Second innings blues for the bowlers

Twice in two Tests in their current series against West Indies, India got themselves into winning positions, but then failed to hammer home the final nail. It wasn't entirely their fault, admittedly - in the first Test they did superbly to even get to that position after being completely outplayed over the first couple of days; in the second, they were denied by the St Lucia weather, with one day being completely washed out. Whichever way you look at it, though, these results have meant that two more matches will be added to a fairly long list of Tests overseas where India have failed to press ahead and force a win after putting themselves in a position to.

It's tough to be harsh on India's bowlers after their effort in St Lucia, but over the years the bowling attack has been found wanting, especially when there's an opportunity to finish off a team in the second innings. To present two such instances: against Australia at Adelaide in 1991-92 they bundled the home team out for 145, themselves managed 225, and then were powerless against David Boon and co. as they racked up 451 in their second innings and went on to win; a couple of years later at Hamilton they packed off New Zealand for 187 in the first innings, but in the second dig New Zealand fought back with 368 for 7 to save the Test.

In the subcontinent, India's spinners come into their own in the second innings, with the pitch generally offering far more assistance to them. Outside the subcontinent, though, India's lack of penetration with often seems to be exposed: the seamers struggle in the second innings as the pitch has lost its early juice, while the spinners aren't much of a force as the tracks normally don't crumble. Are the examples mentioned above just stray instances, or have India been especially poor as a bowling unit in the second innings outside the subcontinent?

The table below seems to suggest the latter. For most teams, the opportunity to bowl at the opposition in the second innings when the pitch, generally, is more responsive has meant that the bowlers get wickets at a faster rate, conceding fewer runs. India, though, is the exception to the rule - they are the only side which find wickets harder to come by in the second innings: they concede almost 40 runs per wicket in the second innings, with one success every 13 overs. Among the top sides, that's easily the worst numbers. Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and England are clearly the best bowling teams, with the last two of those teams showing that they are significantly more threatening in their second innings. (These numbers are since 1990, and only for Tests outside the subcontinent.)

It's only a flick of the coin to get the game started, but the toss has often been crucial to the result of a game. Rahul Dravid will know: over the last three months, he has made a couple of tough calls, one which worked, and one which didn't: the decision to put England at Mumbai was a duff one, but in St Lucia he backed his batsmen when many experts suggested putting the opposition in, and the move almost brought India victory.

What are the trends that have dominated decisions at the toss lately? Do teams prefer batting first or fielding after calling correctly? And which are the countries in which putting in the opposition is almost never done? The tables below offer some of the anwers, looking at the trends before 1990 and in the last 15 years.

The most glaring stat is the percentage of matches when captains choose to bat in India - it's almost forbidden to do anything else. It's also interesting that captains are much more willing to insert the opposition in South Africa and England than they used to be. Overall, the tendency to insert the opposition has increased over the last 15 years, though the team winning the toss and batting first has won almost exactly the same percentage of games over those two periods.