri Lanka would need to build a substantially larger lead with their remaining four wickets and then dismiss India while defending that target. India remain in the much stronger position.

What does India need to win?

India must take Sri Lanka’s remaining four wickets and then successfully chase whatever target the hosts set.

Why did play end early on Day 4?

Rain arrived late in the afternoon with Sri Lanka on 229 for six. Conditions became increasingly dark, the ground was covered, and no further play was possible.

When is Day 5 of the Sri Lanka vs India second Test?

The fifth and final day is scheduled for Thursday, August 27, 2026, at the Sinhalese Sports Club Ground in Colombo.

A Celebration of 5000 ODIs

A Celebration of 5000 ODIs Match 11: 22 From One Ball Ends South Africa’s World Cup Dream

South Africa were closing on their first World Cup final when 12 minutes of Sydney rain turned a demanding chase into cricket’s most infamous impossible equation.

Published

23 hours ago

August 25, 2026

Hamad Hussain

A Celebration of 5000 ODIs Match 11: 22 From One Ball Ends South Africa’s World Cup Dream

South Africa needed 22 runs from 13 balls. Brian McMillan and Dave Richardson were still there. A place in the World Cup final remained difficult, but entirely possible.

Then Sydney’s rain arrived.

Twelve minutes later, the equation that had taken almost seven hours of cricket to create had become impossible. The giant SCG scoreboard flashed the numbers that would follow South African cricket for decades: 22 runs required from one ball.

There is an important detail behind that famous image. Archived match records show the scoreboard was actually wrong. Under the calculation eventually applied, South Africa’s true requirement was 21 from the final delivery. It hardly mattered. No legal delivery could produce either number. The semifinal had effectively ended in a calculation rather than a cricketing contest.

That extraordinary finish is why England’s 19-run victory on March 22, 1992, is Match 11 in The Sports Encounter’s A Celebration of 5000 ODIs series. The match gave us Graeme Hick’s finest World Cup innings, Jonty Rhodes attacking under knockout pressure, a genuinely competitive chase and, finally, a rain rule so inadequate that cricket was forced to rethink how interrupted matches should be decided.

TL;DR

England scored 252/6 from 45 overs, led by Graeme Hick’s 83 from 90 balls.
South Africa reached 231/6 after 42.5 overs and required 22 from the final 13 balls when rain interrupted play.
The Most Productive Overs method reduced the chase to an impossible final-ball equation.
Jonty Rhodes made an attacking 43 from 38 balls, while Andrew Hudson top-scored with 46.
Richard Illingworth and Gladstone Small took two wickets each for England.
Graeme Hick was Player of the Match as England advanced to the final against Pakistan.

England vs South Africa 1992 World Cup Semifinal: Match Information

Detail	Information
Match	England vs South Africa, 2nd Semifinal
Tournament	1992 Cricket World Cup
Date	March 22, 1992
Venue	Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney
Toss	South Africa won the toss and fielded
England	252/6 in 45 overs
South Africa	232/6 in 43 overs
Result	England won by 19 runs under the revised target
Player of the Match	Graeme Hick, 83 from 90 balls
Top South Africa Batter	Andrew Hudson, 46 from 52 balls
Turning Point	Rain with South Africa needing 22 from 13 balls
Tournament Impact	England reached the World Cup final
Historical Impact	The finish exposed serious flaws in cricket’s rain-adjustment system

Why Match 11 Belongs in A Celebration of 5000 ODIs

A famous controversy alone would not be enough.

This semifinal deserves its place because a very good cricket match was unfolding before the mathematics swallowed it.

South Africa were playing their first World Cup after returning to international cricket following more than two decades of isolation. They had already reached the semifinals at their first attempt. England, meanwhile, were trying to reach their third World Cup final.

The chase remained alive almost to its natural conclusion.

That combination of historical context, individual performance, knockout pressure and an unprecedented finish satisfies exactly what our 100-match ODI collection was built to preserve. The series has already revisited extraordinary World Cup moments such as Kapil Dev rescuing India from 17 for five against Zimbabwe and India defending 183 against West Indies in the 1983 final.

This one belongs for another reason: cricket eventually learned from it.

Graeme Hick Builds England’s Innings Under Pressure

England lost Graham Gooch for two and Ian Botham for 21, leaving the innings at 39 for two.

Graeme Hick supplied the stability they needed.

His 83 from 90 balls contained nine fours and came at a strike rate above 92, excellent tempo for an ODI semifinal in 1992. He added 71 with Alec Stewart, then helped push England toward a total capable of surviving South Africa’s deep batting order.

Hick’s dismissal at 187 for five could have stalled the innings.

Instead, England found another gear.

Dermot Reeve Turns 220 Into 252

Dermot Reeve’s contribution lasted only 14 balls.

It changed the value of England’s total.

Reeve struck an unbeaten 25 with four boundaries, while Chris Lewis added 18 not out from 16 deliveries. Their late acceleration carried England to 252 for six after the innings had been restricted to 45 overs because South Africa failed to complete their scheduled overs within the allotted time.

Those final runs became even more significant once the chase tightened.

Andrew Hudson Keeps South Africa Moving

South Africa lost captain Kepler Wessels for 17, but Andrew Hudson refused to allow England complete control.

Hudson made 46 from 52 deliveries with six fours and kept the required rate manageable despite regular wickets around him. Peter Kirsten fell for 11 before Hudson departed at 90 for three.

Adrian Kuiper then made 36, but England kept removing batters before partnerships could become decisive.

Richard Illingworth was particularly important, dismissing Hudson and Kuiper while conceding 46 from his 10 overs.

Jonty Rhodes Attacks the Semifinal

Jonty Rhodes produced South Africa’s most aggressive innings.

His 43 from 38 balls pushed the chase forward when the required rate was becoming uncomfortable. England knew one substantial partnership could take the match away from them, and Rhodes was beginning to build exactly that threat.

Gladstone Small eventually removed him with the score on 206.

Yet South Africa were not finished.

McMillan and Richardson took the total to 231 for six. Thirteen legitimate deliveries remained.

They needed 22.

Then the weather intervened.

The 12 Minutes That Changed Cricket’s Rain Rules

The 1992 World Cup used the Most Productive Overs method for rain-affected matches. When overs disappeared from the chasing team’s innings, the target was adjusted by removing the least productive overs from the first innings.

That logic became absurd when rain arrived near the end of this chase.

South Africa had only 13 balls left. Losing two overs therefore removed almost all their remaining opportunities, while England’s target reduction amounted to only one run.

The television and SCG scoreboard famously changed from 22 required from 13 balls, to 22 from seven, and finally 22 from one. Archived ESPN records note that the mathematically correct requirement was actually 21 from one.

McMillan pushed Chris Lewis’ final delivery for a single.

Nobody celebrated the cricket.

England had earned their position and had arguably been the better side over the match, but even they had reached the final through an ending nobody could reasonably defend as a competitive solution. The incident became one of the strongest arguments for developing a more sophisticated method for rain-adjusted targets, eventually leading ODI cricket toward the Duckworth-Lewis system.

Man of the Match: Graeme Hick

Hick’s 83 remains the central performance of the semifinal.

England’s innings repeatedly threatened to lose momentum, and none of their other top-six batters reached 35. Without Hick, there would probably have been no 252 to defend and perhaps no controversy for history to remember.

He therefore deserved the Player of the Match award.

His innings tends to disappear behind the famous scoreboard image, which is unfortunate. The rain rule explains why the match became infamous. Hick explains why England had something worth defending in the first place.

Complete Match Scorecard

England Innings: 252/6 in 45 Overs

Batter	Dismissal	Runs	Balls	4s	6s
Graham Gooch	c Richardson b Donald	2	8	0	0
Ian Botham	b Pringle	21	23	3	0
Alec Stewart	c Richardson b McMillan	33	54	4	0
Graeme Hick	c Rhodes b Snell	83	90	9	0
Neil Fairbrother	b Pringle	28	50	1	0
Allan Lamb	c Richardson b Donald	19	22	1	0
Chris Lewis	not out	18	16	2	0
Dermot Reeve	not out	25	14	4	0
Extras	b 1, lb 7, w 9, nb 6	23
Total	6 wickets, 45 overs	252

Did not bat: Phil DeFreitas, Gladstone Small, Richard Illingworth.

Fall of wickets: 20-1, 39-2, 110-3, 183-4, 187-5, 221-6.

South Africa Bowling

Bowler	Overs	Maidens	Runs	Wickets
Allan Donald	10	0	69	2
Meyrick Pringle	9	2	36	2
Richard Snell	8	0	52	1
Brian McMillan	9	0	47	1
Adrian Kuiper	5	0	26	0
Hansie Cronje	4	0	14	0

South Africa Innings: 232/6 in 43 Overs

Batter	Dismissal	Runs	Balls	4s	6s
Kepler Wessels	c Lewis b Botham	17	21	1	0
Andrew Hudson	lbw b Illingworth	46	52	6	0
Peter Kirsten	b DeFreitas	11	26	0	0
Adrian Kuiper	b Illingworth	36	44	5	0
Hansie Cronje	c Hick b Small	24	46	1	0
Jonty Rhodes	c Lewis b Small	43	38	3	0
Brian McMillan	not out	21	21	0	0
Dave Richardson	not out	13	10	1	0
Extras	lb 17, w 4	21
Total	6 wickets, 43 overs	232

Did not bat: Richard Snell, Meyrick Pringle, Allan Donald.

Fall of wickets: 26-1, 61-2, 90-3, 131-4, 176-5, 206-6.

England Bowling

Bowler	Overs	Maidens	Runs	Wickets
Ian Botham	10	0	52	1
Chris Lewis	5	0	38	0
Phil DeFreitas	8	1	28	1
Richard Illingworth	10	1	46	2
Gladstone Small	10	1	51	2

England Were Better, but South Africa Deserved a Cricketing Finish

It is tempting to retell this semifinal entirely as an injustice.

That loses some of its complexity.

England had made 252 despite being limited to 45 overs. Hick had played the game’s strongest innings. Their bowlers had taken six wickets and repeatedly prevented South Africa from putting together the partnership that could have settled the chase earlier.

South Africa also contributed to their own difficulty by taking too long to bowl England’s innings, which led to the reduction from 50 overs to 45.

Yet none of that makes the final equation sensible.

A World Cup semifinal with 22 required from 13 balls deserved to be decided by players attempting those 13 balls.

That is ultimately why Match 11 survives.

Readers can revisit other matches where a single moment changed a World Cup through our reports on Australia’s seven-run 1987 final victory over England and Gary Gilmour’s extraordinary 1975 semifinal against England, while ongoing match reports and analysis are available through The Sports Encounter Cricket Hub.

Final Takeaway: The Match Cricket Had to Learn From

England advanced to face Pakistan and South Africa went home from their first World Cup carrying an image that would become part of cricket folklore.

The semifinal’s real legacy, however, reaches further than heartbreak.

Hick played a superb innings. Rhodes attacked the chase. England’s bowlers kept the game under pressure. South Africa remained alive with 13 balls remaining.

Then the rules failed the match.

Thirty-four years later, people still remember 22 from one without needing the teams, venue or date explained to them. Few scoreboards in ODI history have said so little while revealing so much about why cricket sometimes has to change.https://chatgpt.com/backend-api/sentinel/frame.html?sv=20260810913b