Pakistan Build Strongly in Rawalpindi as Saud Shakeel Reaches 91 Not Out

Pakistan’s most important figure on the second day of the Rawalpindi Test was 390 for six, reached after 99 overs. The more revealing detail, however, was that Saud Shakeel remained unbeaten on 91. This was not simply a story of a large total; it was an innings in which partnerships kept forming after wickets fell. Pakistan were firmly placed, but the result was still undecided.

Pakistan had started aggressively on the first day. The openers put on 86, and the score had reached 137 for two by lunch. Resuming at 281 for five on Day 2, Pakistan added 109 runs in about 31.4 overs to reach 390 for six, at roughly 3.4 runs an over. That is a notable Test tempo, but it should not be treated as proof of batting superiority alone. Rawalpindi is generally regarded as a batting-friendly venue, and the available match details suggest that scoring was possible.

The context matters: this was a snapshot from an unfinished innings on the second day. Pakistan were still batting, and no information was supplied about the toss, weather, dropped catches or DRS decisions. Conclusions about the pitch, tactics and likely result must therefore remain limited. A score of 390 for six was a strong position, not a final total.

Partnerships reveal the innings’ structure

The most reliable sign in Pakistan’s innings was not only Shakeel’s unbeaten score but the partnerships formed after wickets fell. According to the available figures, five partnerships were worth at least 68 runs. Shakeel added 68 with Mohammad Taha, then continued to build the innings with lower-order batters. The 96-run sixth-wicket stand with Ghazi Ghori was particularly important. Arafat Minhas later joined Shakeel, and was unbeaten on 27 at the end of the session.

That continuity between wickets was the strongest basis for Pakistan’s advantage. On a favourable surface, one batter can score quickly, but keeping the opposition under pressure in a Test requires new batters to spend time at the crease after each dismissal. Pakistan managed that, at least in the available portion of the innings. Sri Lanka took wickets, but did not produce a decisive spell of two or three quick breakthroughs to halt the scoring pattern.

Shakeel’s role is best understood in that context. He was central to four separate partnerships and remained not out at the end of the Day 2 session. His 91 not out was his 12th Test half-century. That records his contribution in this innings; it cannot establish his recent form or predict his performances in future matches, since no figures covering the previous 12 months are available here. He was close to a century, but being unbeaten on 91 is not the same as scoring one. The first half-hour of a Test morning can put the previous day’s work back on trial.

The scoring pace also deserves attention. Debutant opener Tayyab Arif made 57 from 51 balls on the first day, with nine fours and a six. Forty-two of his 57 runs came in boundaries. His strike rate was about 112, well above the usual rate for a Test innings. At the other end, Azan Awais scored 30 from 50 balls. The openers were dismissed in consecutive overs around the 16th and 17th overs. Babar Azam and Taha then added 69 for the third wicket, steadying the innings after that brief disruption.

Tayyab’s fast start should not be treated as proof of lasting aggression or technical superiority. The pitch, the bowlers’ lengths and the match situation all influence a strike rate. Still, making 57 from 51 balls on Test debut was a substantial contribution that gave Pakistan early momentum. Taha, by contrast, made 51 from 105 deliveries. His strike rate was about 49—not rapid, but useful in the context of the partnership and the innings. It was his maiden Test fifty.

The two debutants contributed at different speeds, and that contrast is the more useful signal about Pakistan’s young batting. One scored quickly in the opening phase; the other occupied the crease and built a partnership after wickets had fallen. Yet a single innings from two players cannot establish the strength of Pakistan’s entire talent pipeline. It is an encouraging start, not a verdict on the system.

Babar Azam scored 50 from 58 balls. A strike rate of about 86 is brisk in Test cricket. His innings was fluent, but it did not become a big score. Calling it a return to form after one innings is as risky as labelling a batter out of touch after one failure. This scorecard records how he batted on that day; it does not establish a multi-innings trend.

Sri Lanka’s challenge: taking wickets was not enough

Sri Lanka took six wickets in 99 overs. In the available details, Asitha Fernando and Dilshan Madushanka took two wickets each, while Milan Rathnayake and Sonal Dinusha also took wickets. The dismissals were shared among the bowlers, but none appears to have applied sustained pressure and halted Pakistan’s progress. On this surface, the run rate and the length of partnerships matter alongside the number of wickets taken.

In a five-day match, bowling success cannot be assessed from “six wickets” alone. Pakistan batted for 99 overs and scored 390, suggesting that Sri Lanka did not exert enough control either over the runs or the regularity of partnerships. But without detailed information about the pitch, ball age, catching chances and bowling plans, it would be unfair to declare a particular bowler or strategy a failure.

Rawalpindi’s status as Pakistan’s home ground is also relevant. Conditions that favour batting can make large totals and long innings more likely. Pakistan deserve credit for their batting, but presenting 390 for six as solely a failure by Sri Lanka’s attack would be incomplete analysis. On this kind of surface, the visitors need more than early success with the new ball: they need sustained discipline and a substantial reply in their own innings.

Across my years of match analysis, one distinction has proved useful: the scoreboard records what happened, while the sequence of partnerships shows how pressure was created or relieved. Here, Pakistan’s story lies less in the number 390 than in the sequence behind it—an early burst, two consecutive wickets, the Babar–Taha response, Shakeel’s presence and further runs with the lower order. Even so, one innings should not be treated as a map of the whole match. A team’s response can change the meaning of an early advantage.

Strong position, unresolved match

At this point on Day 2, Pakistan had the advantage. But saying the match was almost won would go beyond the evidence. The first innings was incomplete, Sri Lanka had not yet batted, and there was no direct account of how the pitch might behave later. A total above 500 could put Pakistan in a stronger position; below 450, Sri Lanka might have more room to respond. Those are scenarios, not predictions of a certain result.

The next question is not simply whether Shakeel reaches a century, but how many runs Pakistan add after he is dismissed. If he fell early in the day, Minhas and the lower order would face greater responsibility. If the partnership continued, both Pakistan’s total and their control of the match would grow. Sri Lanka’s first innings will show how much its six wickets achieved: a substantial reply could keep the Test open, while an early collapse would give Pakistan a further advantage.

The soundest conclusion for now is that Pakistan have built a strong, partnership-based first innings, but the direction of the match still depends on how long they bat and how Sri Lanka respond. Shakeel’s 91 not out is the central performance; debutants Tayyab and Taha made valuable contributions; Babar’s brisk fifty is encouraging, but not proof of a comeback.

The next session offers three signals to follow: how far Shakeel takes his score, whether Pakistan pass the 450 or 500 mark, and whether Sri Lanka can build an opening partnership. A large total in Rawalpindi does not automatically win a Test. The key question is whether Pakistan’s bowlers can turn this batting advantage into pressure, or whether the match becomes a long contest between two sides on level terms.