Not a flash in the pan: India’s loss to South Africa was some time in the making

India (Photo by Matt Roberts-ICC/ICC via Getty Images)

It wasn’t just a defeat. It was a give away.

India didn’t just lose by 76 runs to South Africa. They watched themselves unravel in public, with every crack in the structure exposed under the stadium lights at Ahmedabad. The drop-and-keep double standards; the match-ups that sound smarter on a whiteboard than on a cricket field; the constant urge to edit the XI like an unfinished draft. And, in the middle of it all, the loudest omission: Axar Patel, the vice-captain of the team – treated like a spare part.

South Africa simply outplayed India. They arrived with a plan, a spine and a sense of familiarity with the conditions, having already played three games at the venue. Even when they were 20 for 3, they didn’t flinch, as David Miller and Dewald Brevis stitched the innings back together with a 97-run partnership and stabilised the ship. Tristan Stubbs then put the icing on the cupcake (pun intended) to help South Africa to 187 for 7 at the end of 20 overs.

India, in response, looked like a team trying to win a tournament while still debating what it should look like.

The double standard at the heart of the XI

If you want to frame this section in a single uncomfortable image, you can do so with just two players. Ahead of the game, captain Suryakumar Yadav backed Abhishek Sharma publicly despite three ducks in the group stage, even joking that he “worries for people who are worried” about the stylish left-hander’s form.

It clearly indicated the team management were willing to give the No. 1-ranked T20 batter a long rope, which already contradicts how they handled Sanju Samson after one poor series against New Zealand in the lead-up to the World Cup.

While there is nothing wrong with backing Abhishek to come good, one wonders where the same philosophy goes when it comes to Axar Patel. The Delhi Capitals captain, who is the designated vice-captain for the tournament, was “rested” against the Netherlands to “give Washington a run”, and then was “unfortunate” to miss out on the Super 8 game against South Africa.

One player gets patience as a principle. Another gets “match-ups” as an explanation. That’s not inherently wrong. Teams should be tactical. But once you start distributing trust unevenly across the batting and bowling departments, that is a recipe for disaster.

Back during squad selection for the Asia Cup, when Shubman Gill was brought back into the squad from the wilderness and also appointed vice-captain, selector Ajit Agarkar justified why he merited a place in the XI ahead of Samson, who had done incredibly well in the year leading up to it. He said:

“Sanju was playing because Shubman and Yashaswi were not available at that point. But, like I said, he was the vice-captain the last time he played T20 cricket.”

If that is the yardstick you are using for Shubman Gill, why not the same for Axar Patel, who, by contrast, has been extremely consistent and crucial with both bat and ball for a few years now? Suddenly, the vice-captain becomes optional.

Match-up trap

After the match, India’s assistant coach, Ryan ten Doeschate, explained the Axar-Sundar call in a language modern teams love: match-ups, threats, phases and roles.

The logic behind the call was that South Africa had three explosive left-handers in their top five (Quinton de Kock, Ryan Rickelton and David Miller), and India leaned towards Washington because he could be used in the powerplay to attack with his off spin.

The problem India devised the plan at the expense of the vice-captain and then didn’t execute it during the game. India started with Arshdeep Singh and Jasprit Bumrah and used Varun Chakravarthy as the first change.

So, what was Washington for, then?

India did win their bowling powerplay, removing three wickets and stifling the Proteas, but it came at a cost. They did not use Sundar in the role he had been brought in for, and, despite Miller being at the crease, the captain was reluctant to bowl him in the middle overs due to the presence of Brevis.

It was a classic case of a team starting to play catch-up to its own thinking, which it believed would be a masterstroke.

And credit to South Africa: the moment India blinked, they made them pay.

Chopping and changing isn’t just about names, it’s about roles

India will argue that they didn’t chop and change. Technically, they kept the same XI from the Netherlands match.

However, stability is not only about repeating names on a team sheet. It needs to extend to roles under pressure. Flexibility is good until it becomes a disguise for uncertainty. Suryakumar loves to frame the batting order as flexible from No. 3 onwards. In the past three games, India have used three different players at No. 5.

At a time when India needed to steady the ship after three quick wickets, sending in Sundar for his first batting stint of the tournament, ahead of Hardik Pandya, Shivam Dube, or Rinku Singh does not send a good message to the dressing room.

Back in 2024, when India were reduced to 22 for 4 against Afghanistan, it was Rinku who joined hands with former captain Rohit Sharma and helped the team reach 212 for 4 in 20 overs. Sending him in at No. 8 against South Africa was criminal, to say the least.

When you’re one tweak away from the perfect combination, you’re also one bad decision away from panic. Sunday’s chase had that sense written all over it from the first over.

Aiden Markram, South Africa’s captain, did what India failed to do. He took it upon himself to open the bowling with off-spin against an all-left top three. He bowled just that one over, prising out the in-form Ishan Kishan for a four-ball duck, who incidentally had taken strike to shield a struggling Abhishek Sharma.

When Tilak Varma got out to Marco Jansen in the very next over in what can only be described as a reckless shot, the alarm bells started ringing. In many ways, India’s chase began in almost identical fashion to South Africa’s, but crucially, without the subsequent rescue act.

The rescue act is usually carried out by a specialist in controlling chaos. A player who makes roles, phases and match-ups irrelevant. Which brings us to the unspoken subtext.

The ghost in the chase: India’s Kohli-shaped muscle memory

For the better part of the last decade and beyond, whenever India found themselves in a crisis situation, they always turned to the same man. More often than not, he bailed them out in typically superhuman fashion.

Stats tell a story. India have chased 150+ successfully only three times in T20 World Cup history, and all three were headlined by Virat Kohli. This isn’t just nostalgia.

When the team’s “Plan A” withered under pressure, Kohli became their “Plan B” to such good effect that they often took it for granted. That man is no longer around in this format, and the post-Kohli era needs someone to take up that responsibility and put their hand up when the going gets tough. That is easier said than done, though, when players lack clarity in their selection and role definition, as is the case now.

India approached 188 as if it were 300, swinging for the fences instead of reading the game. South Africa’s impeccable bowling and fielding plans meant India’s ultra-aggressive approach was always going to be a disaster.

The Proteas’ innings was a reminder that big totals don’t always require perfect starts. They were 20 for 3. They got to 187 despite Bumrah’s excellent spell of 3 for 15, in which he looked almost unplayable.

They got there through partnership discipline. Miller provided the initial counter-attack before settling in for the long haul. Brevis, on the other hand, took his time before exploding in typical fashion. Stubbs finished it off with a devastating 44* off 24 balls.

India’s reply was the inverse. By the 10th over, India were 51 for 5, and the South African bowlers were performing an autopsy live in front of nearly 83,000 people. Keshav Maharaj’s 15th over was the final nail in the coffin. He removed Hardik, Rinku and then Arshdeep. India were all out for 111 in 18.5 overs.

The uncomfortable truth is that this isn’t just “one of those days”. This is what happens when you try to win elite tournaments while still experimenting with your selection as if it were an inconsequential bilateral series.

The Kuldeep Yadav conundrum

There is one more name to be factored into this mess: Kuldeep Yadav. The star wrist-spinner has done no wrong, and yet he simply cannot seem to break into the XI as India continue to prioritise batting depth over a genuinely world-class spinner.

Back in 2023, before Gautam Gambhir became India’s head coach, he called out the team selection for dropping Ravi Bishnoi in a game against South Africa, which he felt was defensive and unfair to the bowler.

“Probably, yes, Ravi Bishnoi for one of the fast bowlers, definitely. You have got a left-arm wrist-spinner and a right-arm wrist-spinner. That could have been a great attacking option. Definitely, a bit of a surprise there with Bishnoi not playing. You should never become the Player of the Series (laughs). That’s the first criteria for getting dropped,” Gambhir had said.

And yet, now there is such a reluctance to have Kuldeep and Varun in the same playing XI, and bowl them in tandem in an innings. In many ways, Gambhir isn’t practising what he preached. Most teams would kill to have a bowler like Kuldeep in their ranks, and yet, as always, India don’t understand the value of having such a game-changing asset.

So, what is the fix?

Axar’s omission against South Africa was a symbol. It isn’t the entire sin. India can still recover in the Super 8 phase. Ten Doeschate admitted that you might be “allowed one mess up”, albeit acknowledging that it was a “grand scale” mess.

However, the problems run deeper. The correction needs to be philosophical.

Are you a horses-for-courses team? Then commit to it fully, not just in a way that is biased towards the bowling department, and live with the backlash when big names need to be benched.

Are you a trust-and-continuity team? Then stop making vice-captains disposable and building XIs around plans that look good on a whiteboard. Don’t pick a player for a powerplay plan you don’t use.

Are you a batting-depth team? Then act like it and send your proper batsman to stabilise a stumbling chase. Don’t hold him back and send him in at No. 8 when the required run rate is beyond comprehension.

Are you an attack-minded team? Then don’t just throw your bat around, but also show it in your bowling attack, picking someone like Kuldeep as an attacking option over batting cushion.

Otherwise, you run the risk of ending up exactly where India ended up on Sunday: with 11 good players and a dozen uncertain ideas.

At the moment, South Africa look like a side which knows exactly what they want to do, and India look like a side still searching for the perfect combination, even as the tournament clock keeps ticking.

Because the harshest part isn’t that India lost.

It’s that, watching it unfold in real time, it felt like it was coming, and well deserved.

---

–  by Pranav Kannan

Disclaimer: This latest news is based on the author’s understanding, analysis, and instinct. As you review this information, consider the points mentioned and form your own conclusions.