Uganda wins Pearl of Africa Cricket T20 Series 2025
Going into the match, Uganda was comfortably leading the standings with five wins. The hosts batted first and scored 170/7 in 20 overs. The UAE side attempted the chase but collapsed to 162/9 in 20 overs.
The pairing of Alpesh Ramjani and Raghav Dhawan was instrumental for Uganda, with scores of 61 and 56 runs respectively.
For the UAE, Ethan D'Souza top-scored with 32 runs, while Muhammad Zohaib and Muhammad Wassem contributed 30 and 5 runs, respectively. "We tried to play tight and only lost out in the later stages of the match. The Series have helped us get a lot of match practice," said UAE's Ethan D'Souza.
Uganda's head coach Abhay Sharma said that he was very proud of his players who won all the six matches. "We played well, and the Series have helped us a lot," said Sharma. Uganda's second team only lost to Namibia's second team in a match that did not carry world ranking points.
In an earlier fixture, Kenya defeated Nigeria by 6 wickets. Kenya, led by Sachin Gill, chased Nigeria's 113/9 in 20 overs and scored 116/4 in 19.1 overs. Gill scored 35 runs off 42 balls, while Rakep Patel contributed 33. Nigeria's captain, Systever Okpe, scored a team-high 35 runs, and Abdulmumuni Mohammed added 26.
Uganda finished the series with 12 points, followed by the UAE in second place with 6 points. Kenya was third with 4 points, and Nigeria finished with no points. Uganda's and Namibia's second teams did not score any points.
The teams used this series to prepare for the upcoming ICC T20 Men's World Cup Qualifier in September.
UNI XINHUA RKM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
27 minutes ago
- India.com
India vs England: Was Ben Stokes Right To Offer Early Draw? ICC Rules And Team India's Response Explained
The final day of the fourth Test between India and England at Old Trafford offered high-quality cricket — and an unexpected flashpoint. With just an hour left, England captain Ben Stokes invoked ICC Playing Condition 16.1.1, offering an early draw under the provision that allows both captains to agree that no result is possible. But when India declined — with Ravindra Jadeja on 89* and Washington Sundar on 80* — tensions flared, and the spirit of cricket was suddenly up for debate. Also Read: Explained: Why India Can't Withdraw From Asia Cup 2025 Fixture Against Pakistan – BCCI's Hands Tied So, who was right? Was Stokes justified in wanting to end early? Or did India have every right to chase personal milestones within the laws of the game? The ICC Rule Explained: What Does Law 16.1.1 Say? According to ICC Test Match Playing Conditions, Clause 16.1.1 states: "A match is drawn if no result is possible and both captains agree to terminate play." Importantly, this is not mandatory. It's a mutual decision — and a captain has every right to decline the offer. In this case, India exercised that right, with Jadeja and Sundar closing in on well-earned centuries after saving the match. India had lost only four wickets and were 75 runs ahead. The pitch was docile. The threat of collapse had passed. The team was safe — but the batters still had personal landmarks within reach. The match situation allowed it. The ICC rules allowed it. And so did the unwritten rules of Test cricket pride. Stokes Offers Draw, India Declines — Tension Follows Ben Stokes, nursing niggles and mindful of his bowling unit's workload, decided enough was enough. England had bowled 257.1 overs across five days. Archer and Woakes were visibly fatigued. Liam Dawson, the left-arm spinner, had bowled long spells exploiting the rough. Stokes offered the draw under Law 16.1.1 — and when India declined, frustration took over. Stokes turned to Jadeja and sarcastically asked: 'Jaddu, you want to get a Test hundred against Harry Brook and Joe Root?' The remark, caught on stump mic, sparked immediate criticism. Was it fair for Stokes to question India's intent when the law clearly permitted them to continue? Gavaskar, Gambhir, Manjrekar: The Verdict from Indian Legends Veteran commentator Sunil Gavaskar was quick to defend India. 'If a batter has weathered two sessions and saved the game, why shouldn't he aim for a century?' Gautam Gambhir, India's head coach, echoed the sentiment: 'They deserved that hundred. They fought hard. You don't walk off just because the opposition is tired.' Sanjay Manjrekar didn't hold back: 'Stokes behaved like a spoilt kid. Everything won't go your way just because you ask nicely.' Brook's Bowling and the Protest in Disguise After India declined the draw offer, England made a mockery of the final overs. Harry Brook, not a frontline bowler, sent down underarm lobs at 60 kmph. Jadeja responded by launching one for six to complete his century. Sundar followed soon after with his maiden Test hundred. Only then did India agree to shake hands. Was this England's passive-aggressive protest? Or was it a moment of sportsmanship gone wrong? What Does the ICC Rule Say About This? Crucially, nowhere in the ICC rules is there a stipulation that batters must accept a draw if offered. Nor is there any provision for enforcing one without mutual agreement. Law 16.1.1 exists to allow a draw — not force one. India, having secured the draw on merit, played well within the framework. In fact, continuing to bat — while seemingly milestone-driven — also served strategic goals. With just three days before the final Test at The Oval, India kept England's tired bowlers in the field longer. Tactical? Yes. Petty? Not at all.
NDTV
29 minutes ago
- NDTV
After Ben Stokes "Absolutely Ridiculous" Take On Proposed Role, Gautam Gambhir's Stand
Indian and England camps stand poles apart over a raging topic that has kept the cricket world busy for the most part of the Manchester Test. India wicket-keeper batter Rishabh Pant fractured his toe and the injury prevented him from keeping wickets. Though Pant showed incredible courage to bat in the first innings with a broken toe, the situation saw many urge the International Cricket Council (ICC) to introduce a law that enables a team to make a fully-functional replacement for a player who sustained such an injury. However, England captain Ben Stokes and India head coach Gautam Gambhir are divided on the topic. In the press conference, Stokes called the idea 'ridiculous', suggesting that such a law would introduce too many loopholes for teams to exploit. Hence no such rule should even be discussed. "I think it is absolutely ridiculous there is a conversation around an injury replacement. There would be too many loopholes for a team to go through. You pick an 11 for the game, injuries are part of it. I think that conversation should be shut down," said Stokes in the post-match press conference. Gambhir, on the other hand, is in favour of such a rule to be introduced. As far as the exploitation of rules is concerned, the India coach wants the umpires and match referees to given the charge of allowing a replacement if such injuries happen. "Absolutely, I'm all for it, if the umpires and the match referee sees and feels that there's a major injury. It's very important to have this rule, where you can get a substitute. That is, if it's very visible, there's nothing wrong in doing that. Especially in a series like this, where it's been such a closely fought series, in the previous 3 Test matches," Gambhir said. "Imagine if we would have had to play with 10 people, 10 men against 11. How unfortunate would this be for us," he added.
United News of India
2 hours ago
- United News of India
Gambhir snaps at England draw drama
Manchester, July 27 (UNI) India head coach Gautam Gambhir weighed in on England's visible frustration after Indian batsmen chose to continue batting despite a handshake being offered by Ben Stokes late on Day 5 of the drawn Old Trafford Test. Responding to the controversy, Gambhir said, 'If someone is batting on 90 and the other on 85, don't they deserve a hundred? Would England have walked off if one of their own was on 90? If someone has the opportunity to get their first Test century, you must allow him to take it. It's unfortunate they felt that way- I have nothing more to say. Both guys deserved their tons and thankfully, they got them.' This firm stance by the Indian camp underlines the grit and individual milestones that defined India's late resistance. When asked about changes in the XI, including Karun Nair missing out and Anshul Kamboj debuting, Gambhir clarified, 'We don't drop anyone. We pick the XI we feel can do the job. We felt a left-hander at No. 3 would help against this attack, and Sai Sudarshan did his job. Anshul was picked because his bowling suits overcast conditions, and he can bowl long spells.' In a broader comment on the game, Gambhir supported the idea of allowing substitutes in cases of clear, visible external injuries. 'Absolutely. If the umpires and match referee agree it's serious, there should be a rule for it. Especially in a tightly fought series like this — imagine playing with just 10. That would be unfair,' he said. On the decision to promote Washington Sundar to No. 5, Gambhir said, 'He was in good form. With Rishabh unavailable, it was an opportunity to slot him in at five. We always knew what form he was in. There's not even an inch of surprise about what he did today — and I believe this is just the start for him.' When asked about the No. 3 conundrum after Karun and Sai's rotation, Gambhir stressed that it's not about individual scores. 'We look at partnerships. If No. 3 contributes to a stand, he's done his job. Sai is a phenomenal talent. You can't judge players game by game. He's 23, on his first tour of England, and still managed a brilliant 50 and 60. We have to be patient — these boys are the future of Indian cricket,' he said. Gambhir reaffirmed his belief in results over narratives. 'You're asking someone who only believes in results. We're still 2-1 down in the series, but I believe we can level it 2-2. That would be a great achievement,' he stated. Speaking about captain Shubman Gill's rise, Gambhir said the dressing room never doubted his talent. 'Those who doubted him only talk about cricket, they don't understand it. Even if he hadn't performed, we knew the kind of quality he has,' he said. 'He's living up to his talent and expectation. And this narrative around captaincy pressure? You can't see any of that when he bats. He walks in as a batter, not a captain.' UNI BDN RKM
