Some of India's overseas test stats for the decade pre 2011

[CSK Fan]

For those who pretend we were not improving in overseas tests Outside the sub continent (except WI) in 9 years from 2002 to 2010 - so basically Aus SA, England and NZ Played 25 Win 7 Lost 9 Drew 9 v Australia 8 matches win 2, lost 3, drew 2 v England 7 matches won 2, lost 1 drew 4 v South Africa 5 matches won 2, lost 3 Not mind blowing stats but definitely good fight ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Against Australia in Australia in the decade 2001 to 2010 India played 8 matches won 2, lost 3, drew 3 South Africa played 9 matches, won 2, lost 6, drew 1 England played 14, won 3, lost 10, drew 1 Pakistan lost 6 in 6. Sri Lanka drew 1 match out of 4 and lost everything So clearly we were the best team against Aussies for a decade, both home and away ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So the myth of, we were always poor in overseas tests, is just that. The 2000s saw an upward trend, with some solid batting, maverick bowling and some astute captaincy. We have lost that in tests now in this decade

[undisputed chap]

Could you show how many tests ganguly, dravid, srt, vvs, kumble, etc had played before we started winning overseas & compare it to the players in the team now pls.

[CSK Fan]

Could you show how many tests ganguly' date=' dravid, srt, vvs, kumble, etc had played before we started winning overseas & compare it to the players in the team now pls.[/quote'] Aren't we supposed to improve instead of going backwards? Weren't you claiming we were always bad? And for these guys, they were good from get go. Ganguly scored a 100 at Lord's on debut, Dravid scored 95. So they were always scoring runs, so I don't understand your point at all What changed? Team spirit, some good fast bowling and some good leadership. Everything which Dhoni lacks.

[Crookbond]

There's a difference between improvement and "great" (someone said that is what we were). Yes, we improved from the 90s but that's setting the benchmark low. We improved our putting up a fight to not putting up a fight ratio. If we take into account the year 2001 - we lost a Test match to Zimbabwe of all sides. Now, before people put up the "Oh, Zimbabwe was a very good team back then" argument, I'd like to remind that the win was Zimbabwe's 6th Test match win since they started playing Test cricket in 1992. The ONLY team Zimbabwe beat (apart from a newly inducted Bangladesh Test team) before that match was Pakistan. India are poor tourists and the fact that we improved putting up fights and winning an odd Test match here or there doesn't change that fact. PS - This doesn't mean Dhoni deserves to be the Test team captain before people extrapolate any such conjecture.

[undisputed chap]

Aren't we supposed to improve instead of going backwards? Weren't you claiming we were always bad? And for these guys, they were good from get go. Ganguly scored a 100 at Lord's on debut, Dravid scored 95. So they were always scoring runs, so I don't understand your point at all What changed? Team spirit, some good fast bowling and some good leadership. Everything which Dhoni lacks.

There have always been instances of individual brillances. But as a team we have always been crap. Dhawan & rohit too scored tons on debut. Pujara scored a century on his 1st overseas tour while rahane came close. Thats not the point. There have been similair instwances of vensarkar,gavaskar, kapil, azhar, etc doing well but we still have a mediocre record. I want to know how many matches the legends took to truly win us matches overseas & not just individual performances.

[singhprakash72]

There's a difference between improvement and "great" (someone said that is what we were). Yes, we improved from the 90s but that's setting the benchmark low. We improved our putting up a fight to not putting up a fight ratio. If we take into account the year 2001 - we lost a Test match to Zimbabwe of all sides. Now, before people put up the "Oh, Zimbabwe was a very good team back then" argument, I'd like to remind that the win was Zimbabwe's 6th Test match win since they started playing Test cricket in 1992. The ONLY team Zimbabwe beat (apart from a newly inducted Bangladesh Test team) before that match was Pakistan. India are poor tourists and the fact that we improved putting up fights and winning an odd Test match here or there doesn't change that fact. PS - This doesn't mean Dhoni deserves to be the Test team captain before people extrapolate any such conjecture.

I mentioned this before the era of 2001-2010 was great overseas as we improved and gained confidence from a strong team. But as we weakened due to retirement of stalwarts nothing was done (by both Dhoni & BCCI) to sustain this success at grass root level (grooming good fast bowler) or at playing level (Dhoni showing how to be freking defensive) which resulted in the rut we are in. Dhoni's lack of confidence on his bowlers or even batsman cost us at least 5-7 overseas victories and unaccountable defeats.

[CSK Fan]

There's a difference between improvement and "great" (someone said that is what we were). Yes, we improved from the 90s but that's setting the benchmark low. We improved our putting up a fight to not putting up a fight ratio. If we take into account the year 2001 - we lost a Test match to Zimbabwe of all sides. Now, before people put up the "Oh, Zimbabwe was a very good team back then" argument, I'd like to remind that the win was Zimbabwe's 6th Test match win since they started playing Test cricket in 1992. The ONLY team Zimbabwe beat (apart from a newly inducted Bangladesh Test team) before that match was Pakistan. India are poor tourists and the fact that we improved putting up fights and winning an odd Test match here or there doesn't change that fact. PS - This doesn't mean Dhoni deserves to be the Test team captain before people extrapolate any such conjecture.

How on earth is the above record not great? Which team other than the might Aussies did better on tours? How is a 10 year period winning matches here and there? Seriously!

[philcric]

For those who pretend we were not improving in overseas tests Outside the sub continent (except WI) in 9 years from 2002 to 2010 - so basically Aus SA, England and NZ Played 25 Win 7 Lost 9 Drew 9 v Australia 8 matches win 2, lost 3, drew 2 v England 7 matches won 2, lost 1 drew 4 v South Africa 5 matches won 2, lost 3 Not mind blowing stats but definitely good fight ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Against Australia in Australia in the decade 2001 to 2010 India played 8 matches won 2, lost 3, drew 3 South Africa played 9 matches, won 2, lost 6, drew 1 England played 14, won 3, lost 10, drew 1 Pakistan lost 6 in 6. Sri Lanka drew 1 match out of 4 and lost everything So clearly we were the best team against Aussies for a decade, both home and away ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So the myth of, we were always poor in overseas tests, is just that. The 2000s saw an upward trend, with some solid batting, maverick bowling and some astute captaincy. We have lost that in tests now in this decade

Yes, India was good (not great) abroad in the period 2001-2011.We have been significantly worse since 2011. 2011-2014, the basic win-loss stat by itself is quite horrendous, but if you dig a little deeper it's even more awful. The huge margins of losses, the number of inning defeats etc. Many tests we've lost within 2 days (not literally, but for all practical purposes) and some even on the 1st day. From memory I can't remember that happening in 2001-2011, where we lost tests within 2 days or by huge margins so often. We had bad losses (esp. in SA) but they were few and far apart, not like 2-3 tests in the same series. It'd be interesting to compile some finer stats of our tests. Like the state of the game after 3rd day or end of 3rd innings. That'l probably give a more accurate indication of our relative competitiveness among the periods 2001-2011 and 2011-2014.

[Crookbond]

How on earth is the above record not great? Which team other than the might Aussies did better on tours? How is a 10 year period winning matches here and there? Seriously!

May be I'm wrong. I checked statistics for India and other teams outside home in the decade of 1 Jan 2000 to 31 Dec 2009. I've excluded Bangladesh/Zimbabwe for all. Australia P-51, W-29, L-13, D-9, W/L - 2.23 South Africa P-48, W-16, L-18, W/L-0.88 England P-57, W-15, L-22 , D-20, W/L - 0.68 India (outside SC) P-35, W-8, L-12, D-15, W/L-0.66 Pakistan (outside SC) P-28, W-6, L-16, D-16, W/L - 0.37 Sri Lanka (outside SC) P-23, W-3, L-14, D-6, W/L - 0.21 West Indies P-44, W-2, L-33, D-9, W/L-0.06 New Zealand P-30, W-1, L-18, D-11, W/L-0.05 Here are my conclusions + South Africa have a good record while Australia have a phenomenal record + England and India were average + Paksitan and Sri Lanka were mediocre + West Indies and New Zealand were abysmal Like I said earlier, India were great considering their past as a reference. Objectively, India were average and statistically a touch worse than England (that says a lot in itself). Finally, this is also a slap on the face to the Pakistan and SL supporters here who talk about which team is strong. You can easily see that away from home India were the best SC team of the decade. In fact, India has twice a better record than Pakistan and Sri Lanka outside SC.

[Crookbond]

I am documenting India's overseas wins with the MoM in the decade of 2000-2009 Port of Spain 2002 - VVS Laxman Headingley 2002 - Rahul Dravid Adelaide 2003 - Rahul Dravid Jamaica 2006 - Rahul Dravid Johannesburg 2006 - Sreesanth Trent Bridge 2007 - Zaheer Khan Perth 2008 - Irfan Pathan Hamilton 2009 - Tendulkar

[moniker]

May be I'm wrong. I checked statistics for India and other teams outside home in the decade of 1 Jan 2000 to 31 Dec 2009. I've excluded Bangladesh/Zimbabwe for all. Australia P-51, W-29, L-13, D-9, W/L - 2.23 South Africa P-48, W-16, L-18, W/L-0.88 England P-57, W-15, L-22 , D-20, W/L - 0.68 India (outside SC) P-35, W-8, L-12, D-15, W/L-0.66 Pakistan (outside SC) P-28, W-6, L-16, D-16, W/L - 0.37 Sri Lanka (outside SC) P-23, W-3, L-14, D-6, W/L - 0.21 West Indies P-44, W-2, L-33, D-9, W/L-0.06 New Zealand P-30, W-1, L-18, D-11, W/L-0.05 Here are my conclusions + South Africa have a good record while Australia have a phenomenal record + England and India were average + Paksitan and Sri Lanka were mediocre + West Indies and New Zealand were abysmal Like I said earlier, India were great considering their past as a reference. Objectively, India were average and statistically a touch worse than England (that says a lot in itself). Finally, this is also a slap on the face to the Pakistan and SL supporters here who talk about which team is strong. You can easily see that away from home India were the best SC team of the decade. In fact, India has twice a better record than Pakistan and Sri Lanka outside SC.

Your stats are selective. If you are to show only the stats of outside SC performance for SC teams, then show only the SC stats of non-SC teams. Australia P-17, W-9, L-5, D-3, W/L - 1.8 SA P-18, W-5, L-7, D-6, W/L - 0.71 Eng P-23, W-4, L-8, D-11, W/L - 0.5 There is no way you would bracket India and England together.

[Crookbond]

Your stats are selective. If you are to show only the stats of outside SC performance for SC teams, then show only the SC stats of non-SC teams. Australia P-17, W-9, L-5, D-3, W/L - 1.8 SA P-18, W-5, L-7, D-6, W/L - 0.71 Eng P-23, W-4, L-8, D-11, W/L - 0.5 There is no way you would bracket India and England together.

I understand your point but SC conditions are largely similar - India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. I was trying to consider countries who play in non-home conditions. Australia/England/West Indies/South Africa have each unique conditions. One can put New Zealand - Australia in the same bracket IIRC. England going to Australia/South Africa/West Indies is quite different than SC and hence, I feel it should be considered. There's another reason I considered non-SC stats because that is where the OP came into picture.