There's been much brouhaha over India's rapid descent into one-sided football scorelines and becoming what some would term "the world's worst overseas team". And while there's some logic to the cries for wholesale changes, revamping the team, and attitude problems, much of it is over the top. About the only two sensible pieces I have read recently are by Ganguly and Siddhartha Vaidyanathan questioning the lack of spirit and fight shown by the team. What's most surprising to me is that some people seem to think that the team (which was ranked #1 till recently and won the World Cup less than a year back) is suddenly a pile of dung. This when there are still several pieces of information (numbers of course) that have either been ignored or not analysed clearly at all. So here's an attempt to balance the books a little. Consider the following -
1) India's overseas record in 5 year segments roughly over the last two decades is as below:
1991-1995 - Played 14, Won 1, Lost 5, Drawn 8; W/L Ratio = 0.20 and % Drawn = 57%
1996-2000 - P 21, W 1, L 9, D 11; W/L = 0.11 and % D = 52%
2001-2005 - P 29, W 11, L 11, D 7; W/L = 1.00 and % D = 24%
2006-2010 - P 32, W 11, L 9, D 12; W/L = 1.22 and % D = 38%
2011-date - P 10, W 1, L 6, D 3; W/L = 0.16 and % D = 24%
So while the team's record in 2011 has undoubtedly taken a severe beating and slipped considerably compared to the period between 2001-2010, the win-loss ratio is not much shabbier than it was in the 1990s. What has changed is a seeming loss of the ability to draw matches abroad.
2) Since April 2008 (which is roughly when Dhoni took over as captain), if you look at the overseas records of teams till before India's tour of England, India's is easily the second best and given their extremely strong home record (compared to South Africa), any talk of the #1 ranking being achieved undeservedly is utter rot. It is true that in that period, most of India's overseas engagements came against lesser opposition but surely that's no fault of Dhoni (or his team). And despite the battering received in England last summer and Australia now, a look at the overall records for all teams (home and away since April 2008) shows India in fourth place (on the basis of win-loss ratio) which feels like a fair assessment of the team's current capabilities (though Pakistan could very justifiably say they are on form the best Asian team at the moment).
3) The primary problem for the team both in England and Australia has been the batting and the inability to put fighting totals together in good bowling conditions. However, this again shouldn't have come as a total surprise. Even in the period prior to the England tour (ie Apr 2008 - July 2011), its not as though all the Indian batsmen were reigning supreme in the overseas batting record charts (excluding matches against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe). True Tendulkar, Gambhir, and Laxman had all done really well and the drop in their averages is a big part of what has caused problems for India but Dravid, Sehwag, and Dhoni averaged more or less the same as they have over the entire period (including the 0-7 tours). Moreover, if overseas batting averages were the sole criteria to pick batsmen then Phil Hughes, Simon Katich and Marcus North would still be playing for Australia (given they top the away averages for Australia). India's real problem has been the lack of challengers for the established players and the fact that none of the younger players given chances has been able to bed down a place in XI. Yuvraj Singh could probably count himself a touch unlucky but given his experience he should have been averaging more than 40. The others (Raina, Vijay, Kohli, Mukund, and Pujara) have been quite disappointing so far though the last named could argue he hasn't had enough time. Will Rahane and Sharma make a difference? Only time will tell.
4) If you compare away bowling averages for all teams, India go from third (for the period Apr '08 - Jul '11) to sixth (for the period Apr'08 - Jan '12). A similar comparison of away batting stats places the team at a constant fifth position both in the "pre-debacle" and overall period. So while the batting has definitely been an issue, the bowling's not blameless either.
Ultimately I guess what I'm trying to say is that while recent Test results are very poor and there's no hiding from that fact, its a bit shameful when the media tends to react like fans and jump on the bandwagon for change without analysing the facts objectively. Malcolm Knox's balanced view on the changing of the guard is probably what should be made mandatory reading for all concerned.
So while the team's record in 2011 has undoubtedly taken a severe beating and slipped considerably compared to the period between 2001-2010, the win-loss ratio is not much shabbier than it was in the 1990s. What has changed is a seeming loss of the ability to draw matches abroad.
2) Since April 2008 (which is roughly when Dhoni took over as captain), if you look at the overseas records of teams till before India's tour of England, India's is easily the second best and given their extremely strong home record (compared to South Africa), any talk of the #1 ranking being achieved undeservedly is utter rot. It is true that in that period, most of India's overseas engagements came against lesser opposition but surely that's no fault of Dhoni (or his team). And despite the battering received in England last summer and Australia now, a look at the overall records for all teams (home and away since April 2008) shows India in fourth place (on the basis of win-loss ratio) which feels like a fair assessment of the team's current capabilities (though Pakistan could very justifiably say they are on form the best Asian team at the moment).
3) The primary problem for the team both in England and Australia has been the batting and the inability to put fighting totals together in good bowling conditions. However, this again shouldn't have come as a total surprise. Even in the period prior to the England tour (ie Apr 2008 - July 2011), its not as though all the Indian batsmen were reigning supreme in the overseas batting record charts (excluding matches against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe). True Tendulkar, Gambhir, and Laxman had all done really well and the drop in their averages is a big part of what has caused problems for India but Dravid, Sehwag, and Dhoni averaged more or less the same as they have over the entire period (including the 0-7 tours). Moreover, if overseas batting averages were the sole criteria to pick batsmen then Phil Hughes, Simon Katich and Marcus North would still be playing for Australia (given they top the away averages for Australia). India's real problem has been the lack of challengers for the established players and the fact that none of the younger players given chances has been able to bed down a place in XI. Yuvraj Singh could probably count himself a touch unlucky but given his experience he should have been averaging more than 40. The others (Raina, Vijay, Kohli, Mukund, and Pujara) have been quite disappointing so far though the last named could argue he hasn't had enough time. Will Rahane and Sharma make a difference? Only time will tell.
4) If you compare away bowling averages for all teams, India go from third (for the period Apr '08 - Jul '11) to sixth (for the period Apr'08 - Jan '12). A similar comparison of away batting stats places the team at a constant fifth position both in the "pre-debacle" and overall period. So while the batting has definitely been an issue, the bowling's not blameless either.
Ultimately I guess what I'm trying to say is that while recent Test results are very poor and there's no hiding from that fact, its a bit shameful when the media tends to react like fans and jump on the bandwagon for change without analysing the facts objectively. Malcolm Knox's balanced view on the changing of the guard is probably what should be made mandatory reading for all concerned.
Comments