David Burke Pots

If you're a discerning follower of South African cricket, you're either frustrated or bored with the narrative that your team can't or won't win a World Cup, because they don't know how to deal with the pressure. You may recognise that even though it's a stereotype that's stuck for a reason, it's also too easy to haul out for mass-readership, and lacks in critical analysis. And you will know, and even admit, that although there has definitely been some choking in the past, there have also been times when they have just been outplayed, or erred in selection, or failed to adapt to conditions, or just had rotten luck.

You would have hoped - no, you would have believed - each time would be different. And you have reason to, because South Africa's tournament-play record is excellent. They have won 75 out of 111 matches in group stages or preliminary rounds, which equates to just more than two-thirds of the matches they have played. India, who have two ODIs and one T20 World Cup to their name, have won 85 out of 124 matches, which is roughly the same victory percentage. Only Australia, with 90 out of 126 wins (71%) have done better.

While you already know South Africa fall short in knockouts, but just in case you need a reminder of how short: they have won one of ten - the 2015 ODI World Cup quarterfinal. That record is worse than any team that has played more than one knockout match. And South Africa, the men, have never got to a World Cup final.

If World Cups were played like leagues - competitions without finals - South Africa might have won many. But they are not. So they are about consistency, but equally about an alchemical combination of form meeting fortune.

Which is what seems to be happening to South Africa at this event.

They have got a perfect record - seven out of seven - but could have lost six of those.

Netherlands, Bangladesh, Nepal, USA, England and West Indies all pushed South Africa to breaking point, and each time they found a way. David Miller carried the chase against Netherlands, Ottneil Baartman bowled a clutch penultimate over against Bangladesh, Quinton de Kock's game awareness and a random deflection provided victory via a run-out against Nepal, Kagiso Rabada's death-bowling maturity kept USA at bay, and Marco Jansen held his nerve with ball against England and bat against West Indies. There have been different match-winners in different match situations and, seemingly, a sprinkling of magic that has never before scattered itself so generously on South Africa.

Seven times now, a cricket-loving nation has collectively held its breath, expecting the worst. And all seven times, they have been able to exhale and celebrate. This is uncharted territory, and who knows where it may lead?

Those who ascribe sentiment to superstition will look at things like the fact that Aiden Markram captained the South Africa men's Under-19 side to the World Cup win ten years ago - which was also the last time South Africa made a T20 World Cup semi-final - and see some element of destiny in the fact that it's Markram again. Others will view the win over Netherlands after two losses to them in the last two global tournaments as the sign that things will change. Or that the rain delay that lasted 75 minutes in what was a virtual quarter-final against West Indies earlier this week was a case of weather gods aligning on South Africa's side.

All that adds to the flavour and folklore of our sport, but none of it is fact.

What is, is that South Africa have done things their own way this time. From coach Rob Walter selecting a squad by himself - his prerogative as the only selector - to Markram making left-field decisions that surprised even Walter.

Walter has walked a tightrope, between angering politicians with a squad that only included one black African player and embarrassing his employers by forcing them to admit transformation had not worked as hoped, and trusting his gut. Essentially, all of that was down to one decision: the inclusion of Anrich Nortje ahead of Lungi Ngidi despite his long absence through injury and expensive returns at the IPL. Walter backed Nortje's pace and has been proved right, mainly because of Nortje's ability to change that pace.

Markram is an understated captain off the field and an alpha competitor on it. His catches to dismiss Mahmudullah and Harry Brook, both at stages where the game was about to be taken away from South Africa, gave no numerical value on the scoreboard but are worth their weight in wins. And they were no flukes. Markram has been taking stunners all year. In the SA20, Markram has 14 catches, the joint-highest across two tournaments, which includes a one-handed wonder in the qualifier to dismiss JJ Smuts this year.

Though he is not scoring the runs he would want, his captaincy has made up for that. His tactics in the West Indies game was one of the best examples of flexible thinking displayed by a South African leader because: he bowled 12 overs of spin (never done before at a T20 World Cup by a South African team), and he did that before he introduced Kagiso Rabada, in the 18th over, the latest Rabada has ever bowled his first over in a T20 game.

Those two examples show that Markram is willing to do what South Africans have historically not been able to, and move away from a bull-headed belief in pace despite conditions. Of course, he is only able to do that because of the quality of the spinners at his disposal and, in particular, the reliability of Keshav Maharaj. Though Maharaj doesn't have South Africa's best economy rate or their most wickets, it is difficult to think of an XI without him because of his ability to control stages of the game. Maharaj seldom makes the headlines but he is always part of the story and allows the rest of the attack to play around him.

If there is an area where South Africa could come undone, it's in the batting. Their top three have been inconsistent and the middle order has only shown glimpses of the reputation they came into the tournament with. But all that has to be caveated. South Africa played three of their four group matches in New York, where batting was so difficult that Walter is willing to discard those returns when he assesses his players and chooses his semi-final team. Walter said that specifically in reference to the form of Reeza Hendricks, the lowest run-scorer in the top six. Which indicates he will keep his place. "Reeza has been one of the standout T20 batters in our line-up for a while now. And he deserves the opportunity to make a few errors, but still feel trusted in our line-up."

The turn of phrase is both cute and crucial. T20 cricket is about allowing players the freedom to take risks without constantly being in fear of losing their place. That is not typically the South African way. This is a country where taking a chance, in life and in sport, can have serious consequences. Walter's challenge has been to create a space for creativity while building a scaffolding of support so his players can try things and sometimes fail while still being part of his plans. So far, he has succeeded. His next challenge is to replicate that in an environment of expectation that has usually suffocated South Africa: a semi-final.

What may work for him is that Afghanistan are a team they would have been happy to play if offered the choice. South Africa will see Afghanistan as a less intimidating prospect than Australia, for example. But they will also need to guard against that kind of thinking.

Though Afghanistan's batting may not seem like they can stand up to express pace and bounce, South Africa have done so much work to show that they are about more than that that they shouldn't fall into the trap of playing to stereotypes. That also means their batting should not be spooked by Afghanistan's spin. That would be too convenient a way to end a tournament that seems filled with new beginnings. South Africa will have to remind themselves that they have played in a most un-South African of ways and could script perhaps the most un-South African of endings. And that is the kind of plot twist their discerning fans want.