With an innings defeat in Ranchi, the South African cricket team matched a dubious record.
They have now lost five consecutive Tests for the first time in over a decade since back-to-back series defeats against Australia in 2006.
World number one Test side India were too strong for the visiting South Africans and their bad calendar year continued.
They would want to end the year on a high with a victory over England on the Boxing Day test and enter 2020 positively.
Their camp has remained upbeat, but their 2019 slump can’t be ignored.
The South Africans outclassed Pakistan in all formats at the start of the year.
The team was expected to humble Sri Lanka and continue their build-up to the 2019 World Cup.
Kusal Perera played one of the greatest knocks of all time in Durban to shock the hosts in the first Test, and Kusal Mendis’s gritty knock to win the second Test made the Islanders the first Asian country to win a Test series in South Africa.
South Africa dominated Sri Lanka in the ODI and T20I series that followed, but their momentum had taken a hit.
The Test series defeat was viewed as one of the worst in South Africa’s history, but its fallout broke more hearts.
A Kolpak deal tempted another of South Africa’s talented players as pacer Duanne Olivier took “possibly the most difficult decision” and left for greener pastures.
He rejected a two year proposed Cricket South Africa contract and joined English county side Yorkshire.
Olivier was the best bowler of South African summer, having taken 31 wickets in five Tests.
He had replaced Kyle Abbott, who had chosen to leave South Africa and joined Hampshire in 2017.
Both Olivier and Abbott made statements to commit themselves to the South African national side just before their departures.
Untimely injuries to Dale Steyn and Kagiso Rabada just before the World Cup during the Indian Premier League did little to help their cause.
The team appeared unconvincing heading into the tournament.
The AB de Villiers fiasco did not help their cause and decisions, such as preferring Hashim Amla over Reeza Hendricks, can be debated even today.
Still, the team featured several talented cricketers, but the Proteas could not perform to their potential.
They finished seventh out of ten teams, with seven points of possible 18, tied on points with Bangladesh and just above West Indies and Afghanistan.
Their match against West Indies got washed out, and South Africa defeated Afghanistan and Sri Lanka before upsetting the mighty Australians.
At 387 runs in eight innings, skipper Faf du Plessis was their highest scorer while all-rounder Chris Morris emerged as their highest wicket-taker (13 wickets in seven innings).
(AAP Image/Mathew Farrell)
Right-handed batsman Rassie van der Dussen was the team’s breakout star, with 310 runs in six innings at an average of 62.
Retirements of Dale Steyn, Jean-Paul Duminy and Imran Tahir, and a possible Hashim Amla Kolpak deal increased their headaches.
When South Africa’s India tour started in September, they were expected to make the most of their resources to put up a fight.
The T20I series ended in a 1-1 draw and opener Aiden Markram and middle-order batsman Temba Bavuma registered runs in the practice match.
Keshev Maharaj bowled well for three wickets and the team seemed set for its first assignment in the International Test Championship.
What followed was humiliation.
South Africans did not only lose the series 3-0, they were humbled.
Team India won the first Test by 203 runs in Vizag.
The victory margin increased in the following Tests, by an inning and 137 runs in Pune and an inning and 202 runs in Ranchi.
The Proteas’ batsmen couldn’t get going and their bowlers lost the wicket-taking boots.
Their top scorer Dean Elgar scored 232 runs in six innings, with 160 in the first inning of the first Test, and their only other centurion, Quinton de Kock, scored 156 runs in six innings with the top score of 111.
Their only other batsmen who could cross the 100 run mark in the series were du Plessis (142 runs with 2 50s at 23.66 in 6 innings) and Maharaj (103 runs with one 50 at 25.75 in four innings).
Rabada, with seven wickets in four innings at 40.71 finished as their highest wicket taker, while Maharaj, with six wickets in three innings, came second.
In comparison, man of the series Rohit Sharma scored 529 runs in four innings at 132.25 with three centuries and the highest score of 212.
Mayank Agarwal, at 340 runs in four innings at 85 and the highest score of 215, was the second highest scorer, and captain Virat Kohli scored 317 runs in four innings with the highest score of an unbeaten 254.
(Photo by Visionhaus/Getty Images)
Both Ajnikya Rahane (216 runs in four innings) and Ravindra Jadeja (212 runs in four innings), also crossed the 200-run mark.
Among bowlers Ravichandran Ashwin with 15 wickets in six innings at 25.26 was the highest wicket-taker of the series, and Mohammad Shami and Ravindra Jadeja took 13 wickets each in six innings at an average of 14.76 and 30.69 respectively to become second-highest wicket-takers.
Ishant Sharma had uncharacteristic low returns of two wickets in four innings while in the absence of Jasprit Bumrah pacer Umesh Yadav raised his stock to an all time high with 11 wickets in four innings at 12.18.
Overall, Indians took all 60 wickets up for grabs, 32 by spinners and 26 by pacers and the South African bowlers could only take 25 wickets, ten by pacers and 15 by spinners.
The difference of 35 was the highest ever in their Test history.
With India at its ruthless best, and players such as Markram, Bavuma, Theunis de Bruyn and Dane Piedt failing to perform, the series was the most disastrous for the South Africans since their readmission to cricket.
For the first time, they lost two consecutive Tests by an innings since 1937 and they averaged 23.01 with the bat and 76.92 with the ball.
In the series, South Africa’s average partnership for the top five wickets was 17.10, compared to India’s 91.05, and their last five partnerships averaged 28.93, just under 12 runs more than top five.
The way forward
With Amla and de Villiers’ retirements among other players, the team is getting rebuilt.
Though they were outclassed, there were a few positives that came out of the series for the visitors.
Rabada bowled well in sections and improved with every test, Elgar and du Plessis performed better than their 2015 tour and in Maharaj, South Africa seem to have found a good player.
So far, in 42 innings from 27 Tests, Maharaj has taken 100 wickets, including a 9/129 in one inning against Sri Lanka at the Sinhalese Sports Club at Colombo last year.
The team needs to learn from their India experience and keep taking steps in the right direction.
A few of them include:
1. Be bold, be ruthless
South Africans looked low on confidence and out of their depth since day one of the first Test.
They were not the favourites to topple the world’s number one Test side, but at world number three, they had good enough players to make the series competitive.
In Markram, they had one of the best batsmen aged 25 or less, in Rabada, they had one of the ‘fab three bowlers’ in the world (alongside Australian Pat Cummins and Indian Jasprit Bumrah) and in de Kock, there was a talented wicketkeeper-batsman alongside skipper du Plessis.
None of them performed to their potential – Markram looked out of his depth, du Plessis looked frustrated, Rabada didn’t bowl to his potential and apart from a century in the first innings of the series, de Kock looked uncertain.
Barring Maharaj and third Test debutant Zubayr Hamza, nobody left India with an increased stock as a cricketer.
Coming off a ten home series winning streak, India were always the favourites, but the apathetic performance by the visitors made it easier for the Indians than it should have been.
2. Read the conditions better and attack the opposition batsmen
Apart from an envious home record, another positive to come out of Kohli’s stint is the Indian team’s much-improved performances overseas as compared to his predecessors.
A reason for that is in the last three years the pitches in India have not only assisted spinners but also seamers.
It has not only helped Indian cricketers to perform better in overseas conditions but also led India to have one of the best pace-bowling contingents in the world.
Learning from their 2015 mistake, South Africans came better prepared to play Indian spinners.
Ashwin, Jadeja and third Test debutant Shahbaz Nadeem were impressive but had to work hard to break through the visitors’ batting.
When Kohli focused more on spinners in the first inning of the Vizag test, Elgar and de Kock scored centuries, du Plessis had two 50s in the series and third Test debutant Zubayr Hamza scored an attacking 50 in the first inning of the Ranchi test.
(AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)
It was the Indian pacers Yadav and Shami who looked unplayable at times.
Both averaged less than 15 and Yadav tied with West Indian great Courtney Walsh to take three wickets in last five completed Test innings in India.
The pace duo made a meal of the South African top order.
Shami relied on swing, bounce and discipline, while Yadav’s ball skidded and he extracted reverse swing to bother the visitors.
In comparison, the South African pacers looked toothless.
Rabada struggled in first two Tests, but improved in the third Test, Vernon Philander frustrated, Lungi Ngidi didn’t look completely fit and out of pace and Anrich Nortje was just good in pieces.
The South African pacers looked slower than their Indian counterparts and failed to attack the stumps or bowl on the fourth stump line.
When they bowled in the right places, they bothered Indian batsmen.
In the third Test, at 39/3, South Africa held aces, but Rahane and Rohit Sharma dug in and turned the tide.
Besides this, when South African pacers held India tight their spinners let India go away.
Maharaj worked very hard for decent returns, and Dane Piedt and Senuran Muthysamy failed to justify their selections.
For their future assignments, South Africans should attack their opposition and read the conditions better to win the matches.
3. Be patient with Zubayr Hamza, Temba Bavuma and Theunis de Bruyn
At 35, du Plessis remains South Africa’s best batsman, de Kock is top class, Elgar is a quality Test batsman and Markram is tipped to take over the helm from du Plessis in future.
However, not every Proteas batsman enjoys these kinds of luxuries.
With an average of around 50 at both provincial and franchise level, Hamza is one of the top performers in the South African cricket.
He looked good for his 62 in Ranchi’s first innings with secured defence and a solid technique.
Markram’s unfortunate self-inflicted injury opened the doors for Hamza, and he should continue to be a part of the South African middle-order in future.
For de Bruyn and Bavuma, matters are a bit complicated.
In the India tour, de Bruyn scored 82 runs in five innings at an average of 16.40 and highest scores of 30, and Bavuma scored 96 runs in six innings at an average age of 16 and the highest score of 38.
Bavuma’s most memorable moment of the series was being a stand-in skipper for the toss alongside du Plessis before the third Test, and de Bruyn came as a concussion substitute for Elgar in the second innings of the same match.
Currently in the state of rebuilding and struggling for returns, South Africa may get desperate for results, but their best bet may be to stay put for the time being.
De Bruyn is considered as one of the most naturally gifted South African cricketers and had scored a century in the same match against Sri Lanka on a spin-friendly pitch.
With Hashim Amla and de Villiers’ presence in the side, de Bruyn had to be patient since his debut in 2017 in New Zealand and South Africa needs to retain him until at least the England tour of South Africa later this year before taking any decision.
Trust from the cricket board and the captain can help de Bruyn deliver on the potential he possesses.
If he is a talent, Bavuma has been a workhorse.
With just over 1800 runs in his Test career at an average of less than 32, his numbers don’t do the justice to his batting, however, Bavuma has scored over 7500 runs in first-class cricket.
He takes pride in representing South Africa and his experience of playing international cricket for just under five years can be an asset for the South African team currently in the process of rebuilding.
He needs runs quickly, but with the lack of first-class players (perhaps except Rassie van der Dussen) ready to step up to the international cricket and occupy middle order, omitting Bavuma may prove to be disastrous.
4. Keep faith in the coaching staff and the captain
Otis Gibson was not retained after the disappointing ODI World Cup campaign in England, and Enoch Nkwe took over the helm as the team director.
Still only 36, he is young, ambitious and a product of South African first-class cricket, formerly representing Gauteng and Lions.
He is keen to stay in his role and has shown pedigree in the Proteas domestic circuit, by helping the Jozi Stars to win the inaugural Mzansi Super League T20 before guiding the Lions to win the Four-Day series and the CSA T20 Challenge.
Another one facing the pressure in South Africa is captain du Plessis.
He wants to remain the captain, is the most experienced cricketer in the side and one of the leading batsmen in the world.
He had an underwhelming Test series with 142 runs in six innings at an average of 23.66 and the highest score of 64.
Maintaining stability is one of the most important things when a team gets rebuilt, and it would be shortsighted to sack Nkwe and du Plessis after one failure.
South Africa should avoid temptation and refrain from taking any rash decisions.
5. Improve the domestic structure and make cricketer financially stronger
In his first press conference after returning to South Africa, du Plessis lamented that South Africa’s domestic cricket is not good enough to produce quality international cricketers.
He said the national team was not adequately prepared for the retirements of Morne Morkel, de Villiers, Amla and Steyn over last 18 months.
The Kolpak system has not helped their case either.
Since Claude Henderson became the first player to be signed under Kolpak Rule in 2004 by Leicestershire, 44 South African cricketers have turned their backs to the national side, some of them being Lance Klusener, Ashwell Prince, Colin Ingram, Richard Levi and Rilee Rossouw.
In 2007, du Plessis himself signed a Kolpak deal with Lancashire but returned to South Africa when new rules came in 2010 and made his ODI debut in 2011.
With the imminent Brexit, Kolpak agreements could be in danger, and du Plessis argued that it will help South African cricket in “tremendous amounts” to retain talented cricketers.
Another step to reduce the Kolpak leaking may be making cricket in South Africa financially more viable.
As stated by Zimbabwe’s Brendan Taylor, who signed for Nottinghamshire after 2015 World Cup and Abbott, signing multi-year contracts helps the players to have a settled financial life for themselves and their families.
Cricket South Africa needs to ensure that their players get paid well, so they’re ready to commit to the national team on a long-term basis.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
No one is going to play for South Africa any more by choice, quota, no quota, even if they bring back apartheid, the ony reason you have a team is because they need to play internationally to get a ticket into the IPL otherwise they will all be in county cricket under kolpak . South Africa will just be the new West Indies, former great, the only players that play for the team is those that cant get money elsewhere. Abbott he was just waiting for one good international performance to sell himself off and of course used the ready excuse. De Villiers despite playing in the IPL, doesn;t even bother. The West Indies at least have their own T20 league what does South Africa have nothing. Blacks never played or watched cricket in the days when you paid the rebel teams millions so why has the money dried up., having some black players is shoring the team up Without India the cricket would be paupers. In contrast the big three national team players are all millionaires playing for their national team.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
The earning potential is certainly a huge consideration and the ICC has a larger part to play in the strength and competitiveness of world cricket than just elevating associates. However there isn't a professional sportsman who doesn't want to represent their country and a level playing field allows that. Certainly more development money outside the SA high school system is necessary to develop legitimate pathways, but if the ability to succeed at the top isn't a possibility, then the development money is poorly spent.
Tanmoy Kar
Roar Rookie
South Africa's real test would be when they will face England in December for a 4-Test match Series at home under Test Championship.
Lewis Atkins
Roar Rookie
If you want the best cricket played most of the time then it makes sense for the wealthier nations to support the poorer. The strongest possible teams in as many nations as possible is good for every nation, people will get excited about a tour from Ireland, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh when the quality of cricket is guaranteed. White South Africans make up around 8% of the population, yet have often made up more than two thirds of sporting teams. These quotas don't just exist in cricket, they're across all sports in SA. The reason South African cricket is struggling is because it hasn't updated its infrastructures since apartheid. They still rely too heavily on the private school system, a system that overwhelmingly is accessed by whites, and has not invested the same capital in public systems and black communities. The quotas also include provisions for non-black ethnic communities. They are about redressing ghastly historical wrongs and making these structures move capital investment from dominant white communities, where there is already a large degree of affluence, to poorer black and other ethnic communities who lack the infrastructure and economic security to pursue their talents. The quotas are not anti-white, they are pro-black.
Uday Khare
Guest
I don't think SA were that bad as much as India were very, very good and had all the luck with the toss. SA batted well in their first innings and in general handled the spinners pretty well throughout the series. It's just that it became evident very early on that beyond Rabada, south africa didn't have threat or control with the ball (The Indian openers had a 300 run partnership to kick off the series!). Once both sides know that, it becomes difficult and disheartening for the visting team. Add to that the serious quality from Shami and Yadav (at least 4 or 5 dismissals which pitched on middle and off, beat the outside edge and hit the top of off), the south africans always having to start their innings in the last few overs of day 2, long hours in the field taking their toll (India literally broke Maharaj) etc. and you have a drubbing on your hands.
Uday
Guest
Hmmm I imagine it would be very difficult for even someone within SA cricket to conclusively say whether the quota system's purpose has been achieved in terms of delivering equality of opportunity, let alone us casual commenters on a sports website. However I'd like to make a few points: 1. A quota policy (whether in sport or otherwise) is by definition a long term one, which will cause disruptions and ill feeling in the short term. There is an argument made by long term observers of SA cricket that quotas weren't taken seriously enough earlier (what with herschelle gibbs being classified as coloured, etc), and they might not be in this position now had they done so. 2. If the exits of Olivier and Abbot are to be considered as failures of the quota system, should the emergence of Rabada and Ngidi not be considered as its successes? Of course, one can argue they are good enough to have found their way into the team even without the quota, but would they have been inspired to put in the hard yards without the quota or the achievements of predecessors like Ntini? I don't have the answers personally - my point is that quota systems are supposed to be judged on intangibles like this and the signals they send to a community. 3. The problem seems more of high quality white players choosing to exit rather than black players coming in who aren't up to standard. Ntini, Prince, Philander, Rabada, Ngidi, etc. are/were all international standard cricketers and have/will contribute much to South African Cricket. I can imagine white players feeling a sense of disenfranchisement due to the quota system and therefore their decision on more financial security in a kolpak contract vs pride of playing for country coming down one way rather than the other, but that in itself doesnt seem like a compelling argument to scrap the quota system, particularly as there are plenty of white cricketers more than happy to play for their country. 4. The talent drain seems more a result of how much South African cricketers earn playing first class cricket in south africa vs in England. This is a problem afflicting almost every country bar India, Australia and England, even those without quotas. The West Indies are probably the best case in point here. Its no coincidence that England teams contain (ed) so many players of non-english background (Archer, Pietersen, Stokes, Strauss, Rashid etc) Nortje made his debut for South Africa in the India series - Its a squad and first team spot which would have been available to Olivier and Abbot if they were still around. De Bruyn has had and will have opportunities to play fro South Africa (he really seems like a fantastic talent BTW)
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
A fairer share of global wealth? Really, it's someone else's place to change SA cricket? You know as well as anyone that quotas mean a restricted number of places for white players, therefore a number of players capable of playing aren't. That's every bit exclusion as it was coloured players, only the reason is different. There's a reason that elite level players are accessing the kolpak system and it isn't because they desperately want to represent England. It's time for SA to stop socially engineering sport, it was important to allow all who want to play a particular sport the opportunity, but nearly three decades on, the elite teams must have the best available picked, so all players know their response to the playing selection criteria is rewarded.
Lewis Atkins
Roar Rookie
The quality South Africa has lost to retirement/kolpak in the last few years is not dissimilar to the situation England faced after 2013/14 and Australia before them. It will take time to rebuild, in Rabada and Maharaj they have two players who they can build an attack around; Ngidi is very promising too. I think Bavuma may not be up to it. De Kock is a star and is obviously the next captain, Markram will be back and have a good career and Elgar can hold his spot for another few years, at least.
Lewis Atkins
Roar Rookie
Quotas aren't the problem, they certainly don't kill quality, and white South Africans have never faced exclusion. If cricket is losing the battle with football in black communities that is the fault of the cricket authorities. South African structures are failing to produce, and retain, players because of falling revenues and poor planning. They also relied too heavily on the private school system for too long. A fairer distribution of cricket's global wealth, and taking T20 franchises out of private hands (where they are privately owned), will not only help South Africa, but also the smaller nations build/rebuild and maintain their domestic structures.
AREH
Roar Guru
The way forward is a tricky one, I think. Losing bulk stars within a handful of years has taken effect. The last five years have now seen the test team lose names like Smith, De Villiers, Steyn, Amla, Abbott, Kallis and Morkel. The transition would always be a challenge, and much similar to Australia losing a cluster of experience and quality in late 2015.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Comprehensive coverage. I only saw a few of the highlights of the India series but was struck by how well the Indian bowlers did, especially Umesh who couldn’t get in the team that visited Australia. He was important to India’s series clinching victory against Australia at home a couple of years ago, but hasn’t had much success outside India. He and Shami bowled several guys in the replays I saw, mostly big leg cutters. India batting first was pretty crucial to the magnitude of the victories, but still hard to figure SA getting done so comprehensively. Why does the Kolpak rule stop SA players playing for South Africa? Labuschagne could play county cricket, for example. Is the ban on representation placed by SA or is it integral to Kolpak eligibility because they’d otherwise come under the quota of overseas players like Labuschagne and other Australians?
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Quotas kill quality. It’s a known fact in politics and the same applies to sporting depth. If you can’t choose your elite side from the best available, then rebuilding becomes near impossible as you attempt to replace generational players like Steyn, Amla, de Villiers, Kallis. Quotas are the elephant in the room, but political correctness dictates it doesn’t get discussed. South African cricket is losing the battle with football, because the majority of black South Africans prefer football. When you artificially determine a certain demographic of the overall population must be a representative percentage of every sporting team to show equality for all, you’re missing the obvious. Different sports will always reflect the leisure choices for enjoyment. In Australia, a larger percentage of aborigines have an affinity with football and therefore their representation is higher than cricket, hockey, etc. There’s nearly 2 full sporting generations taken to ovals since apartheid was destroyed, surely now the desires of sporting choices are being recognised and it’s obvious that colour isn’t being used as a barrier to exclude black South Africans from cricket selection. Maybe the same exclusion now needs to be redressed with white South Africans and the sporting make-up reflect sporting rather than political desires, before the player drain proves fatal to cricket in South Africa.
Paul
Roar Guru
hi Natchiket, I don't pretend to be an expert in SA cricket, but it seems to me there are three main issues that are hurting the national side. They are obviously going through a rebuilding phase but do they have much in the way of Test quality coming through? Markram burst onto the Test side, but his form in recent times has been indifferent and although you suggest they should persist with Bavuma, one hundred in 65 innings coupled with an average barely over 30 suggests he's had plenty of opportunities and isn't quite up to it. The other issue is obviously money and you suggest the players should be paid more. The obvious question is, where does the SA administration find the money to pay these guys? The final concern isn't the fact they lost in India, but how badly they capitulated, especially with the bat,as the series progressed. SA sides from even 4 or 5 years ago, might have lost games but they always gutted it out; this side however, appeared to roll over way too easily. Hopefully things will come good with SA cricket, but as you suggest, it's probably going to take some time.