India’s second consecutive Test whitewash at home was not the only headline out of Guwahati. On the eve of the final day of the second Test, South Africa coach Shukri Conrad triggered a major controversy with a single word — “grovel” — evoking one of the most racially sensitive flashpoints in cricket history.
After South Africa posted a 260 for 5 declared in their second innings, setting India a virtually impossible target of 549, Conrad explained the team’s strategy in his Day 4 press conference. But one phrase immediately sparked uproar.
“We wanted India to spend as much time on their feet out in the field. We wanted them to really grovel, to steal a phrase, bat them completely out the game and then say to them well come and survive on the last day and an hour this evening,” Shukri Conrad said at the day-end press conference on Tuesday (Day 4).
Though the remark may have seemed innocuous to some, its historical context carries far deeper meaning — particularly within the legacy of South Africa’s apartheid past and cricket’s complex racial history.
Why the word “grovel” stirred global outrage
The word drew immediate comparisons to a notorious statement made nearly five decades ago. In 1976, ahead of England’s home Test series against West Indies, then-captain Tony Greig made a similar remark during a BBC interview.
“I’m not really sure they’re as good as everyone thinks. These guys, if they get on top they are magnificent cricketers. But if they’re down, they grovel, and I intend, with the help of Closey [Brian Close] and a few others, to make them grovel,” Tony Greig said in an interview on BBC’s Sports Night program.
The comment provoked a furious reaction from the West Indies squad, uniting the team and galvanizing one of the most dominant eras in cricket history. Clive Lloyd, captain of that West Indies side, later articulated why the term was so deeply offensive.
“The word ‘grovel’ is one guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of any black man. The fact that they were used by a white South African made it even worse. We were angry, and West Indians everywhere were angry. We resolved to show him and everyone else that the days for grovelling were over,” Clive Lloyd said as quoted by ESPNcricinfo.
Tony Greig would later publicly apologize, acknowledging the backlash and the insensitivity of his remark.
“I’m a pressman’s dream, if you talk to me long enough, I will say something controversial. I am bound to offend someone and get myself into deep water. ‘Grovel’ was simply an instance of that,” Greig said on a London radio station.
While Conrad is not a white South African — and his own background includes being part of South Africa’s historically marginalized communities — the historical echoes of the term still carried weight. That the comment came in a dominant position against India, in a post-apartheid global cricket landscape, made it all the more jarring.
Tactical insight lost in controversy
Conrad had used the word while explaining his team’s second-innings declaration strategy, which many saw as aggressive and purposeful. According to the coach, South Africa timed their declaration late on Day 4 to extract every tactical advantage possible.
“We looked at how best we can use the new ball so that in the morning we’ve still got a new-ish, hard-ish ball,” Shukri Conrad said at the day-end press conference on Tuesday (Day 4).
He added that the late declaration was designed to exploit the changing conditions in the evening session.
“What we felt is that when the shadows come across the wicket in the evening, there is something in it for the quick bowlers. We didn’t want to declare too early and not be able to use that. And obviously we wanted India to spend as much time out on their feet out in the field, bat them completely out the game and then say to them ‘well come and survive on the last day and an hour this evening’,” Conrad said.
He insisted the decision was made with sound judgment, even if it drew scrutiny.
“We know they are not just going to roll over. We’re going to have to be at our very best tomorrow. We wanted India to come out after Lunch and spend time on their feet. Their bowlers spent a lot of time out there. We saw the effects of batting for 2 full days in the first innings. It was never going to be easy for their opening batters to come this evening, especially with the new ball, shadows across the wicket. We felt we could have struck there… If tomorrow evening it comes that we have them 8 down and people say ‘see, told you so’… well, we’ve got to base it on our sound judgement and if that doesn’t work out, then it doesn’t. But I don’t think there is a right and wrong in any of this,” he said.
Conrad also reiterated the team’s mindset ahead of Day 5. “So far so good but we also know they’re not just going to roll over. We’re going to have to be at our very best tomorrow,” Shukri Conrad added.
Bavuma responds after South Africa completes the whitewash
India were bowled out for 140 on Day 5, starting from an overnight 27 for 2. Ravindra Jadeja’s 54 offered some resistance, but South Africa’s bowlers wrapped up the match with a 408-run victory — completing a 2-0 series sweep.
In the post-match press conference, South Africa captain Temba Bavuma addressed the controversy and acknowledged that the coach’s language may have crossed a line for some.
“Comments made by coach came to me this morning. I was focused on game and didn’t have a chance to speak to him. Shukri is close to 60 years old and he will have a look at his comments. But in this series certain guys have also crossed the line. Not saying coach crossed the line, but he will surely think about it,” Temba Bavuma said in a post-match press conference after the second Test.
Former players from both India and South Africa, including Anil Kumble and Dale Steyn, also voiced their disappointment over Conrad’s use of the word. Former India wicketkeeper Parthiv Patel went further, calling the remark “disrespectful” and highlighting the coach’s smirk while delivering the line, adding that he expected an apology on the final day.
As debate continues around the remark and its implications, what remains undeniable is South Africa’s dominance on the field — and the emotional legacy that still lingers around one word in cricket’s global vocabulary.
