Image Source- Getty
When the large screen flashed three reds, Kagiso
Rabada was more amused by technology than by Steven Smith. It proved what very
few people, including Quinton de Kock, had suspected would happen: the delivery
Rabada produced, which straightened from middle stump and struck Smith high on
the pad, would go on to hit leg stump.
Temba Bavuma chose to review what seemed to be an
appeal for the sake of appealing at de Kock’s urging. The ball appeared to be
missing a leg upon quick inspection, even crossing the stumps. Smith would be
temporarily prevented from fighting Rabada because Rabada himself was “hoping
for an umpire’s call,” allowing South Africa to keep the review. The
preceding two balls were smashed for four runs, and Smith appeared to be in
imperious form. However, the DRS allowed Rabada to break up Smith’s stay and
open a middle-order gap for Australia. A chuckle would have been appropriate at
any time.
The significance of that wicket resides in the fact
that Smith was the one who was dismissed, that Rabada was the one to do so, as
well as the subsequent events that were set off by the dismissal. Of course,
the two have a history that goes back to 2018, when Smith was removed in a Test
match at St. George’s Park, and Rabada’s shoulder made contact with Smith as he
celebrated. Then, in a series now known as Sandpapergate, the incident caused
Australia to fall apart. This time, it too led to a collapse: starting with
Smith, Australia lost four wickets for 20 runs, and Rabada was accountable for
three of them.
He caught Marcus Stoinis behind off the bottom glove,
which may or may not have been in contact with the top glove, then cleaned up
Josh Inglis, a wicket that was obviously a wicket. Once more, technology
favoured South Africa.
Although it is important to note that Australia only
half-heartedly requested a review on the pitch when they believed Quinton de
Kock had stolen from Cummins and UltraEdge only displayed a flat line, it would
be unfair to South Africa to attribute their victory solely to the DRS and fail
to give credit to a flexible batting strategy supported by a strong attack. In
contrast to Delhi, when South Africa might profit from the final 10 overs,
where they scored 137 runs against Sri Lanka, on a surface that slowed up in
Lucknow, they had to start well and did.
South Africa is displaying adaptability skills that
are necessary for a lengthy event spread over numerous venues. On a pitch that
was predicted to produce considerable turn and actually did, they chose a
three-two combination in Lucknow while selecting four seamers and a spinner for
Delhi. The most of the damage had already been done when Keshav Maharaj and
Tabraiz Shamsi were enlisted, and there may still be concerns about how swiftly
they were able to clean up the Australian tail. South Africa played
“pretty much the perfect game” for Rabada.
They have an outstanding record against Australia over
the past seven years and, before to today, had defeated them in 15 of 20 ODIs,
including a recent home series that they won 3-2. Their bowlers had some
well-known names and reputations going into this competition, but Nortje and Magala
were largely viewed as the supporting cast to their elite top six, who are
expected to set the tone. They haven’t been put to the test in a chase, so it’s
helped that they were given the chance to bat in both games. They slipping in
under the radar in both their own nation and this one has also helped.
Perhaps quietly, that has given South Africa the
opportunity to have a laugh amongst themselves as they continue to announce
their presence at this event. But is it too early to dare to dream? Obviously.
And for now, that’s it that we’ll say about South Africa.