It is mid-afternoon on Sunday, April 2. I am enjoying glorious weather, reminiscent of South Africa, with soaring temperatures, which is not the usual rainy, gloomy and cold London.

I find myself in Putney, where there are an estimated 300 000 people at the River Thames. They have made their way to watch the Boat Race, which starts at Putney bridge and ends in Mortlake, a course of about 4.2 miles, or 6.8 km. A further 15-million people are said to have tuned into their television sets to watch the rowing race.

It is the 163rd yearly eight-man rowing race and the 72nd eight-woman rowing race between the Oxford University Boat Club and the Cambridge University Boat Club. The first boat race was held in 1829 and the race has been held every year since 1856, except during the First and Second World Wars.

Until 2016, Cambridge men had won the race 82 times and Oxford men 80 times, with one dead heat. This year, the Oxford men won the boat race by a mere four seconds, increasing the team’s tally to 81, just one behind Cambridge.

But it was the woman’s race that had all the drama. Cambridge beat, or crushed, as some commentators said, the more fancied Oxford by 11 lengths. In the process, Cambridge set a record for the race on the Thames, becoming the first eight-woman team to break 19 minutes. To put this in context, their time beats several of the recent winning times in the men’s race.

What you might not know is the reason why the win was so decisive, and also when, during the race, the Cambridge team beat the more fancied Oxford team.

Well, it all happened at the start. It is here that Oxford’s race was lost. One of the Oxford rowers caught a crab. Yes, she caught a crab. Now you might wonder if there are crabs in the Thames. Well, for the record, there are. But ‘catching a crab’ is a term rowers use when the oar blade gets ‘caught’ in the water. According to people in the know, this is caused by a momentary flaw in oar technique. It is said that it has happened to anyone who has ever rowed. The caught ‘crab’ might be minor, allowing the rower to quickly recover, or it may be so forceful that the rower is ejected from the boat.

In the case of Oxford, it resulted in two rowers having to recover the oar blade while the rest of the rowers were at full pace. This, of course, impeded the rhythm of the crew, as well as the direction, and ultimately hindered the boat from travelling at full speed. This small error resulted in Oxford being four lengths behind. To add insult to injury, Cambridge won the toss and, as a consequence, had the better line for the duration of the race, which, in the end, added another seven lengths.

This made me wonder about the recent Cabinet reshuffle, mere days before, and, in particular, the departure of not only former Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan but also his deputy, Mcebisi Jonas, at a time when South Africa’s revenue authority has recorded a major revenue collection shortfall. This also happened at a time when international rating agencies have expressed their concern about South Africa, maintaining the country’s investment grade just a notch above ‘noninvestment’ grade, or junk status. The reason for this is understood to be the ongoing political risk as factional battles in the governing party intensify, policy inconsistencies and low economic growth.

Interestingly, earlier this year, theconversation.com identified the possible steps that South Africa could take to avert a downgrade, which included ensuring that the now dismissed Finance Minister would be secure in his job and putting an end to wasteful expenditure.

Talking about expenditure; it is not only government expenditure that is a cause for concern. According to the World Bank, South Africans are the biggest borrowers in the world, and according to the National Credit Regulator’s statistics, about 20% of consumers in the country are three months in arrears.

Will the new Finance Minister and Deputy Finance Minister heed this international advice, or will they make any pronouncements on what the theconversation.com calls “rectifying the four mistakes that have led [South Africa] to drift to the point of a downgrade”?

In the first instance, government policy needs to be clear, consistent and growth-orientated.

Secondly, rather than considering further borrowing or increasing taxes, government must cut nonproductive spending and restructure nonviable State-owned entities, especially those that rely on bail-outs or have become too large to manage. On March 27, the cash-strapped South African Airways increased its losses to R4.5-billion – an increase of R2.8-billion in the last six months. In this day and age, national airlines are considered vanity projects.

Thirdly, government must ensure that business confidence does not deteriorate further, which can be achieved by desisting from issuing conflicting political statements that cause investors to panic.

Fourthly, President Jacob Zuma must quell the uncertainty around the Finance Minister’s position. Well, the President did, you may argue, quell the uncertainty around the Finance Minister’s position and went further by also addressing the uncertainty around the Deputy Finance Minister’s position. Both made way for new incumbents.

So, did Zuma’s action result in the South African economy catching a crab? It might well be too early to offer a definite answer. Although the financial markets did not respond with the same vigour and to the same extent as they did when Nhlanhla Nene was fired as Finance Minister in 2015, this does not mean that the markets are not unsettled. The President’s action might well have hindered, or even broken, the South African economy’s rhythm. In an international, competitive environment, a country can ill afford this. More critically, it may be unable to recover.