Identical collapse, different response: South Africa surge while India go astray
Team India (Source: BCCI)
Published - 23 Feb 2026, 10:15 AM• Read time - 3 mins
The Super Eight clash between India and South Africa at the Narendra Modi Stadium unfolded as an event in parallel beginnings and divergent responses. Both sides were shaken early. Both were three down inside the first five overs. Yet from those mirrored positions, the innings that followed moved in polar opposite directions.
South Africa’s start was as fragile as India’s would later be. At 31 for three after five overs, the Proteas had lost Ryan Rickelton, Aiden Markram, and Quinton de Kock, and were operating at 6.20 an over. But the innings soon found a middle‑overs rhythm.
From 31 for three, they progressed to 73 for three in nine overs, lifting the run rate above eight and giving themselves a foothold from which David Miller could build. Their eventual 187 for seven was the product of that shift in tempo as much as individual strokeplay, with Tristan Stubbs (44* off 24) going hell for leather at the fag end of their innings.
India’s chase began in almost identical circumstances. At 29 for three after five overs, with Ishan Kishan, Tilak Varma, and Abhishek Sharma dismissed, the innings was under pressure but not yet adrift. The chase still had room to settle.
What followed, however, was an innings that moved without ever truly gathering pace. The run rate never breached the 7 per over mark and was at its highest (6.31 an over) when India were 101 for eight in the 16th. The innings did not collapse dramatically; it simply never found the acceleration that a target of 188 demanded. At certain junctures, it almost felt like India had shut shop way too early.
One moment in the middle overs drew particular attention for its timing. The decision to send Washington Sundar ahead of Hardik Pandya, Shivam Dube, and Rinku Singh offered India a left‑right combination but placed a relatively under‑prepared batter into a phase that required momentum.
Sundar, playing only his second match of the tournament, had not batted in the earlier game against the Netherlands and had missed the T20I series in the lead‑up to the T20 World Cup due to a side strain. In that context, his promotion carried an element of calculated risk.
His innings reflected the constraints of that situation. Sundar made 11 off 11 balls, a run‑a‑ball contribution comprising four dot balls, five singles, and a single boundary (a six). It was risk‑averse, but it did little to alter the tempo of the chase. With more experienced middle‑order options available, the move sparked curiosity about the tactical reasoning rather than criticism of the player himself.
South Africa, after early turbulence, found a gear that allowed their innings to expand. In comparison, India never put their foot on the accelerator the way the situation demanded. In a match shaped by small margins, that difference proved decisive as India's 12-match-long winning streak came to a screeching halt.
