Why has India not been as successful as Pakistan in Tests?

[srh]

Why India has not been as successful as Pakistan in Tests? Some stats to ponder:

Total Tests Played:

From independence (15 Aug, 1947) India has played 517 test matches: won 146, lost 157, tied 1 and draw 212 tests. So they have lost more matches than won and their win/loss ratio is 0.929.

On the other hand Pakistan has played 415 test matches: won 134, lost 123, and draw 158 tests. So they have won more matches than lost and their win/loss ratio is 1.089.

Advantage: Pakistan

Head to Head:

India and Pakistan has played 59 tests against each other: India won 9, lost 12 and draw 38 tests.

Advantage: Pakistan

 

[slipcatch]

Few people here would want ball by ball, run by run and which cities the matches were played analysis to support their ridiculous thinking, it's embarrassing
Simple answer, better bowlers.

If anyone here were to tell you that bowlers do not win test match are probably either Indian or do not know what Test cricket is about.

 

[kuskash]

Indians do not have good performances, the good performances come in patches, not consistent enough

 

[Bilal7]

Add in the the stats from earlier and it is a truly mediocre story. The answer, like someone said, is a lack of great bowlers, especially fast bowlers.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Simple,pakistan HAD many great fast bowlers we have none

 

[Pete Rose]

Any analysis, that looks to equate records from dawn of time is flawed. It has to be done by era

 

[PakLFC]

They don't have the bowlers to dismiss teams cheaply. Teams regularly get high scores versus India.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Add the Indian's great home record to the picture and it boils down to them being awful away

 

[Joseph Gomes]

India has a total of zero ATG fast bowlers in their entire history (sorry Kapil). You need fast bowlers to win matches outside Asia. Unfortunately for India, their numerous ATG batsmen can't win matches since tests are won by bowlers by taking 20 wickets, especially outside Asia.

 

[light]

Pak bowlers > Ind bowlers. In ODI cricket, more often than not, batsmen wins you matches. However in test, if you are not taking that 20 wickets, good luck winning a test match. This is why India shines in ODI/T20 quite often but struggles in test.

 

[khan-92]

Pak bowlers > Ind bowlers. In ODI cricket, more often than not, batsmen wins you matches. However in test, if you are not taking that 20 wickets, good luck winning a test match. This is why India shines in ODI/T20 quite often but struggles in test.

Its other way round now, bowlers taking wickets, batsmen not scoring enough in Tests.

 

[Stalin]

The head to head between India and Pakistan would have been much different if there was no cancellation of test series (well ..any series) since 2007. If we would've played more tests in the last decade ( 2007 - 2018), be it in UAE or in India, I think india would've been infront. Not because we became a world class team in that period , but because of the decline of Pak test team .

 

[InziRules]

Add in the the stats from earlier and it is a truly mediocre story. The answer, like someone said, is a lack of great bowlers, especially fast bowlers.

Exactly, and they should be added. Because of Congress sponsored Apartheid, there was a dearth of Pakistani (Muslim) players so those are India stats, not ours

 

[happydavy]

Exactly, and they should be added. Because of Congress sponsored Apartheid, there was a dearth of Pakistani (Muslim) players so those are India stats, not ours

What a joke. Pre-independance Indian teams used to have 3-5 Muslim players in most playing XIs. Check out Indian tours to England and other countries in 30s, the teams used to be basically a mix of Lahore and Mumbai players.

 

[barah_admi]

The head to head between India and Pakistan would have been much different if there was no cancellation of test series (well ..any series) since 2007. If we would've played more tests in the last decade ( 2007 - 2018), be it in UAE or in India, I think india would've been infront. Not because we became a world class team in that period , but because of the decline of Pak test team .

I don't think so. If there were test series between the two in that period, India would have had to contend with Ajmal and late Shah and the likes of Rehman playing alongside Ajmal. Asif, Amir, now Abbas and Hasan, all very tough.

I think Pak can likely draw in India but I don't think India can win often enough in the UAE. YK probably would have 2-3 more centuries too.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Post Misyou we would have whitewashed you in uae. Srl whitewashed pakistan, so surely we would have done that easily.
During Misyou it would have been a tough series.
Our players are not excellent against spin but same with your players.

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

Inffective fast bowling.

 

[Stalin]

I don't think so. If there were test series between the two in that period, India would have had to contend with Ajmal and late Shah and the likes of Rehman playing alongside Ajmal. Asif, Amir, now Abbas and Hasan, all very tough.

I think Pak can likely draw in India but I don't think India can win often enough in the UAE. YK probably would have 2-3 more centuries too.

Ajmal was never as effective against India as he was against most other teams ...only noteworthy performance of him would be a fifer in the third odi of the aane do Series which ended up inconsequential. So I don't think he' d have caused a lot of concern to the Indian batsmen and the same applies to Yasir and Rehman as well. And the faster bowlers are basically neutralised on UAE and indian pitches.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

Why India has not been as successful as Pakistan in Tests? Some stats to ponder:

Total Tests Played:

From independence (15 Aug, 1947) India has played 517 test matches: won 146, lost 157, tied 1 and draw 212 tests. So they have lost more matches than won and their win/loss ratio is 0.929.

On the other hand Pakistan has played 415 test matches: won 134, lost 123, and draw 158 tests. So they have won more matches than lost and their win/loss ratio is 1.089.

Advantage: Pakistan

Head to Head:

India and Pakistan has played 59 tests against each other: India won 9, lost 12 and draw 38 tests.

Advantage: Pakistan

it's all in the meat man (sab gosht hai dost). Nothing else.

 

[Pete Rose]

Pakistan has a higher bowling average in Australia vs. India and lower batting average as well.
Comparison between India and Pakistan always flatter Pakistan because (a) they take in to account that we were a historically better team and (b) we played better in NZ in the past vs India and we continue to play England decently even now.
So the only question worth asking (and its been asked in other forums already) is why does England have a psychological hold on India in tests.

From Pakistan's perspective, history changes quite a bit if you group Pakistan's odi and test performances by era.
pre-wasim-waqar
during - wasim-waqar era
post wasim-waqar era.

 

[Tusker]

Why India has not been as successful as Pakistan in Tests? Some stats to ponder:

Total Tests Played:

From independence (15 Aug, 1947) India has played 517 test matches: won 146, lost 157, tied 1 and draw 212 tests. So they have lost more matches than won and their win/loss ratio is 0.929.

On the other hand Pakistan has played 415 test matches: won 134, lost 123, and draw 158 tests. So they have won more matches than lost and their win/loss ratio is 1.089.

Advantage: Pakistan

Head to Head:

India and Pakistan has played 59 tests against each other: India won 9, lost 12 and draw 38 tests.

Advantage: Pakistan

What is the conclusion you are drawing from these stats given that we are now in the year 2018 ?

 

[Tusker]

And predictably there was silence

 

[Bilal7]

And predictably there was silence

Awkward silence because India just got thrashed 4-1 by England right after Pakistan drew a series against them...

Don't expect a response from me if your post is filled with emojis and mindless babbling. I don't care if you bump this thread five times over the next three days writing about silence.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Pakistan has a higher bowling average in Australia vs. India and lower batting average as well.
Comparison between India and Pakistan always flatter Pakistan because (a) they take in to account that we were a historically better team and (b) we played better in NZ in the past vs India and we continue to play England decently even now.
So the only question worth asking (and its been asked in other forums already) is why does England have a psychological hold on India in tests.

From Pakistan's perspective, history changes quite a bit if you group Pakistan's odi and test performances by era.
pre-wasim-waqar
during - wasim-waqar era
post wasim-waqar era.

The psychological edge that England had over India is over. The 2016 tour showed how England were destroyed despite winning 4 out of 5 tosses. This series India were simply not good enough. Batsmen could not adjust to the conditions and bowlers did not keep it tight enough. England have simply been the better team man for man .

 

[Pete Rose]

The psychological edge that England had over India is over. The 2016 tour showed how England were destroyed despite winning 4 out of 5 tosses. This series India were simply not good enough. Batsmen could not adjust to the conditions and bowlers did not keep it tight enough. England have simply been the better team man for man .

I am not sure. This England team has lost to West Indies and Pakistan (who recently lost to Sri Lanka) at home. England is a weak test team. It’s definitely good to take heart in how awesome the Indian bowling has been on this tour, but then your batsmen didn’t show up. I use the term psychological hold loosely.