[roaring tigerz]

The so called experts have put forward many explanations for our diabolical test record. When India, Sri Lanka or New Zealand started out, they had similar struggles to triumph over five days. But even if they were unable to string together victories, they managed to hold onto draws, which we haven't. The inability of our batsmen to bat for long periods is largely at fault.

I looked back at our batting numbers over from 2010 onwards. What do the numbers tell us? Are we batting more overs than we used to? Is there a visible disparity in our performance between the first and second innings? The numbers were revealing.

We have played 13 tests in total between 2010 and now. This includes nine home tests and four away. On average, we scored 288 in the first innings and batted for 86 overs. Predictably our second innings scores are a little lower. In the second innings we have scored 267 runs on batting 80 overs on average over this period.

Of the 13 innings, we have been bowled out for under 300 8 times and failed to play out 100 overs on 9 of those occassions. Our second innings performances are almost identical ( 8 times under 300, 8 times batted under 100 overs). So in a game of 15 sessions, we have almost without exception survived only for 6 sessions or less.

Tell me what you think of these numbers...