After India lost the Southampton Test, Ravi Shastri spoke about the series and his team generally. “If you look at the last three years, we won nine matches overseas and three series,” he observed. “I can’t see any other Indian team in the last 15-20 years who had that kind of run in such a short period. And you have some great players in those teams.”
The condemnation was swift and wide-ranging. Sourav Ganguly said that Shastri’s comments were immature. Sunil Gavaskar reminded us of Indian teams from the 1970s and 80s. His opening partner Chetan Chauhan proposed that Shastri should be sacked before the tour of Australia. The criticism from journalists was stinging, too. The reviews of Shastri and his Indian team seemed to say, “You’re not as good as you think you are. Stay in your place.”
Whether it’s aesthetic distaste for the current team’s style, nationalistic humiliation about the 1-4 result in England, or professional rivalry, the reaction to the Indian head coach’s observations suggests that, at the very least, they were untimely.
What was Shastri really saying? And is he right? How does the current side stack up against its predecessors?
This is not the first time that Shastri has compared this team with its predecessor. He seems to consider that Indian team a benchmark.
In August 2014, after being appointed Director of Cricket when Duncan Fletcher was still head coach, Shastri spoke about India’s results on the 2014 England tour. “If you calculate the number of Tests played by the XI as opposed to some of the tours where we fared worse, here we at least won a Test… We did not win a Test in 1974 (3-0) and were whitewashed on the last tour here [in 2011] with some of the biggest names [in the team]. So if you calculate the number of Test caps between this unit and some of the other units that have come [in the past], it is chalk and cheese.”
It is usually difficult to say when one team ends and the next one begins. But the emergence of Shastri’s benchmark team is unusually clear.
On June 20, 1996, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly made their Test debut. From that Lord’s Test to the Adelaide Test of January 2012, India played 166 Tests and used 86 players. Eight — Dravid (163), Sachin Tendulkar (149), V.V.S. Laxman (134), Ganguly (113), Anil Kumble (108), Harbhajan Singh (98), Virender Sehwag (95) and Zaheer Khan (83) — played in at least half of those games. M.S. Dhoni played 67.
No other player featured in more than 50. These children of the 1970s marked an epoch. Theirs was the team of the cable television era. The youngest of them (Dhoni) was born in 1981. Only 17 of the 86 players played 30 or more of those 166 Tests.
Since that Adelaide Test in January 2012, India has played 67 Tests and used 42 players. Ten — Virat Kohli (65), Cheteshwar Pujara (61), R. Ashwin (58), Ajinkya Rahane (52), M. Vijay (47), Ishant Sharma (42), Ravindra Jadeja (39), Mohammed Shami (36), Shikhar Dhawan (34) and Umesh Yadav (34) — have played at least half of these Tests. They were all born between 1984 and 1992. These players mark another epoch in India’s Test history.
Let’s refer to these two teams as the Dravid-era team and the Kohli-era team. The overall summary (Table 1) suggests that the Dravid-era side played in more draws as a rule. This is a feature of these two Test eras more broadly: 26.7% of all Tests in the Dravid era were draws, while 19.4% of all Tests in the Kohli era have been draws. The Dravid era involves the formative, peak and declining years of that great team. The Kohli era arguably involves only the formative years of the current side.
The makeup of the Indian Test team has changed tactically between these two eras. In the Kohli era, India has consistently preferred the extra bowler, using only five specialist batsmen. In the Dravid era, India almost never played with fewer than six batsmen. In the Dravid era, India was bowled out for 300 or less in 59 out of 117 innings outside Asia (50.43%). In the Kohli era, this has occurred 22 times in 47 innings (46.81%). While the Kohli-era team may lack the batting stardust of the Dravid era, it has been far from poor outside Asia.
These top-line numbers are complete, but it is difficult to make sense of a comparison between a team which played for 16 years and one which has played for six.
A better way to compare these two teams would be in terms of Test series cycles.
Test cricket has traditionally been organised in cycles of home and away tours. For example, in the most recent cycle involving the top eight Test teams, Australia, India and South Africa have the best overall records (Table 2). Beyond its record in this cycle, India has played two extra tours since it last toured New Zealand — it beat Sri Lanka 2-1 away in 2015 and lost 1-3 in England in 2014.
The Test cycle is a rolling phenomenon in which each team is considered on the basis of its last 14 distinct series (home and away against each of the other seven teams). Typically, these series occur in sequence for 12 or 13 of the 14 series at any given time. In Table 2, the current missing tours (many of which are scheduled for the 2018-19 season) in the cycle are listed as well.
As with any rolling phenomenon, the starting point is significant. If we start today and consider the most recent home and away series, then the world of Test cricket appears as in Table 2.
TABLE 2 | ||||
In the latest cycle of home-and-away series against the other top teams, India has won 15 of 21 Tests at home, losing just one, and seven of 21 Tests away, losing nine. Its ratio of wins to losses away is the best of any team in this cycle. | ||||
| Team | Home win-loss (Test in this cycle) | Away win-loss (Tests in this cycle) | Overall win-loss (Test in this cycle) | Notes |
| England | 15-7 (24) | 4-14 (24) | 19-21 (48) | Hasn't toured SL since 2011-12 |
| Australia | 17-2 (24) | 8-12 (22) | 25-14 (46) | - |
| South Africa | 15-5 (22) | 7-10 (21) | 22-15 (43) | Hasn't toured WI since 2010 |
| New Zealand | 8-3 (15) | 5-10 (18) | 13-13 (33) | Hasn't toured SL since 2012-13 |
| West Indies | 4-12 (21) | 2-16 (18) | 6-28 (39) | - |
| Sri Lanka | 10-7 (17) | 3-12 (19) | 13-19 (36) | Hasn't toured Aus since 2012-13 |
| Pakistan | 7-5 (15) | 5-11 (16) | 12-16 (31) | Hasn't toured SA since 2012-13 |
| India | 15-1 (21) | 7-9 (21) | 22-10 (42) | Hasn't toured NZ since 2013-14 |
| Notes: Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Ireland and Afghanistan are omitted since they have not yet been fully integrated into the Test cycle system. India-Pakistan Tests have not been played for over a decade for off-field reasons and the two tours in the cycle have been ignored for both sides. Pakistan's 'home' Tests include those in the UAE. |
If we begin with the 1996 tour of England, the Dravid-era team played in four away cycles, while the Kohli-era team is currently in the middle of its second away cycle. In Table 3, the cycles are organised starting with that ’96 England tour, India’s first away series in three years. Between January 1993 and June 1996, the only Test cricket India played outside Asia was a one-off game in New Zealand.
TABLE 3 | ||||
India's away Test cycles in the Dravid and Kohli eras. The Dravid-era team plkayed in four cycles outside India while the Kohli-era team is in its second | ||||
| Cycle (Tours listed in the sequence in which they occured) | Record | Batting Average | Bowling Average | Overall runs per wicket in period |
Dravid era, 1996-2000, Away Opponents: Eng, SA, WI, SL, NZ, Aus | P:18 | W:0 | L:7 | D:11 | 32.6 | 42.8 | 31.4 |
Dravid era, 2001-2004, Away Opponents: SL, SA, WI, Eng, NZ, Aus, Pak | P:23 | W:6 | L:10 | D:7 | 35.7 | 40 | 36.6 |
Dravid era, 2006-2008, Away Opponents: Pak, WI, SA, Eng, Aus, SL, NZ | P:23 | W:6 | L:7 | D:10 | 35.8 | 37.8 | 35.5 |
Dravid era, 2009-2012, Away Opponents: SL, SA, WI, Eng, Aus | P:17 | W:3 | L:10 | D:4 | 28.9 | 44.9 | 32.1 |
Kohli era, 2013-2016, Away Opponents: SA, NZ, Eng, Aus, SL, WI | P:20 | W:5 | L:8 | D:7 | 33.1 | 37.7 | 33.3 |
Kohli era, 2017-, Away (Ongoing) Opponents: SL, SA, Eng | P:11 | W:5 | L:6 | D:0 | 29.8 | 26.8 | 30.6 |
Note: P: Tests played | W: Won | L: Lost | D: Drawn |
The second away cycle of the Dravid era began in Sri Lanka in 2001 and ended in Pakistan in 2004. The third began in Pakistan in 2006 and ended in New Zealand in 2009.
These were the two best cycles of the Dravid era. They included 1-1 results in England and Australia in 2002 and 2003-04 respectively, 1-0 wins in England and New Zealand in 2007 and 2009 respectively, and a 2-1 win in Pakistan.
The final cycle of the Dravid era started strongly with squared series in Sri Lanka and South Africa, but finished in two disastrous 0-4 defeats in England and Australia which essentially ended the Test careers of Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Zaheer and Harbhajan.
India has won two or more Tests in an away series against an established Test nation seven times in its entire history. Three of these have come in the Kohli era: West Indies (2016) and Sri Lanka (2015 and 2017).
One could suggest that the West Indies and Sri Lanka aren’t what they used to be.
Yet in 2002, India lost 1-2 in West Indies to a bowling attack of Cameron Cuffy, Adam Sanford, Pedro Collins and Mervyn Dillon. West Indies has won only four series out of 22 against established teams at home after Courtney Walsh and Curtly Ambrose retired. One of those was that 2002 series against India. Sri Lanka is not easy to beat in Sri Lanka as South Africa and Australia found out recently.
The contemporary English attack led by James Anderson and Stuart Broad is better than anything India faced in 2002 or 2007 (or even 1996). And India’s win at Adelaide in 2003-04 came against Jason Gillespie, Brad Williams, Andy Bichel and Stuart MacGill. Of these, Williams was out injured for a couple of sessions in India’s first innings, and Gillespie was off the field for the last 50 overs of India’s 72-over chase of 233. India won by four wickets at Adelaide.
It’s worth keeping this is in mind when we consider India’s recent fourth-innings chases and the depth and variety of the English attack it faced.
As these results recede into history, these details tend to be forgotten.
Coach Ravi Shastri, second from right.
Shastri’s running argument on behalf of the current team ever since he first became Director of Cricket in August 2014 has been that they are producing results as good as those produced by the Dravid-era side with its big superstars. In this, the record bears him out. But he’s also right in a broader sense.
The current Indian team exists in a different environment from the one inhabited by its immediate predecessors in the Dravid era and plays accordingly.
In the early Dravid era, India started out as underdogs. Back then, the expectation from away tours was respectability and avoiding humiliation. Playing five bowlers and five batsmen even on a flat batting paradise like the one at the Sydney Cricket Ground in 2004 (the Test produced 1747 runs at 69.88 apiece) was unthinkable.
Not only did India play six batsmen and Parthiv Patel in that game, three of the four bowlers were Irfan Pathan, Anil Kumble and Ajit Agarkar. All three made Test hundreds before they retired. India led by 231 in the fourth innings with less than five sessions left in the game. Yet, it didn’t enforce the follow-on. Instead, it batted again to add 211 runs to the lead. Australia held on with four wickets in hand.
In contrast, the current Indian side is far more attacking. Not only does it play five bowlers regularly, it also picks bowlers without regard for how well they may contribute with the bat.
This win-at-all-costs approach has cost it at least three Tests which it should not have lost. India lost by only 40 runs at Auckland in 2014 despite conceding a first-innings deficit of 301. It lost by 48 runs at Adelaide in 2014 after losing eight wickets in the final session chasing an improbable win. And it lost by 118 runs at the Oval in 2018, losing five wickets in the final session of the game after deciding to go for another improbable win at Tea. All three results might have been different given more experience and pragmatism.
The Kohli-era side has not reached its peak yet. The Dravid-era players peaked after nearly a decade of Test cricket. But the current side’s results, and more critically its approach, suggest that Shastri is right to be optimistic. If anything, the current side probably needs to recognise the value of pragmatism in some circumstances. Even though he is obviously speaking to defend his players rather than as an outside observer, Shastri is closer to the truth than his critics are.
