Going into the second Test against Australia, India face the familiar dilemma of whether to play six batsmen and four bowlers or five batsmen and five bowlers. The ideal situation would be to go in with five batsmen, one allrounder and four bowlers. But the species of allrounder has been extinct in this country since the middle nineties with the disappearance in quick succession of Ravi Shastri, Kapil Dev and Manoj Prabhakar. An allrounder is so pivotal for team balance since he affords the luxury of a fifth bowling option without detracting from the batting strength. Of course Australia have operated throughout their 16 Test winning streak with just four specialist bowlers but they get away with it simply because those bowlers are so good.

The last time India played with a genuine allrounder was the 1995-96 home series against New Zealand when Manoj Prabhakar opened both the batting and bowling. Let's make a brief reconnaissance down the years to examine the team composition in the 21 home Tests since Prabhakar left the scene. India used the 5-5 formation in nine Tests of which they won 4, drew 4 and lost 1. In seven of the nine games the fifth bowler took two or more wickets. He may not have won any matches on his own but the fifth bowler has provided some vital breaks, besides, more importantly, sharing the workload and allowing the main bowlers to be used in judicious spells.

In the 12 other Tests, India used the 6-4 formation. Of these, 4 were won, 2 drawn and 6 lost, which prima facie is a much inferior record. Let's examine the general perception that an extra batsman has not really made a difference to the team's fortunes. Perusing the scorecards, one is immediately struck by the absence of any worthwhile contribution from him, whether the batsman is VVS Laxman, Vijay Bharadwaj, Ajay Jadeja or Mohd. Kaif.

Indeed only twice in 20 innings has the extra batsman made above 35, an appalling record. Laxman's 67 as opener in the second innings of the Calcutta run chase against Pakistan in the Asian Test Championship failed to avert defeat. He also made 95 against Australia in 1997/98, again at Calcutta, where India piled up 633/5 declared and won by an innings and 219 runs. The evidence is quite compelling that the Tests India has won with a sixth batsman are in spite of his contributions and not because of them.

Perhaps the most glaring instance when India acutely felt the absence of a fifth bowler came in the Ahmedabad Test against New Zealand in November 1999. Sachin Tendulkar declined to enforce the follow-on and brushing aside all the conspiracy theories, if we take the skipper at face value, the decision stemmed from the four bowlers being too fatigued to take the workload.

Even this season, India's ultra-cautious approach was showcased by the the ridiculous tactic of packing the side with six batsmen against Zimbabwe, not the most lethal bowling attack, at the first Test in Delhi. The most telling indicator of how sorely an extra bowler was missed came when Ganguly, having exhausted all his other options, brought on Tendulkar's off breaks before lunch on the first morning of the Test. Tendulkar went on to bowl a staggering 19 overs in the innings and India finally won the Test in a race against time only after a couple of dodgy decisions against Zimbabwe on the fifth morning.

Again in the first Test against Australia at Mumbai, Tendulkar was brought on when the two lefthanders Gilchrist and Hayden came together in the middle but his lack of control eased the pressure at a crucial juncture in the game. History clearly suggests that India has a better chance of winning a Test at home with five bowlers. It is also clear as Shaw once said that "we learn from history that we learn nothing from history."

© CricInfo