500 Not Out: India in Test matches

Indian cricket’s faithful servants have conjured moments which have gone down in its history as path breaking, awe-inspiring, and jaw-dropping achievements. On the occasion of India playing its 500th test match, it is apt to have a look at how its fortunes played out in the 84 years that India has played in the international stage.

CK Nayadu’s 153 (11 sixes included) vs the MCC in 1926, Lala Amarnath’s (and India’s) first test century vs England in 1933, Vijay Hazare’s scoring twin hundreds (145 & 116) vs Australia in 1948, Vinoo Mankad and Pankaj Roy’s 413 run opening stand vs New Zealand in 1956, Subhash Gupte’s 9-102 vs West Indies in 1959 were a few of the achievements for Indian cricket pre-1960.

Sunil Gavaskar’s aggregate 774 runs vs West Indies in 1971, series wins in West Indies and England in 1971, India’s first win on Australian soil in 1977, Sunil Gavaskar crossing 10,000 test runs in 1987, Kapil Dev’s 432nd wicket in 1994, Anil Kumble’s 10-74 in 1999, VVS Laxman’s 281 in 2001, Rahul Dravid’s 233 in 2003/04, Sachin Tendulkar’s 35th test century in 2005, Anil Kumble’s 600th test wicket in 2008, Sachin Tendulkar crossing the 15,000 run mark in 2014 – some magnificent achievements for team India since the 70s.

The Lord’s in England played host to India’s first ever test match on June 25, 1932 vs England, a match India lost by 158 runs. It took India 20 years to register its first ever test win (vs England, 1952) and 36 years to register its first ever overseas series win (New Zealand, 1967/68).

While India’s domestic competitions were marked by incredible run making feats (Vijay Merchant vs Vijay Hazare being the most prominent), things were a lot different on the international stage.

The 1983 World Cup triumph changed things and India started to weigh itself favourably against all opposition, and dispel the oft-quoted joke that its batsmen had to be reminded that test matches were not timeless (justifiably so, India’s batsmen scored at 2.40 runs per over up until 1971, better only than Pakistan and New Zealand).

Decade-wise team performance overview

Of the 499 test matches that India has played so far, it has won 129, lost 157, drawn 212 and tied 1. India’s W/L ratio of 0.822 fifth worst in Test history (even below Sri Lanka). While this paints a fairly ordinary picture, it’s important to consider that of the 10 Indian cricketers who have played 100 test matches or more, 7 made their debut after 1989.

The emergence of a prolific crop of cricketers has helped considerably improve the performance stats of Indian cricket since then; it’s W/ ratio has been the third best since both the 1990s and the 2000s, after Australia and South Africa respectively. Also, India has won 86 out of its 129 victories from 1990 onwards.

Table 1: Decade-wise Performance Summary

Decade	Matches	Won	Lost	Tied	Drawn	W/L Ratio
1930s	7	0	5	0	2	0.000
1940s	13	0	6	0	7	0.000
1950s	44	6	17	0	21	0.353
1960s	52	9	21	0	22	0.429
1970s	64	17	19	0	28	0.895
1980s	81	11	21	1	48	0.524
1990s	69	18	20	0	31	0.900
2000s	103	40	27	0	36	1.481
2010s	66	28	21	0	17	1.333
Total	499	129	157	1	212	0.822

Looking at India’s performance on a decade-wise basis provides interesting insight into its performance over the years. Perhaps the most intriguing stat is India’s low W/L ratio in the 1990s, a decade which saw it emerging as the most formidable team to beat at home, but what offsets India’s unbelievable W/L ratio at home (3.4) is its dismal performance in away games (W.L Ratio: 0.07).

Since 2000, the most fulfilling period of Indian cricket when, under Saurav Ganguly’s captaincy, India began to dominate world cricket on the back of both its performance and commerce. The 2000s have also been the only decade where India’s overseas W/L ratio has been greater than or equal to 1.

Table 2: Performance Summary (Home Matches)

Team/Decade	1930s	1940s	1950s	1960s	1970s	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s
Played	3	5	25	36	34	42	30	47	26
Won	0	0	6	6	11	8	17	21	18
Lost	2	1	8	8	7	9	5	8	3
Drawn	1	4	11	22	16	24	8	18	5
W/L Ratio	0.00	0.00	0.75	0.75	1.57	0.89	3.40	2.63	6.00

Ashwin has the lowest bowling average for an Indian bowler with more than 200 wickets

Decade-wise player evaluation

During the 70s, India’s chances in a match relied more on the wicket-taking ability of its famous spin quartet than on the run-making ability of its batsmen. This trend has seen a stunning reversal, especially post the 90s and since then, the dependability has been reversed.

Nevertheless, as most of you would agree, India has produced lesser number of ‘great’ bowlers than its rivals in international cricket (bar New Zealand, Sri Lanka), which is one of the reasons why India has not been able to win overseas on a consistent basis.

Fancy this, amongst all Indian bowlers to have taken 200 test wickets, no bowler averages lower than Ravichandran Ashwin’s 25.06. This is the highest (worst, that is!) average amongst all test playing nations, all of which have at least one bowler with an average of less than 23.

Table 5: Lowest Bowling Average

Team	Bowler	Average
India	Ravichandran Ashwin	25.06
South Africa	Dale Steyn	22.24
Australia	Glenn Mcgrath	21.64
West Indies	Malcolm Marshall	20.94
Sri Lanka	Muttiah Muralitharan	22.72
England	Fred Trueman	21.57
New Zealand	Richard Hadlee	22.29
Zimbabwe	Heath Streak	28.14
Pakistan	Imran Khan	22.8

One way to ascertain the extent of this dependability is to look at how better/worse off the batting and bowling averages have been when compared to the overall averages in the said period. Taking a decade-wise look at this trend just goes to prove the hypothesis stated above.

There has only been one decade (1990s) where Indian bowlers conceded lesser number of runs than the average yield in that decade. Batting, on the other hand, has seen a tremendous reversal, from scoring terribly less than other batsmen in the 1930s (29%), Indian batsmen have gone ahead of the curve in the 1990s and 2000s.

The number for the 2010s presents a challenge, as replacements for India’s retired stellar batsmen look to find their mark.

Table 6: Decade-wise Bowling efficacy

Decade	1930s	1940s	1950s	1960s	1970s	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s
All Teams	32.15	35.34	28.54	32.10	31.90	32.09	33.75	34.10	31.51
India	38.40	46.67	35.09	34.14	33.40	36.39	33.46	34.98	34.32
Factor	19%	32%	23%	6%	5%	13%	-1%	3%	9%

Table 7: Decade wise Batting efficacy

Decade	1930s	1940s	1950s	1960s	1970s	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s
All Teams	31.12	34.26	27.38	30.81	30.76	30.45	29.45	32.02	32.30
India	22.04	24.66	26.45	28.06	30.05	32.13	33.10	35.98	33.03
Factor	-29%	-28%	-3%	-9%	-2%	6%	12%	12%	2%

Decade-wise batsmen evaluation

If your average cricket fan is asked to name three of the greatest cricketers that India has produced over the years, the most probable names would be: Sunil Gavaskar, Kapil Dev and Sachin Tendulkar. Although Rahul Dravid might replace Gavaskar for younger Indian cricket fans, the question is unlikely to bring out any other names beyond these four people.

Without ever contesting the stature of the players named above, one should also concede that there have been many who have contributed significantly to India’s performances over the years. We shall now take a decade-wise look at the most prolific and the most pivotal players in each of them.

For this exercise, I have followed a very simple arithmetic:

#1 Mentioned the most prolific batsman/bowler in a said decade.

#2 Calculate a prolificacy factor, arrived at by dividing his total runs by the number of runs of the next best.

#3 Calculate an efficacy factor, by dividing the average of the most prolific batsman/bowler by the next best.

#4 In case some other cricketer has a better batting/bowling average (considering a suitable cut-off), that average is considered as the benchmark.

#5 Multiply both the factors to arrive at an overall ‘Value Factor’.

A similar arithmetic has been followed to calculate the value factor for performance in wins, to give a balanced/alternate view of performance value.

Higher the value factor for a player during any decade would mean that the team’s fortunes depended more on his shoulders than anyone else. A high-value factor would likely have an adverse affect on the team’s W/L ratio (though it hasn’t been tested).

The table brings out names that won’t surprise many; those who follow the game would have known that Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, and Sunil Gavaskar’s name to come up as the most prolific batsmen in their respective decades. What the table demonstrated is the extent to which these batsmen were better than the next best. From the 1940s onwards, Vijay Hazare, with a factor of 1.58, has been the most prolific batsmen in any decade, followed by Sachin Tendulkar (1.55-1990s) and Sunil Gavaskar (1.22-1970s).

Sachin Tendulkar’s scores seem all the more remarkable because more players than ever were having an extended run. Rahul Dravid’s factor is also remarkable given the talent around in that decade, and his ability to outshine them is a testament to his value and genius.

Table 8: Batsman Value (All Matches)

Decade	Player Name	Mtchs	Runs	Avg	Following Batsman	Runs	Following Batsman (Avg)	Avg	Prolificacy Factor	Efficacy Factor	Value Factor
1930s	V.Merchant	6	460	38.33	CK Nayadu	350	D.Hussain	42.33	1.31	0.91	1.19
1940s	V.Hazare	13	1095	49.77	R. Modi	695	R.Modi	49.78	1.58	1.00	1.58
1950s	P.Umrigar	43	2520	39.38	P. Roy	2280	V.Hazare	45.7	1.11	0.86	0.95
1960s	C.Borde	45	2562	37.13	MAK Pataudi	2552	P.Umrigar	51.47	1.00	0.72	0.72
1970s	S.Gavaskar	60	5647	55.91	G. Vishwanath	4611	S.Gavaskar	55.91	1.22	1.00	1.22
1980s	D.Vengsarkar	71	4501	46.89	S. Gavaskar	4475	M.Amarnath	47.73	1.01	0.98	0.99
1990s	S.Tendulkar	69	5626	58.00	M. Azharuddin	3880	V.Kambli	54.20	1.45	1.07	1.55
2000s	R.Dravid	102	8535	55.42	S.Tendulkar	7129	G.Gambhir	56.73	1.20	0.98	1.17
2010s	V.Kohli	45	3245	45.07	S.Tendulkar	2951	S.Tendulkar	50.01	1.10	0.90	0.99

Decade-wise bowler evaluation

If the bowling chart brings out one stunning statistic, it is that Kapil Dev in 80s carried the entire bowling on his shoulders, he was doing with an effect that none of the Indian bowlers have even come close to. His factor of 2.17 is followed by Anil Kumble (1.75-1990s) and Erapalli Prasanna (1.38-1960s).

India’s low W/L ratio during the 1980s and 1960s (0.524 and 0.429) is a likely outcome of it’s over dependence on one star performer.

Table 9: Bowler Value (All Matches)

Decade	Player Name	Mtchs	Wkts	Ave	Following Bowler (Wkts)	Wkts	Following Bowler (Avg)	Avg	Wkts Factor	Ave Factor	Overall Factor
1930s	Amar Singh	7	28	30.64	M.Nisar	25	M.Nisar	28.25	1.12	0.92	1.03
1940s	V.Mankad	13	40	41.65	L.Amarnath	29	D.Phadkar	30.22	1.38	0.73	1.00
1950s	S.Gupte	31	134	29.13	V.Mankad	122	G.Ahmed	28.18	1.10	0.97	1.06
1960s	E.Prasanna	22	113	27.05	B.Nandkarni	76	S.V'Raghavan	25.17	1.49	0.93	1.38
1970s	B.Bedi	48	196	29.79	B.C'Shekhar	180	Kapil Dev	27.73	1.09	0.93	1.01
1980s	Kapil Dev	80	272	29.54	R.Shastri	141	R.Binny	33.28	1.93	1.13	2.17
1990s	A.Kumble	58	264	27.81	J.Srinath	162	V.Raju	29.79	1.63	1.07	1.75
2000s	A.Kumble	74	355	31.03	H.Singh	322	H.Singh	30.31	1.10	0.98	1.08
2010s	R Ashwin	36	193	25.20	I.Sharma	155	R.Jadeja	23.71	1.25	0.94	1.17

Viswanath’s 14 centuries never resulted in a loss for India

Batsman Value (Wins)

None of Gundappa Viswanath’s 14 test centuries were in a losing cause, Viswanath replacing Gavaskar shouldn’t be any surprise to those who know this fact. There is a strong case for Dilip Vengsarkar to be counted in the same breath as Gavaskar as well, since it was solely on his back that India was winning matches in the 1980s (2.65), briefly during which he was also the most prolific batsman in the world.

Sachin Tendulkar had the company of Mohammad Azharuddin and Vinod Kambli as pivotal match-winners, which reduced his overall value and similar is the case with Cheteshwar Pujara (2010s).

Rahul Dravid’s claim as the momentum changing batsman during the 2000s gets a string boost as he emerges with a high-value factor (1.20) especially when seen in the light of the fact that there were other great names (Tendulkar, Laxman, Sehwag) in the fray.

Decade	Player Name	Mtchs	Runs	Ave	Following Batsman	Runs	Best/Next Best Average	Avg	Prolificacy Factor	Efficacy Factor	Value Factor
1950s	V.Mankad	5	563	112.6	P.Umrigar	371	V.Hazare	121	1.52	0.93	1.41
1960s	MAK Pataudi	9	705	44.1	A.Wadekar	507	A.Wadekar	63	1.39	0.70	0.97
1970s	G.Viswanath	16	1359	50.3	S.Gavaskar	1124	S.Gavaskar	45	1.21	1.12	1.35
1980s	D.Vengsarkar	10	895	74.6	S.Gavaskar	547	M.Amarnath	46	1.64	1.62	2.65
1990s	S.Tendulkar	18	1362	59.2	M.Azharuddin	1336	V.Kambli	74	1.02	0.80	0.82
2000s	R.Dravid	39	3810	74.7	S.Tendulkar	3163	R.Dravid	75	1.20	1.00	1.20
2010s	C.Pujara	17	1551	64.6	S.Tendulkar	1421	VVS Laxman	94	1.09	0.69	0.75

The bowler charts corroborates the claim that Anil Kumble was the biggest match-winner of the 1990s, his exploits on home surfaces were a stuff of legends and his factor brings it out clearly given that India registered all but 1 of its wins during this period at home.

Ravichandran Ashwin’s exploits on home surfaces and against relatively weaker oppositions has pushed his numbers into the elite league. But a win is a win, and winning against a weaker opposition is also a characteristic of a strong team.

Overall	Player Name	Mtchs	Wkts	Ave	Following Bowler	Wkts	Bowler	Avg	Wkts Factor	Ave Factor	Overall Factor
1950s	V.Mankad	5	41	13.32	S.Gupte	22	Jasu Patel	11.94	1.86	0.90	1.67
1960s	E.Prasanna	6	40	17.83	B.Bedi	25	B.Nandkarni	14.00	1.60	0.79	1.26
1970s	B.C'Shekhar	12	86	18.31	B.Bedi	72	E.Prasanna	17.41	1.19	0.95	1.14
1980s	Kapil Dev	11	49	18.0	N.Hirwani	29	M.Singh	11.25	1.69	0.63	1.06
1990s	A.Kumble	17	126	17.05	V.Raju	57	J.Srinath	18.38	2.21	1.08	2.38
2000s	H.Singh	31	175	21.55	A.Kumble	162	A.Kumble	20.07	1.08	0.93	1.01
2010s	R Ashwin	18	124	18.20	P.Ojha	78	R.Jadeja	15.59	1.59	0.86	1.36

India has come a long way since Lala Amarnath registered the first test hundred by an Indian. Players have broken records, ripped bowling attacks apart, and defied them to the brink of helplessness. While India has established an undeniable reputation as a cricket superpower, it is yet to tick some pivotal boxes which would springboard it into an equally formidable force against all opposition.

For now, let’s just celebrate those who have helped us believe in a future of such daring expectations.

India’s subsequent decline in away performances from 2010 onwards is not a typically Indian trait, only 2 teams have had a W/L ratio of more than 1 during this period. Also, the W/L ratio in away matches in the ongoing decade for major test playing nations (excl. Zim and Ban) is .648, which is the third worst for any decade after 1990s and 1980s.

Filtering the period in consideration to start from 2013, the ratio plummets to.0.421, providing further fuel to the debate on doctoring pitches to gain an undue home advantage.

Performance Summary (Away Matches)

Team/Decade	1930s	1940s	1950s	1960s	1970s	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s
Played	4	8	19	16	30	39	39	56	40
Won	0	0	0	3	6	3	1	19	10
Lost	3	5	9	13	12	12	15	19	18
Drawn	1	3	10	0	12	24	23	18	12
W/L Ratio	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.23	0.50	0.25	0.07	1.00	0.56

In any case, what has been the defining feature of India’s performance overall is the gap between its performances at home and abroad, which was the narrowest in the ‘Ganguly Era’ (2000s). That was a decade when India registered wins in Australia, England, West Indies, Pakistan and New Zealand.

In fact, had the ‘Sydney fiasco’ taken a different turn, the decade would have gone by as one where India didn’t lose any rubber outside of the sub-continent (Except New Zealand, 2002/03, West Indies 2002/03 and Pakistan 2006), the only such instant in its history.

This was also a decade where India’s famous batting line-up was in its full bloom, and the results showed in the form of India registering scores of 400 plus more often than it did during any other decade (26% of total innings). Easier wickets and better batsmen offer part of the explanation for this number, but there can be no debate around the fact that the 2000s was a decade India achieved the most satisfying results across all performance indicators.

Decade	1930s	1940s	1950s	1960s	1970s	1980s	1990s	2000s	2010s
Total Innings (Away)	8	15	37	32	56	68	66	100	75
400+ scores	0	0	2	2	9	9	13	26	16
%	0%	0%	5%	6%	16%	13%	20%	26%	21%