ICC Women’s World Cup: Pakistan lose opener against Australia

Batting deficiencies overshadow impressive bowling effort in 91-run defeat.

Our Correspondent February 02, 2013
Pakistan got off to a poor start at the ICC Women’s World Cup 2013 as they went down to Australia in a 91-run defeat. PHOTO: REUTERS/FILE


Pakistan got off to a poor start at the ICC Women’s World Cup 2013 as they went down to Australia in a 91-run defeat in their opening Group B battle at the Barabati Stadium in Cuttack yesterday. 

Although Sana Mir’s side displayed a spirited bowling performance to dismiss Australia for just 175 in 46.1 overs, their below-par batting gifted the match to the Aussies.

Left-arm spinner Sadia Yousuf was the pick of the bowlers as she collected three wickets after conceding 30 runs in 9.1 overs. Asmavia Iqbal took two while Sumaiya Siddiqi claimed one wicket. For Australia, opener Rachael Haynes was the top scorer with 39 runs.

However, Pakistan failed to carry their impressive momentum for long and their batting-order collapsed miserably while chasing the target.

Only two of their batsmen – Bismah Maroof (43) and Nahida Khan (10) – reached double figures as the side was bundled out for just 84 in 33.2 overs. Nain Abidi, the team’s most accomplished batsman, was only able to score seven runs.

Pakistan will face New Zealand tomorrow in their second group match.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka recorded a thrilling one-wicket victory over England when they achieved the 239-run target on the final delivery of their Group A fixture at Brabourne Stadium, Mumbai.

Earlier, Jenny Gunn hit 52 off 71 to steer England to 238 for eight.

In another Group B fixture, New Zealand trounced South Africa by 150 runs courtesy an impressive knock of 145 by Sophie Devine who smashed six sixes and 13 boundaries in her 131-ball innings.

The Kiwis amassed 320 for five in the first innings.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 2nd, 2013.


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


Most Read