Aiden Markram has cracked a crucial half-century as table-topping South Africa broke their 24-year World Cup jinx against Pakistan with a nervy one-wicket victory and inched closer to securing a semi-final place with their fifth win in six matches.
South Africa began well chasing 271 as Quinton de Kock (24) and Temba Bavuma (28) landed early blows but Pakistan struck back with timely wickets and it needed Markram’s nerveless 91 to take them close before they eventually edged home in 47.2 overs.
Usama Mir (2-45) came on as a concussion substitute after Shadab Khan hurt himself fielding and he got rid of Rassie van der Dussen and took a catch to dismiss Heinrich Klaasen while David Miller (29) and Marco Jansen (20) departed after cameos.
But the Proteas would not be denied a first victory batting second in the event despite Markram falling to Usama and Gerald Coetzee to Shaheen Afridi (3-45).
Keshav Maharaj, who was aided by player of the match Tabraiz Shamsi in a crucial 11-run final-wicket stand, proved the hero with his final winning boundary slapped behind square.
Pakistan fell to their fourth successive defeat but Haris Rauf (2-62) nearly won it for them towards the end with a diving catch to send back Lungi Ngidi before number 11 Shamsi survived an extremely tight review for LBW.
Babar Azam was quick to send the decision to the DRS, with Shamsi appearing plumb on first replays, only for ball-tracker to project it to have been clipping leg stump – insufficient to overturn the on-field verdict.
“It’s a bit of chaos (in the dressing room) at the moment, the guys are enjoying the moment, guys picking up Shamsi,” said South Africa skipper Bavuma.
“Nail-biting finish, if you’re a South African fan, you’re a little bit happier with the outcome.”
Pakistan were in trouble at 5-141 but Saud Shakeel (52) and Shadab (43) stitched together an 84-run stand with some powerful strokeplay at the MA Chidambaram Stadium to guide the 1992 champions to 270 all out in 46.4 overs.
Pakistan were undone at the end by the impressive Shamsi (4-60) and Gerald Coetzee (2-42), who dismissed the in-form pair, as they ultimately fell short of an imposing total when Mohammad Nawaz (24) threw his wicket away.
Aiden Markram. (Photo by Matthew Lewis-ICC/ICC via Getty Images)
They were earlier pegged back following an early double strike by Jansen (3-43) after Babar won the toss and opted to bat but Mohammad Rizwan (31) steadied their innings with the skipper before falling to a bouncer from Coetzee.
South Africa ended another blossoming partnership as Shamsi got rid of the aggressive Iftikhar Ahmed (21) when he looked to raise the tempo during the middle overs, shortly before Babar brought up his third half-century of the tournament.
But Babar failed to swell his tally and he gloved a Shamsi delivery back to wicketkeeper Quinton de Kock while attempting a rash sweep as South Africa’s hopeful review paid off to leave Pakistan needing another rescue act.
“Very disappointing for all the players,” said Babar. “We fought back but we were 10 to 15 runs short and didn’t finish well. The way fast bowlers and spinners bowled, they fought well but unfortunately the result was not in our hands.
“We had the opportunity to win this match and stay in the tournament but we missed it. We will try our best in our next three matches and put our effort in every match so let’s see where we stand after the three matches.”
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
A really good point and something I'd forgotten. I'm not sure about the improvement part though. I understand it's technology now owned by Sony which is hired out to various sports. I'm not aware cricket's gone to them and asked for better accuracy because that would likely come with considerable cost. Happy to be proven wrong though.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
One of the major reasons that cricket was one of the first sports globally to wholeheartedly embrace technology was due to the threat matchfixing was posing to the very fabric of the game ..In other words a kind of double check on umpires . So although maybe not 100% accurate it will continue to improve ....But its very important we have it .
ColinT
Roar Rookie
No. I am suggesting no umpires call. Less than 50% (or whatever other % is decided) = not out.
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
QDK ,Aiden Markaram, Heinrich Klaasen, three batting pillars of South Africa. Anyone who will be facing them, a bit of advice – Do not bowl fast bowlers to them, bowl spinners and medium pacers who can take the pace off. All three off them are susceptible to this from what i have observed so far.
Vamsi K
Roar Rookie
I think what you suggested is how it is being implemented now. An umpires decision is overturned when more than 50% of ball is hitting the stumps. Anything less umpires decision stays.
Vamsi K
Roar Rookie
I don't get why the LBW is controversial. One can call it unlucky but there is no controversy about umpires call in DRS, unless someone just woke up after a decade. In fact if at all there was a controversial decision, personally I wouldn't call it controversial, it was van der dussen's LBW decision where both impact and wickets hitting were umpires call. During replays as the ball hit him on pads if I remember correctly both middle and off stumps were visible and it didn't seem the ball spun as much to be hitting the pad around leg stump and still be clipping leg stump. I felt the ball was going with the angle because it pitched on middle stump and if it was a leg break impact should have been around middle and leg without the umpires call.
ColinT
Roar Rookie
I know and accept there is a predictive inaccuracy, but irrespective of that I simply suggest that if the (admittedly unreliable) technology shows 50% or more of the ball contacting the stumps it is out and less than 50% it is not out. It is then just one or the other. Yes, it is still an arbitrary decision, but significantly less arbitrary than umpires decision. (You could make it 80% / 20% or any other arbitrary proportion you fancy, just as easy for the computer to calculate) Interestingly the umpire and the computer both use a similar process to make a decision. The umpires brain takes input from the eyes, processes it to predict a path. The computer takes input from cameras and processes it to predict a path, just somewhat more accurately than the umpire.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
I have read up on it. Have you?
Polymath
Roar Rookie
Some sides cop the slings and arrows of adversity with good grace, while others whinge and show dissent. Why is Warner such a sacred cow that he does not get charged with dissent? Aussies are a protected species. It’s wrong. ‘Warner, on 11 against Sri Lanka on Monday night, was visibly upset when ball tracking confirmed umpire Joel Wilson's out decision with ball-tracking technology showing the ball hitting leg stump to return an 'umpire's call' verdict. The broadcast showed a furious Warner smash his bat against his pad and yell in the direction of Wilson as he departed.’
Blink
Roar Rookie
Only to those that don't understand the physics of the ball tracking technology. Do yourself a favor and read up on it. Most cricketers prefer to complain but it is not that difficult to understand.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
They have to keep the umpires call for those rare times where the ball is exactly 50% predicted to hit the stumps or very close to it. Bear in mind the accuracy of this tool is 3.6mm and a cricket ball can be 71mm to 72.6 mm wide. This gives a margin of error of about 4 - 5%. That potentially means, in close calls, the ball might have been well within the 50% you mentioned, or well outside. On that basis, I'm not sure how you can have a definitive line in the sand. Far better to go with the umpires call, at least for now and hope someone spends some money to improve the technology.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
I think the reality with the current iteration of DRS is, we have an electronic version of an umpire, ie something that is not 100% accurate and open to mistakes and interpretations
ColinT
Roar Rookie
Agree on Afridi, a great cricketer. On LBW, IMO they should get rid of umpires call. If less than 50% of ball is predicted to have hit the stumps it should just be not out. Simple, either out or not out. Ball tracking is accurate to where it hits the pad, from there on it is no longer tracking, its path to the stumps is a computerised prediction. Impossible to get 100% correct even with the best algorithms.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
True, but I’d say Pakistan very unlucky. Looks pretty plumb on replay and most umpires would give it out. On the other hand, van der Dussen equally unlucky to be given lbw to one showing as just clipping top outside of stump, which most umpires probably give not out.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
You can bet the good teams are taking notice of this trait with this Sth African squad. When it comes to the finals, all teams would bat first against them.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
A strange match where plenty of guys from both sides got starts but no-one really went on with it. I'm guessing the pitch had plenty to do with that, being a bit two paced. I'll bet Pakistan were wishing they had made even 280. Still, credit to South Africa for not losing their nerve and running down this score. If Pakistan won, I'd have given the MOM to Shaheen Afridi. Gee, this guy's a good bowler and very easy to watch too. Not sure why there was any controversy with the lbw. Given all the cricket Australia's played this year, I reckon I've seen at least 5 or 6 similar verdicts
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
With 300 being par these days, 270 is not a chase, but rather a mop up - similar to 180-190 back in the 1980s.
Arnab Bhattacharya
Roar Guru
Proteas still susceptible during a run chase. Their ultra aggressive approach working while batting first. But in the pressure of a run chase, they're not batting as well as they should. Walter needs to fix that up before the semis.