Opening worries for the Indians

India matched Australia in most aspects in the recently concluded four-Test series, and perhaps even outdid them in some, but the one area in which India lagged behind was opening partnerships. In eight innings, their first-wicket stands read 4, 26, 8, 3, 57, 45, 34 and 2 - 179 runs at an average of 22.37. Three different opening combinations were tried - Rahul Dravid started out with Wasim Jaffer, who then joined hands with Virender Sehwag, who in turn found himself walking out with Irfan Pathan in the last Test. Australia's openers, on the other hand, had four partnerships of more than 50 - two of which exceeded 100 - in their seven innings.

After the tour of England it was believed that India had at last found the answer to their opening woes, as Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik consistently got off to starts; but six months later a long-term solution continues to be elusive: Karthik slipped a few notches after his failures in the home series against Pakistan, while Jaffer's technical shortcomings were ruthlessly exposed by Brett Lee. Sehwag's re-emergence has been a huge blessing, but who his partner will be in India's next Test is anybody's guess.

Since 2000 the Indians have tried 27 different opening combinations in 154 innings, an average of fewer than six innings per pair. Only one pair - Jaffer and Sehwag - has lasted more than 20 innings, but they've only managed two century partnerships during that period.

The table below indicates that teams from the subcontinent have all had problems keeping an opening pair together for a significant period of time. Apart from these four teams, New Zealand is the other side who haven't quite been able to make up their mind about who will go out to bat at the start of their innings.

Pakistan have tried out a whopping 38 opening combinations in 135 innings, but their batsmen are obviously so accustomed to change that they still maintain a healthy average stand. Australia, England and South Africa, on the other hand, have had the most settled top two, and the biggest opening partnerships as well.

The problem for teams from the subcontinent has been even more pronounced when they have toured countries where conditions are more favourable for fast bowling. India's opening stand has fallen by ten runs when they have played in these countries, while Sri Lanka have fared even worse: their average stand has crashed by nearly 17 runs.

India have tried ten combinations in 44 innings in these countries, an average of less than four and a half innings per pair, but five other teams, including the other three from the subcontinent, have done even worse.

Two of the best opening pairs from the subcontinent in these countries are Indians: Jaffer and Karthik were outstanding in South Africa and England last year, while Sehwag and Aakash Chopra shone on India's previous tour to Australia, in 2003-04. Among the failures, the most significant one is of the Sri Lankan pair of Marvan Atapattu and Sanath Jayasuriya. Through their career, they averaged 39.41, but when opening the batting in these four countries in this decade, the average dropped to a dismal 22.70.

Indian pace comes of age
The one area in which the Indians certainly exceeded expectations was the fast-bowling department. Before Sri Lanka's Test series in Australia last year, the Numbers Game had posted stats on how overseas fast bowlers have struggled in Australia over the last decade. When the Indians started on the tour, most pundits suggested their pace attack would struggle to make an impact against Australia's power-packed top order. When Zaheer Khan was forced to pull out after the first Test, it looked even worse. However, RP Singh, Irfan Pathan and Ishant Sharma plugged the holes quite magnificently. Ishant's stats do no justice to the way he bowled, but despite that, India's fast bowlers managed 32 wickets at an average of 41. That might not look very impressive, but compare it to the returns that fast bowlers from other teams have managed on their last tours to Australia, and India's numbers don't look so bad at all.