How good was this series?

Ahmer Naqvi (Wisden.com features editor): One of the best in ages, maybe even best this decade (that I’ve watched). A comeback from 1-0 down, that too against Australia? Glory be to all this is good and pure.

Kshitij Srivastava (Wisden.com script writer): One of the best Test series in recent memory. There were plenty of ups and downs, both teams had their moments, and it was great to see South Africa come back from 1-0 down to win it.

Katya Witney (Wisden.com staff writer): At its best, Test cricket is a combination of undulating, and competitive on-field action, and compelling off-field narratives. This series had both in buckets – the only thing stopping it short of an all-time classic is its length. It was a contest that demanded four or five Tests to play out, but ending after three leaves the story unfinished.

Abhishek Mukherjee (Wisden.com head of special content): This was supposed to be the Series of the Year – a clash between the WTC finalists coinciding with Australia’s return to these shores seven years after Sandpapergate. The contest lived up to all the expectations. Australia won the Durban Test from 124-6 in the first innings, but then South Africa came from 110-6 to win at Gqeberha. The series culminated in a topsy-turvy all-timer where at one point South Africa led by only 81 with five second-innings wickets in hand, yet won comfortably in the end.

Sarah Waris (Wisden.com staff writer): A series that offered a little bit of everything, and a reminder of how quickly the balance of a Test match can shift. The most compelling part was how different players stepped up when needed.

Sankalp Srivastava (Wisden.com news editor): I think Ahmer is almost right when saying this was the best Test series this decade. For me, this was probably the best series since the 2020/21 Border-Gavaskar Trophy. It moved forward every day of play, (except the rained-out days of course) there were no dull moments and it gave a storyline to remember for long.

Who was the best player out there?

Ahmer: I love analytics as much as the next person (so not that much) but I am a narrative and vibes guy. If this series was a film, Kagiso Rabada skipping the first act and stealing the show in the climax would be a strong shout, but I’d reckon whoever plays the role of Temba Bavuma would win the Oscar for best actor.

Kshitij: Marco Jansen. He was outstanding throughout the series, contributing with both bat and ball. His performances also saw him rise to No. 1 in both the Test bowling and all-rounder rankings, which says a lot about the impact he had.

Katya: Bavuma. Not only for one of the best Test hundreds you’ll ever see in the face of a series defeat, but for everything else he embodies. Bavuma is the heart of South African cricket, and has pulled together the threads of a brilliant, dynamic side to centre around him.

Abhishek: Despite my unabashed bias for Bavuma, this one should go to Jansen. To give an idea of how incredible he was, he needed only two runs to become the second South African (after Jacques Kallis) with 200 runs at 40 and 10 wickets at under 20 in a series. A tremendous feat for someone from a country that has consistently produced world-class Test all-rounders.

Sarah: Marco Jansen, for me. There aren’t many genuine all-rounders who can influence a Test with both bat and ball like the way he does.

Sankalp: Bavuma was inspirational again, but Marco Jansen was the best for me. As a stunned friend of mine quipped, he suddenly seemed to be batting like Ian Botham.

What was your favourite (a) batting and (b) bowling performance?

Ahmer: Bavuma for (a). And while I’ve never celebrated Christmas, waking up to Australia bowled out for 99 was the closest to what I imagine it's like, so Marco Jansen’s five-for in the second Test for (b).

Kshitij: (a) Temba Bavuma's 179 in the second Test. (b) Kagiso Rabada's spell in the second innings of the third Test.

Katya: Ryan Rickelton’s ton in the third innings of the last Test. The game was rapidly sliding towards Australia, and Rickelton and Wiaan Mulder were South Africa’s last hopes. They balanced that knife-edge perfectly with attacking shots against the old ball, and became the hinge upon which the series pivoted. As for bowling, it’s hard to look past Simon Harmer running through Australia on the final day, twisting the knife on Cummins’ decision to bowl first.

Abhishek: (a) With South Africa one-down in the series and 110-6 amidst rains in the second Test, Bavuma had to score big and beat the clock to get enough runs to give his bowlers the time they needed. For once, phrases like “captain’s innings” and “leading from the front” did not seem like cliches. (b) In what was supposed to be a battle of pace, Harmer became the first South African spinner to take 10 wickets in a home Test to seal the series. His metronomic precision and deft variations of flight brought an inevitability about his wickets on that final day.

Sarah: (a) Bavuma's 179 in the second Test. With South Africa 110-6, the series on the line and rain threatening to eat into playing time, he had to balance the need for a big total with the urgency of scoring quickly. His innings turned a precarious position into a match-winning one. (b) Rabada's opening burst in Australia's final innings of the third Test. Harmer may have taken the headlines with his six-wicket haul, but Rabada had already made the chase an uphill task.

Sankalp: Bavuma in Gqeberha was the best of the lot. To stay locked in across two rain-affected days and still going on to slam your best Test score, with your team a game down and 93-5 against Australia? Incredible! As for bowling, Kagiso Rabada’s spell on the last morning of the series was mind-blowing.

South Africa have lost only one Test under Temba Bavuma's captaincy 🇿🇦 #Cricket #SAvAUS https://t.co/S66jcuikNI

— Wisden (@WisdenCricket) November 1, 2026

What was the turning point of the series?

Ahmer: Obvious answer, but Bavuma’s stands with Jansen and Harmer in the second Test. A less obvious answer would be Steve Smith’s injury.

Kshitij: South Africa's recovery from 110/6 to 425 in the second Test.

Katya: See my answer above. Australia had taken a 100-run first-inning lead in that final Test, and had South Africa 181-5. By every measure they should have won that match and the series with it. But Rickelton and Mulder heaved it back into South Africa’s favour. Either that, or perhaps Cummins’ decision three days earlier to bowl first, and allow Simon Harmer centre stage on the final day.

Abhishek: Bavuma’s hundred and his stands with Jansen and Harmer in the first innings at Gqeberha. Perhaps on a lesser note, the partnership between Ryan Rickelton and Wiaan Mulder in Newlands.

Sarah: I'd go with Australia's collapse in the first innings of the third Test. They were 330-4 and in a strong position to take control, but South Africa fought back to bowl them out for 429. That restricted the first-innings lead to 100, rather than allowing Australia to build a potentially decisive advantage.

Sankalp: Jansen’s counter-attack in the second Test left Australia in shock. They were all over South Africa, but the all-rounder just came and knocked away boundaries for fun. I think it was his approach which enabled Bavuma and then Harmer to bat longer than they thought they would.

Rate both teams’ management (coaches, selectors, captain)

Ahmer: I am seriously impressed with Shukri Conrad’s body of work, across formats. He’s managed to add something special to his side’s mental strength, which you also see in Bavuma. His huge call on picking Harmer over Keshav Mahraj was one of several that paid off. As for Australia, I never thought Nathan Lyon would get dropped before Marnus Labuschagne, but sticking with him felt like the selectors choosing to go down with the ship.

Kshitij: Shukri Conrad deserves a lot of credit. Leaving out Keshav Maharaj for Harmer in consecutive Tests was a big selection call. But what impressed me most was Conrad's response after Harmer took 6-16 in the third Test, saying that "It's not about the selection being justified by Simon doing what he did today. It's what we believed was the right call and we've got to live by that." It showed conviction in his own judgement, regardless of the outcome. For Australia, their decision to bowl after winning the toss in the third Test was a surprising one. It had happened only 11 times previously in Tests at Newlands since 1889, and it didn't work out for the visitors.

Katya: To properly assess this you would need to go back further than this series, but the way both sides approached making the tough calls is arguably where the series was won (and lost). South Africa brought Harmer into the fold over Maharaj, recalled David Bedingham and backed Marques Ackerman to open. They’ve also crafted a squad over a number of years with the depth to combat different conditions and injuries to key players. Australia, on the other hand, have been reluctant to move their older or fading players on, of which Marnus Labuschagne is the most glaring example, and tried to use Nic Maddinson as a stop-gap for their opening hole. It was behind the scenes as much as on the field where South Africa’s win was built.

Abhishek: Leaving out their best modern spinner in Maharaj and a consistent performer in Kyle Verreynne were tough calls but South Africa did not hesitate to make them. As Kshitij mentioned above, Conrad’s conviction in his judgement was outcome-agnostic. On the other hand, nothing Australia tried seemed to work – with the exception of Matt Renshaw’s recall.

Sarah: Conrad deserves credit for creating a side that seems comfortable with making difficult decisions. The Harmer selection was the obvious example, but South Africa also showed flexibility in reshaping their XI, with Rickelton taking over the gloves and Verreynne losing his place. Bavuma, meanwhile, brought a calmness to the side and led by example when the series was slipping away. Their management seemed to have a clear idea of what they wanted from the team. For Australia, their biggest failure was an inability to respond once South Africa found their footing. The batting collapses in the second and third Tests exposed a side that seemed short of answers. The decision to persist with Labuschagne while leaving Lyon out also raised questions about their selection priorities.

Sankalp: Australia don’t have many better options waiting in the wings, but surely someone would do better than Marnus at this stage? The selectors probably left it too late, and gave the captain and coach too little to play with. Huge props to Conrad for trusting his instincts and sticking with his calls – you don’t become the best side in the world without confidence and conviction.

South Africa have climbed to the top of the ICC Test rankings following a memorable series victory over Australia 🇿🇦 https://t.co/FRp6J24r59

— Wisden (@WisdenCricket) October 31, 2026

How does this impact both teams’ WTC chances?

Ahmer: Not going to make the mistake of writing Australia off, but they really need to fix their batting ahead of a massive season of Test cricket. South Africa’s chances for this WTC look great, and I feel this win did just as much to justify their previous WTC title, which the haters had issues with.

Kshitij: South Africa are in a very strong position, and winning their home series against Bangladesh and England could put them firmly on course for another WTC final. Australia have nine Tests left, including a challenging five-Test series in India, and will need to win at least six of those to put themselves in a strong position. Their batting will need to improve significantly if they're to manage that.

Katya: Australia are in the middle of a huge Test match block, which gives them an opportunity to claw back the ground they lost in South Africa. Up next is New Zealand, who they haven’t lost a Test match against since 2011. That series also gives them a little bit of time to figure out what comes next before a five-Test epic in India. South Africa should consider themselves as favourites to qualify for the final, with a home series scheduled against England, and shorter series’ against Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

Abhishek: South Africa should qualify for their second consecutive final. Fingers had been raised at their schedule when they reached the final in 2025, and their win was treated as an upset. However, with a 2-0 sweep in India and this series win, they have proved they belonged. Australia’s situation does not look as promising for three reasons. They face a strong New Zealand side who currently top the standings and are in the hunt themselves, and then end their league stage in India, where they have won two Tests and lost 12 across their last five tours.

Sarah: South Africa have given themselves a very good chance of making it to a second consecutive WTC final, and this time there should be fewer complaints about their route there. Australia, meanwhile, are far from out of it, but after being bowled out for 99 and 111 in successive Tests, they might want to sort out the batting before worrying about another final.

Sankalp: Technically, Australia can still find their way back, but I’m not backing them now. New Zealand and South Africa will play the WTC final.