South Africa deserve immense credit for their achievement, taking on India and beating them in their own conditions. For India, the issues run deep, marked by two significant recent series losses. India’s spinners were outspun, and their batters were outbatted—an alarming concern for a side that has long dominated at home. Looking down the lineup, it is hard to understand how such a situation unfolded for what remains a top-quality side.
Shubman Gill’s absence for most of the first Test and all of the second had a notable impact. Rishabh Pant’s captaincy was also well below the standard Gill offers, influencing India’s overall performance. Even so, the Indian batting order still features enough senior players expected to shoulder responsibility during difficult moments. In fact, across the squad there are six or seven, perhaps even more, established senior cricketers. What I am trying to say here is that this is not an inexperienced unit finding its feet, but a well-formed team with a strong history of success at home. That makes the problems more concerning.
Despite the issues, it is not yet time for panic. Selectors, administrators and team management must invest in players with high ceilings and back them consistently. Yashasvi Jaiswal struggled against Marco Jansen, and KL Rahul had a disappointing series, yet he remains someone worth persisting with. Media debate aside, he is a top-quality batter. I have said it a number of times and I am willing to say it again – Sai Sudharsan should be India’s regular No. 3. Although he did bat at three in the last Test, his high potential makes him someone India should invest in. He should have consistently batted at number 3 for India.
Shubman Gill, upon return, slots in at four, with Rishabh Pant ideally at five. Ravindra Jadeja fits around six or seven, followed by Kuldeep Yadav, Jasprit Bumrah, and Mohammed Siraj. The batting and bowling units almost select themselves when players are in their natural roles. However, India’s decision-making in this series raised eyebrows. Washington Sundar batting at No. 3 was unusual, as was Kuldeep being promoted to No. 4. Such choices seemed like reactions made under pressure, deviating from initial plans.
Another issue is Nitish Kumar Reddy’s role. The selectors must decide how and when he should be used. As an all-rounder who is not bowling much, his selection becomes questionable. In Test cricket, specialists matter most. One to six should primarily be specialist batters. If No. 5 or No. 6 offers occasional bowling, it is a bonus. But picking an
all-rounder simply for the sake of including one—particularly one who is not contributing many overs—does not strengthen the side. Such selection matters need clarification and correction.
India’s struggle against quality spin remains a major problem, even in home conditions. South Africa’s spinning combination—whether operating as a duo or trio—was of high calibre. This is not a new concern. Whether India’s top spinners are playing enough domestic cricket to help develop the next generation is worth examining. Regardless, South Africa exposed India’s vulnerability, particularly against the left-hand matchups posed by Simon Harmer, who troubled India’s left-handers significantly.
South Africa’s success stems from their strategic planning. Modern touring teams often have fewer warm-up games and reduced preparation time, yet South Africa used their time exceptionally well. Their A-team series, with several senior players—including their captain—participating, ensured they arrived prepared for a two-Test challenge. Their performances reflected this preparation, as nearly every player contributed at some stage. Their only concern may be that many players got starts without converting them into big hundreds, which is usually necessary in India because new batters face immediate difficulty after partnerships break.
Yet South Africa repeatedly rebuilt quickly across both Tests. As has been suggested before, South Africa have arguably benefited more than any other team from the IPL. Many of their players are now comfortable in Indian conditions. They enjoy playing in India, embrace the environment and understand how pitches behave. So it is no surprise that players with extensive experience in India performed strongly in this series.
Simon Harmer stood out, and his journey underscores his dedication. Having played plenty of cricket in the UK, he is someone who loves cricket deeply and embraces every aspect of his craft. His growth has been continuous, and he would have relished the challenge of playing India in India. Thoughtful, introspective and always looking to improve, Harmer likely prepared meticulously for this series—studying opponents and sharpening his plans. His success is well-deserved given the years he has spent honing his craft.
Alongside him, Keshav Maharaj and Muthusamy formed an effective combination. What makes South Africa’s achievement even more impressive is that Kagiso Rabada did not bowl a single ball in the series. His absence highlights the team’s depth. They had the bowlers, the batting, and the leadership to overcome India in their own fortress. South Africa are currently playing like a top side, and much of that comes down to disciplined planning and strong self-belief.
India will need to look inward to correct their issues, and rightly so. But none of that should take away from how special South Africa’s performance was. It was a result built on preparation, clarity, and contributions from across the team—a memorable achievement that fully deserved the praise it has received.
