Opinion: Over analysing and theorising did South Africa in

South Africa’s defeat in the Test series has not been such a surprise: not too many teams have survived the slow turners and dustbowls in the sub-continent, and India’s record at home – over a long period of time – remains formidable.

Yet who would have thought that this series would be so one-sided? One expected the world’s top-ranked side would put India under a lot of pressure, but South Africa’s surrender has been abject and inexplicable.

As I write this, the last Test is still underway, and South Africa appear to have recovered some of their mojo in picking up some quick wickets in India’s second innings. But then again, so much was given away by the way they batted in their first innings that the task looks near hopeless.

The Delhi pitch played reasonably true, and if India could score 334, South Africa folding up for a meagre 121 was a giveaway of the tension they have been in. To chase more than 300 for a side that had struggled to reach 200 consistently would need something miraculous.

But whatever the outcome of the last Test, the series was decided at Nagpur when South Africa capitulated twice ignominiously. This was not an aberration for at Mohali too (where they lost) and Bengaluru where only one innings was possible because of rain, South Africa had flopped badly, looking a pale shadow of a team that hadn’t lost overseas since 2006!

This was surprising considering how well they had played to win the T20 and ODI contests. If anything, this was the more difficult task as India were the higher-ranked side in limited overs cricket.

So what went wrong?

The fact that they lost Dale Steyn mid-way through the first Test was a major blow undoubtedly. Steyn hadn’t looked a matchwinner in Mohali, and it is unlikely that he would have been very effective on the slow pitches at other centres either.

Losing a player of Steyn’s calibre and reputation did reduce the psychological threat to India, of course, but I thought the other South African bowlers did extremely well to cover his absence:

The reason for South Africa’s debacle was in fact their much-vaunted batting. With no established opening pair, the onus was that much greater on Amla, du Plessis, AB de Villiers and J P Duminy. But apart from the redoubtable de Villiers, the other’s bombed badly.

I put this down to over analyzing and theorizing. The South Africans knew that they would have to counter the Indian spinners on turners and let this challenge boggle their mind rather than meet it head on.

What South Africa missed was a batsman like Kevin Pietersen, whose dynamic batting helped England beat India in India in 2012-13, despite the loss of the first Test. Of course England had in Swann and Panesar two fine spinners to pile the pressure on the Indian batsmen, but as said earlier, the South African bowlers haven’t fared badly at all.

But with poor totals to defend, their cause was made hopeless.

India’s bowlers made the most of the extra buffer provided by their batsmen. Ashwin has been superb, revealing the making of a maestro with subtle nuances in flight, line and length. Jadeja was the surprise weapon. Jadeja has had a fine run in domestic cricket and continued this form in the Tests, his accuracy and control undoing the best.

What of the pitches?

I think too much has been made of the spinning tracks used in the series. The South Africans would have been naïve to expect otherwise. Home advantage is what every country exploits and India is no exception.

I think it is petty and puerile to deride the Indian team for their success because of the pitches. This series win comes on the heels of a come-from-behind victory in Sri Lanka. Taken in conjunction, this is a stellar achievement for which Virat Kohli and his team deserve applause.