Crumbling middle order to run drought: India’s 3-0 loss to SA an eye-opener

Three-and-a-half weeks back, when India scored their first-ever Test win in Centurion, few would have imagined that that would be the visitors’ only victory on this tour of South Africa. And yet here we are, lamenting another missed opportunity, another shot at history gone horribly astray, another what-might-have-been lament.

It’s been a miserable 2022 so far for India; their record reads played five, lost five – two Test matches, followed by a 3-0 hammering in the One-Day International series which concluded on Sunday. Rahul Dravid, the head coach, called it a timely ‘eye-opener’, but in his heart of hearts, the former skipper will know that no matter how wide the eyes might have opened, that realisation alone is not going to help turn things around.

The ODI series was a complete shocker, there is no other way of putting it. Even accounting for the fact that it was India’s first ODI series since last March – let us for the moment set aside the fact that a second team played in Sri Lanka in July when the Test squad was doing battle in England – and that several key personnel were missing, even allowing for the increasingly stifling atmosphere of sustained bio-secure bubbles and the resultant fatigue, India had no business surrendering in the manner in which they did. More than the scoreline itself, it was in how they courted defeat that was particularly galling.

Over a period of time, India have come to be synonymous with a certain brand of cricket – aggressive, passionate, positive, attacking. Win or lose, they have worn their hearts on their sleeve, taking a lead from mercurial skipper Virat Kohli who loved playing conductor to an orchestra that included his colleagues as well as the thousands that populated the stands, never mind if India were playing at home or in more alien lands.

That passion and fire was conspicuous by its absence in the three matches in South Africa, KL Rahul’s first three outings as India’s 50-over captain, if only in a temporary capacity. Rahul might be many things – even if some of them, such as tactical acumen and astute bowling changes or field placements haven’t necessarily surfaced thus far – but he is no Kohli. No one is, for that matter, and Rahul doesn’t need to be anyone other than who he is. However, on the evidence of what one saw, he didn’t seem to possess the chutzpah that would inspire his mates to be the best they could be ball after ball, minute after minute.

Also read: India Vs South Africa: Gavaskar questions K L Rahul’s ‘planning & strategy’

White-ball India appeared uncharacteristically limpid, tame, ponderous and laborious. Their decision-making bordered on the dubious, the execution of skills was off-kilter. With all due respect to South Africa, who played as well as they were allowed to and sometimes beyond that, they were confronted by a poor imitation of an Indian team which at various stages appeared content to go through the motions, perhaps with one foot on the flight waiting to take them back home after six weeks in the land of the Protea.

India’s problem areas were neither novel nor unexpected – the lack of muscle and consistency in the middle-order, and the inability to make inroads in the middle overs, where the big-talking R. Ashwin once again failed to marry words with deeds. There is no need to press the panic button yet because, at the end of the day, it is just one series and most likely, the energy and outlook will change once designated white-ball skipper Rohit Sharma returns for the home series against West Indies in the first week of February. But India must be mindful that they haven’t always addressed these banana skins with any great effectiveness in the past and that if they continue to be blasé, it will be at a big price.

At a time when the world of 50-over cricket is evolving as an extended variant of the 20-over format, India, for some reason, saw merit in adopting the same conservatism and timidity that cost them so dearly at the World T20 in the UAE late last year. That conservatism began with the selection of the squad and of playing XIs. India reposed faith in old warhorses Shikhar Dhawan, Bhuvneshwar Kumar, and Ashwin while pulling Jayant Yadav out of cold storage. Beyond the left-handed opener, none of them did anything of note to justify the faith. Surely, there’s a message in it that the Chetan Sharma-led selection panel can no longer afford to overlook.

Also read: Under Kohli, India played every match looking to win, even if risky

The powers that be will also do well to get in Rishabh Pant’s ears more effectively. The precocious wicketkeeper-batsman is a special talent, of that there is little doubt. But special skills don’t afford the licence to be daft, to be mentally bankrupt when it comes to situational awareness. ‘That’s the way he bats’ is no longer an excuse for cringeworthy hoicks in both formats on tour. Pant is 24, being touted as a future leader and has been an international cricketer for more than five years. It’s time he starts to be more measured in his choice of shots, especially at the very start of the innings when he must be focusing on trying to get a hang of the bowling and the conditions rather than charging and tonking world-class bowlers whose abilities and reputation warrant watchfulness and respect.

Pant’s keeping has also gone backwards from the highs of last year when he was so outstanding while keeping to Ashwin and Axar Patel on tricky tracks in India. Perhaps through laziness or lack of attention to detail, his technique has regressed both against spinners and pacers, as the coaching staff will certainly have noticed. He is too valuable an asset to be allowed to go astray at a time when the world is his oyster.

Dravid’s first full overseas tour as head coach has been a humbling reality check. If he didn’t already, he knows much work lies ahead of him, work made more challenging by the change in leadership across formats. He wouldn’t have expected this moment of reckoning so early in his tenure, but that’s exactly what the unpredictability of competitive sport throws up, doesn’t it?