When India embarked on the South Africa tour last month, not many believed they would come home with a wooden spoon, having lost the three-Test, three-ODI series without offering much fight. The tour that got off to an explosive start thanks to a tell-all press conference by then Test skipper Virat Kohli, ended in a whimper for India. At the end of the Test series, Kohli gave up his red-ball captaincy, leaving a leadership void in Indian cricket.
The change in format failed to change India’s fortunes. Led by stand-in skipper KL Rahul, India stumbled to a 3-0 whitewash, underlining their waning grip in white-ball cricket.
Former South Africa batter Daryll Cullinan, a veteran of 70 Tests and 138 ODIs, reckons the bunch led by Kohli and Rahul was the tamest Indian team to visit South Africa. He spoke in detail about the reasons for South Africa’s success and why India faltered.
Excerpts:
South Africa did not have the services of Anrich Nortje, Faf du Plessis, AB de Villiers, Dale Steyn, and Vernon Philander for the Test series. Did you expect them to beat India in both formats so convincingly?
The lack of star players was accepted and mentioned by Dean Elgar right at the start of the series, even though the likes of Kagiso Rabada and Quinton de Kock are big players. The difference between the two sides was the genuine all-round efforts that we came up with. If you look at the Test series, India got two 100s, South Africa none. India got three fifers, South Africa none. But they churned out a better all-round performance. The worst thing that happened to India, in hindsight, was to win the first Test because they appeared complacent after that. They did not play good cricket and had too many top players out of form. SA really rallied well as a team.
A lot of people believed this was India’s best chance to win their first Test series in South Africa.
It probably was, and I must add that this was probably the most talked-up Indian side. They were expected to just come here and roll us over. But in the end, they were rather tame. In fact, this was the tamest Indian team that has come here. Everyone can speculate on the reasons, but by and large, I think it was a combination of bad form and loose cricket from India. They didn’t do the basics right. There were few partnerships of note, the batters did not spend enough time at the crease, and the bowlers didn’t bowl well in partnerships. I also think they got some selections wrong. India erred in not picking Ishant Sharma who could have held one end up. In the end, Ashwin didn’t do much.
Do you think Elgar’s 96 in Johannesburg changed the course of the tour, especially because SA were trailing in the Test series at that stage?
Certainly. The turning point of the Test series was Elgar’s fighting knock in the second innings of the second Test where he let his bat do the talking. He really set the marker for the rest of the team. As the series went on, Rabada responded with the ball and got key wickets.
SA played better cricket and did the basics right. In both the Test and ODI series, there were moments where India could have taken the match by the scruff of its neck, but they failed at those key moments, either losing a wicket or failing to bowl well in partnerships.
Indian spinners were completely outbowled by their SA counterparts, particularly in the ODIs. Did you expect that?
That was a surprise. Tabraiz Shamsi is not there to stop runs, but to take wickets, which is what he did so well. Keshav Maharaj is an experienced, smart operator. It was good for Aiden Markram to bowl the number of overs he did, especially considering he was not getting too many runs. He proved he can be a very handy third spinner for South Africa.
Indian spinners lacked the fizz and turn that we saw in the 2018 series, which is why the wickets didn’t come.
Both teams had very good pacers, but the South African quicks got more from the surface. Why?
It may appear that South African pacers were probably a shade quicker than the Indians, but I don’t think so. Each of SA’s three pacers bowled better. The next best was Mohammed Shami. SA didn’t beat India with pace. It was the bounce and movement that troubled India. Also, SA quicks were far more consistent. Indian seamers, just like their batters, were impatient. They failed to stick to plans and gave far too many loose balls. The kind of scores that SA chased in the Test series was largely due to bad bowling from India.
SA attacked India more after the first Test, particularly with the short ball. The quicks changed their lengths and went short, short, fuller. In the first Test, they were fuller, fuller, short. In the end, SA outsmarted India.
In Keegan Peterson, Marco Jansen, and Rassie van der Dussen, South Africa seem to have found some really good players.
I think Peterson is a promising prospect, as is Jansen. However, we must bear in mind that Jansen bowled on bowler-friendly wickets. His real test will be bowling on batting-friendly tracks. Peterson, of course, batted really well on wickets that were not really batting-friendly. I would like to see them play away from home before making a judgment. As of now, both looked equipped to make a long career for themselves if they stay fit and hungry.
Rassie van der Dussen is a really smart one-day player with a sound temperament. His ability to keep the ball on the ground for long periods and go aerial only when necessary makes him difficult to dislodge. He is an excellent accumulator, and we saw his class in the way he played the slower bowlers. He neutralised the Indian spinners, particularly Chahal, and once the leg-spinner was taken down, I think the series was decided.
Your thoughts on Elgar and Bavuma’s leadership?
Elgar led from the front. His innings at the Wanderers was one of the best knocks I have seen in terms of grit, courage, perseverance, and just the desire to hang in there. He really was way ahead of the Indian batters who I thought did not have the guts for the fight. I think India missed Kohli, particularly in the second Test. Bavuma’s 100 was a very good knock too and would have given him a lot of confidence both as a batter and a captain. I think he has the respect of the team and he has their support.
What do you make of KL Rahul, the captain?
It is too early to judge. He was just a stand-in skipper for three ODIs, but I think he should have batted in the middle order. He looks a good player with a very bright future. He has copped some criticism for his body language, but you do not have to be demonstrative to be a good captain.
