National snooker championship: Raheem, Faheem to compete in final

The Pakistani cueists beat Nouman, Tariq respectively


Our Correspondent January 09, 2015
FIGHTBACK: Faheem came back from a frame down against Amir Tariq to win 5-2 with scores of 22-60, 64-14, 50-24, 36-39, 65-55, 75-44 and 61-43. PHOTO: PBSA

KARACHI: Top seed Abdul Raheem has booked a place in Saturday's final of the Jubilee Insurance National U21 Snooker Championship against seventh seed Muhammad Faheem.

In his semi-final encounter, Raheem came back from 3-2 down to win 5-3 against Nouman Iqbal.

He took an early lead but Nouman drew parity by winning the second frame. Raheem once again restored his one-frame advantage in the third set but Nouman kept the fight alive by making it 2-2.

After trailing twice in the match, Nouman took the lead by winning the fifth frame to go 3-2 up but Raheem hit back to win three consecutive frames and triumph with scores of 77-09(61), 33-59, 57-20, 59-66, 21-73, 60-28, 72-02(66) and 73-26.

In the second semi-final, Faheem came back from a frame down against Amir Tariq to win 5-2 with scores of 22-60, 64-14, 50-24, 36-39, 65-55, 75-44 and 61-43.

“I’m looking forward to an exciting final against Raheem and hopefully I’ll be able to beat the top seed for the title,” Faheem told The Express Tribune. “I’ve got good momentum going into the final and the semi-final win against Amir helped as it has boosted my confidence. The final will be a live broadcast so there will be pressure on both of us but I will just try to concentrate on my game.”

Earlier in the last-eight matches played in the morning session, Raheem beat Hassan Anwar 4-2 while Nouman won 4-1 against Muhammad Adil.

Faheem was made to work hard for his 4-1 victory by Muhammad Afzaal while Amir beat Ali Zaman Khan with a same scoreline.

 

Like Sports on Facebookfollow @ETribuneSports on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.

 

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ