Don't blame the bowlers for India's sorry record overseas

That India are one of the world's worst touring sides is by now a truism. Eight decades after graduating to the league of Test-playing nations, they are yet to win a Test series in Australia and South Africa, and they had to wait until the new millennium to win a solitary series in Pakistan. A large part of the blame for this abysmal overseas record, especially in recent years, is laid at the feet of their bowlers. A glance at the average runs per wicket, strike rates, and wickets per innings of India's main bowlers outside India confirms this evident truth.

Anil Kumble averaged 24.88 runs a wicket at home versus 35.85 abroad for his 619 Test wickets. Harbhajan Singh, with over 400 wickets, took them at 28.76 at home but at 38.83 abroad. Ishant Sharma's 62 wickets at home cost 33.46 runs apiece and the 112 away cost 38.50. Javagal Srinath took 108 wickets on the allegedly flat and lifeless Indian pitches at an impressive 26.61 each but gave away 33.76 runs per wicket for his 128 wickets outside India. Their all-time great, Kapil Dev took 219 wickets at home at 26.49 but his 215 abroad cost him 32.85 each.

The disparity approaches a chasm in the case of R Ashwin, whose 95 Test wickets in India have come at just 24.12 runs each, whereas his 12 wickets (in six Tests) outside India cost 64.5 runs each. The only mainline bowler to buck this trend is Zaheer Khan, whose 104 wickets in India cost 35.87 runs each whereas his 207 wickets abroad have come at 31.47 (though, as with Ishant, neither average is particularly impressive).

These averages (along with crude calculations regarding wickets per innings abroad and strike rates) indicate that even against a composite attack of India's best bowlers spanning three decades - Kapil, Srinath, Zaheer and Kumble - the opposition would score heavily, get out infrequently, and make India toil for inordinate lengths of time in the field.

The abject sight of India listlessly chasing leather while waiting for a merciful declaration has become all too familiar. Since winning a Test match is impossible without taking 20 opposition wickets, it seems fairly straightforward to blame the bowlers for the touring woes.

Yet the cliché about cricket being a team game is perhaps never truer than in a discussion such as this. Instead of pointing the finger only, or even mainly, at the bowlers, I think India's batsmen must shoulder much of the blame. An ordinary bowling attack often becomes quite potent when backed by a mountain of runs, high-quality fielding, and aggressive captaincy. That Indian bowlers do so much better at home is in large part because their batsmen do so much better at home. Indeed, when it comes to taking wickets, pressure seems to matter as much, if not more, as skill.

Conversely, that same ordinary bowling attack looks completely hapless when the batsmen get out cheaply in good batting conditions. If the other team's openers put on even 50 runs on the board, you go on the defensive - spread out the field, bowl a restrictive line, and wait for the batsmen to gift their wickets. It's unfair to blame bowlers for not taking wickets when for long stretches in recent away Test matches that was not part of their brief.

Aggregate statistics about runs per wicket and strike rates don't capture intent, momentum, pressure, and context, let alone defensive captaincy or mediocre fielding. It may be illustrative to look at a recent Test to see India's problem.

Going into the fourth Test at Old Trafford on August 7, 2014, the series was tied 1-1. MS Dhoni elected to bat in conditions described as "by no means frightful" in ESPNcricinfo's first-day match report, and Alastair Cook commented that he would have batted first had he won the toss. James Anderson and Stuart Broad were nursing niggles and were doubtful starters until just before the match. Chris Woakes and Chris Jordan, the two medium-pacers, were newbies. Barely 46 overs later India had been bowled out for 152 with a world-record six ducks adorning the scorecard.

The men who scored - Dhoni (71) and Ashwin (40) - did so not because of their superior technique but because they had the grit to tough it out. Dhoni, in particular, was impressive as he stood outside the crease, lunged forward to counter the away swing, and took multiple body blows rather than coughing one up to the waiting short leg.

Despite the batting collapse, the bowlers - Bhuvneshwar Kumar, Varun Aaron, Pankaj Singh, Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja - who had collectively played 45 Tests between them - reduced England to 170 for 6. The absence of runs to play with began to weigh heavily at this point: setting attacking fields and gunning for wickets also means more scoring opportunities for the batsmen. Yet, taking the pressure off the batsmen in an effort to stem the flow of runs is counter-productive, as the first-innings lead keeps building, though more slowly, and your bowlers begin to tire.

Joe Root and Jos Buttler took the attack to the bowlers and soon had England at double India's score. Yet bowling England out for 367 was hardly a bad or weak performance by the bowlers - it was at worst par for the conditions, possibly better.

As we know, India collapsed for an equally pathetic 161 in the second. Moeen Ali, who averages 39 runs a wicket in first-class matches, took 4 for 39 in the second innings. Broad, England's wrecker from the first innings, did not bowl a single ball in the second as he was out with a broken nose. When a team can inflict an innings defeat on you with just 367 runs on the board, playing one lead bowler short for half the match, and under conditions hardly inimical to batting, it's pretty obvious bowling was the least of India's problems.

This Test was not a one-off. India have a long history of batting collapses on tour. When for a brief while they won Tests abroad it was mainly because their batsmen were able to put respectable totals on the board, providing the bowlers with time and runs to get wickets. Everyone bar the most one-eyed Indian fans knows that another whitewash looms in Australia later this year.

There is no denying that India have one of the weaker bowling attacks in the world. However, their cause is not helped by a batting line-up that rarely shows bottle when touring. For India to succeed abroad it's not just the bowlers who need to improve. It has to start with the batsmen showing up for a scrap.