Here are the major takeaways from South Africa’s Test match win against India at the Eden Gardens.
Harmer returns to harm India
Simon Harmer had three Tests under his belt when he first came to India, in 2015/16. He did get 10 wickets at 25.40 – impressive by most standards but not enough to play more than two Tests when you are up against R Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja.
Over the next decade, Harmer gave up on an international career by signing a Kolpak deal. He attained legendary status at Essex, a stint that continued even after Brexit ended his Kolpak status and made him Test-eligible again. By the time he returned to India, he had more than a thousand first-class wickets under his belt.
Harmer did not think Kolpak was the reason he was dropped: “I wasn’t good enough at the time and I didn’t force the selectors to select me,” he admitted at the press conference after the second day. “When I was dropped from the national side, that is when I realised I wasn't good enough.”
So what changed? Harmer found turn and bounce in Kolkata, at times to an astonishing amount – but it is not unusual on surfaces like this. Against an unusually left-hand-heavy Indian XI, Harmer seldom erred in line, and bowled to a length just short of full-pitch. He ensured the batters (who had grown up in these conditions) had to commit to the front foot. Once he ensured that, he used the variations – the pitch-aided massive turn and bounce punctuated by the arm-ball.
Bavuma shows the value of defence
Conventional wisdom suggests you need to be aggressive in low-scoring Tests. You can see the merit in that argument: a rapid cameo can change the complexion of the game (even in the last over of the Test, Axar Patel took three scoring shots to wipe out more than an eighth of India’s initial target).
South Africa had not avoided the innings defeat when Temba Bavuma came out to bat in the second innings. At the other end, Corbin Bosch (25) was the only batter to go past 15. As the ball spat off the surface and turned unpredictably (often to massive proportions), Bavuma was near-perfect in his defence as he waited for a rare run and even rarer boundary.
Bavuma’s judicious use of the batting crease and impeccable technique forced the Indian spinners to struggle with their length. Never was this more evident than the 41st over of the South African second innings: having bowled beautifully on the second evening, Ravindra Jadeja was forced to switch to over the wicket to Bavuma. It was not a common sight for Indian fans on a surface like this.
Shortly afterwards, the broadcasters demonstrated a graphic: Bavuma had middled 76 per cent and left alone a further three per cent of the 113 balls he had faced until then on a pitch that has drawn criticism all around.
Pace always finds a way
Spinners do win Test matches on surfaces designed to assist pace, but they are outnumbered by fast bowlers who run riot on rank turners.
India packed their side with four spinners (albeit including three all-rounders). Yet, the hero of the first day was Jasprit Bumrah, who was at his brilliant best, while Mohammed Siraj chipped in with a double strike. They shared three more wickets in the second innings to match the spinners’ contribution of ten.
No less threatening was Marco Jansen, who struck at vital moments in the first innings and whose double strike opened the floodgates in the second. Bosch chipped in as well. Between them, both sides demonstrated how important it is to back world-class spinners with quality fast bowlers, even on turning tracks.
Washington finds a home at three
Since spinners are capable of bowling longer spells, picking four of them in an XI is probably an overkill (unlike picking four fast bowlers). To be fair, India would not have taken such extreme measures had three of them not been all-rounders. To accommodate all four (and both Rishabh Pant and Dhruv Jurel), India had to leave out someone: the axe fell on Sai Sudharsan, India’s No.3.
Someone had to bat at one-drop. Since Shubman Gill had relinquished the one-drop spot, one of the all-rounders had to be promoted. The onus fell on Washington Sundar, the youngest of the trio, and he did well. Scores of 29 and 31 are not massive, but they were significant in the context of the game. The comparisons by R Ashwin, Washington’s senior at Tamil Nadu and India, were not exaggerated: like Bavuma, he trusted his defence and picked up risk-free runs as and when he could.
Will Washington continue to bat at three? It is difficult to tell. However, him batting at three may enable India to go in with the extra spinner, both in Asia and in “SENA”.
India’s problem is in both tactic and execution
After an even first session, India dominated most of the next five and were well ahead of South Africa at stumps on day two. The difference, in the end, turned out to be of 30 runs – not significant if one considers the fact that Gill’s injury had reduced the contest to 10 versus 11. The two teams performed comparably.
However, could the Test have unfolded differently? India came with more spin-bowling depth, a pace attack better than South Africa’s in Kagiso Rabada’s absence, and a string of batters who have grown up on turners of all kinds. Test matches in India, as in every country, are likely to play out to the advantage of the home side. As with last year’s New Zealand series, this one did not.
At the post-match press conference, Gautam Gambhir informed that he had no problems with the curator. “When you don’t play well, this is what happens,” he added. Gambhir’s assessment was not unfounded: India’s batting has caved in on extreme turners. However, the Test match also raised a question.
Why prepare extreme pitches and allow touring spinners – undoubtedly skilled but with less experience in the conditions – to call the shots? Why not drag out the Test into the fifth or at least the fourth day and test the tenacity of the touring spinners while staying in the comfort zone of the home spinners? It is true that the WTC has changed things, but it is also true that between the start of 2015 and the start of the WTC, India had won 17 Tests at home and lost one, mostly on “normal” turners. The only defeat came at Pune in 2016/17 – yet again, an extreme turner.
Spin still dominated, as did pace, but so did the batters. It was an era when the Indians scored heavily in India but the touring batters often did not. Food for thought, perhaps.
