Thursday, August 16, 2001 There was a time in the not-too-distant past when there was no glory in an Indian Test victory over Sri Lanka. It was a non-event: a matter-of-fact, good-day-in-the-office sort of job. It was not unusual for cricket writers to begin their lament about India's abysmal away record with the rider, "Not counting the lone victory over Sri Lanka, India have not won a series abroad for…." The 2-0 win in England in 1986 was usually regarded as India's last legitimate away victory. 

Arrogance is no virtue for millionaires, and for beggars it is ridiculously misplaced. Even counting that lone victory against Sri Lanka, India have not won a series abroad in eight years now, and this Indian team, easily the weakest in years, should be grateful for the memories of that win back in 1993.

Truth hurts, but it can't be hidden. Considering that Bangladesh are yet to play a Test outside Dhaka, Indians have been the worst Test team abroad in the last 15 years, and by some distance. Even Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka have won away from home, while all India have got to show are a few close encounters.

On the face of it, India's poor performance abroad is a conundrum. It is mystifying for a side so obviously talented to achieve so little. If reputations won Test matches, Indians would have ruled the world. From Gavaskar, Viswanath, Vengsarkar and Amarnath to Tendulkar, Azharuddin, Dravid and Ganguly, Indian Test teams in the last two decades have boasted of some of world's finest batsmen. One glance at their career aggregates and averages, and you would wonder how India ever got bowled out under 400. Yet they did, not for less than 400, but under 300 and lower, again and again, and again.

So where have all those runs gone? Do averages lie? How is it that Tendulkar, Dravid and Ganguly have better averages abroad?

Averages don't lie.  But neither do scorecards, and in those cold sheets lies the chilling truth about India's batting. In 80 innings abroad since 1986, India have crossed 300 runs, that mark of respectability in a Test innings, only 30 times. Which means they have been below par on 50 occasions. Ten of India's 300-plus scores have come in meaningless run-fests, and only three of them have contributed to an Indian win (one each against Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe). On ten occasions, Indians have been bowled out for under 200 – and each collapse dragged them to defeat. 

Of course, there have been some virtuoso individual performances from Indian batsmen in these years. Sanjay Manjrekar's flawless 108 at Bridgetown in 1988-89, and Ravi Shastri's brave 107 in the second innings of the same Test. Mohammad Azharuddin's breathtaking 121 at Lord's in 1990, his 106 at Adelaide in 1991-92, and his 115 at Cape Town in 1996-97. Kapil Dev's blistering 129 at Port Elizabeth in 1992-93. Sachin Tendulkar's exhilarating 114 at Perth in 1991-92, and his counter-attacking 169 at Cape Town in 1996-97. VVS Laxman's majestic 167 at Sydney in 2000. All of these were masterpieces.

But guess what else they have in common? India ended up losing all these Tests. Furthermore, apart from Tendulkar and Azharuddin's duet at Cape Town, all were acts of lone defiance. It was almost as if each of these Indian batsmen had individually chosen a hopelessly desperate occasion to showcase his brilliance – and his team-mates had contrived to fail in order to lend that performance the quality of tragic heroism.

The side that scores more runs wins in cricket. It's a simple and basic principle. And the side that scores more runs usually has more than one batsman contributing. Seen in this light, India's performance abroad is much less baffling. It's time now to twist the old Australian rhyme:

Innings to innings, Test to Test,
If Tendulkar fires, Dravid mustn't.

Sambit Bal is editor of Wisden Online India

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd