Would india have won the first test as well if Gill and Pant were in the team instead of Shaw and Saha!?

[SecondSlip]

Hell yeah we would have! 

[R!TTER]

Unlikely, I have a feeling Brat would've messed that up somehow anyway - he needs to step down!

[Laaloo]

Yes

[express bowling]

And Jadeja

[zen]

As the saying goes - “dil behala be ke liye khayaal toh accha hai” 

Aus can say if Warner and Smith were available in 2018. If Warner was available at MCG .... Going back in time, even Pak can say if Wasim was available in 1996 QF 

[Serpico]

14 minutes ago, zen said:

As the saying goes - “dil behala be ke liye khayaal toh accha hai” 

Aus can say if Warner and Smith were available in 2018. If Warner was available at MCG .... Going back in time, even Pak can say if Wasim was available in 1996 QF 

Those are unavailabilities due to circumstances. Like if we say Ishant or Bhuvi were available in pink ball test.. not picking two best batsmen in pink ball practice match was shooting ourselves in the foot

[zen]

3 minutes ago, Serpico said:

Those are unavailabilities due to circumstances. Like if we say Ishant or Bhuvi were available in pink ball test.. not picking two best batsmen in pink ball practice match was shooting ourselves in the foot

Ind lost because it was bowled out for 36, which Aus chased comfortably ... Aus could argue it could chase 250 too so the theory has no legs. If people say Pant and Jadeja would have got 100s, Aus can say xyz would have got 200, and so on 

Edited December 29, 2020 by zen

[adi B]

Dont know but what I know is we would have definitely got 300+ in the first innings after ending day at 233/5 with Jadeja and pant .

With a lead of 100+ ,anything could have happened 

[Serpico]

We would have got bigger lead in first innings and 36 humiliation could have been avoided.. a good counter attacking batsman at 30-6 could have disturbed their rythm. Still would've probably lost the match but a normal loss wouldn't hurt as bad and leave a black mark like 36 AO. That's once in a generation type disaster, on par with Bangladesh loss in 2007 wc

[Tyron]

9 minutes ago, zen said:

Ind lost because it was bowled out for 36, which Aus chased comfortably ... Aus could argue it could chase 250 too so the theory has no legs. If people say Pant and Jadeja would have got 100s, Aus can say xyz would have got 200, and so on 

Australia were lucky to get to 170. Should have been all out for 120. So India would have won imo with the right selections. 

[Tyron]

Absolutely 100% India would have won comfortably. 

[Sandeep99]

Australia were cutting through India like a hot knife on butter but a few fours here and there would have definitely calmed Indian nerves. All we needed was to set 200 odd total but we totally were wrecked.

 

I'd still say we were thoroughly outplayed and would have probably lost albeit by a smaller margin.

 

For sure we could have avoided disgrace. That is a given. 

[zen]

1 minute ago, Tyron said:

Australia were lucky to get to 170. Should have been all out for 120. So India would have won imo with the right selections. 

The point is that 100s of scenarios can be created including Pant dropping catches so Aus can be even more “lucky”

 

Everyone would make millions of $s by theoretically buying commodities at their lowest price and selling at their highest. There would be no poverty 

[Ajju]

If Else conditions wont work.

but Pant make difference with irritating aus players

[tweaker]

I think Rahane 's captaincy made all the difference.

 

I don't think Siraj,Pant,and Gill would have performed under Virat captaincy

[nevada]

In that game, the Aussie bowlers were in the zone, our batsmen were timid, and the stars aligned perfectly for Australia. I doubt slight personnel change would have mattered much. I feel it's good that our most promising players weren't part of that massacre. From that batting lineup, only Rahane has done well in this game. Kohli is at home, Shaw is on the bench, Mayank is a mess, Pujara is a mess. 

[beetle]

We would have put up a better fight if not for Rat's insecurity.

[New guy]

1 hour ago, zen said:

Ind lost because it was bowled out for 36, which Aus chased comfortably ... Aus could argue it could chase 250 too so the theory has no legs. If people say Pant and Jadeja would have got 100s, Aus can say xyz would have got 200, and so on 

One counter attacking innings could have stemmed the rot. A team score of 150 and game over. Aussies would chase 250 when they havent crossed 200 this series?

 

Its not easy to chase 4th innings in Aus. Smith has a highest score of 40, with 0 50s in 25 4th innings in Australia

[New guy]

1 hour ago, zen said:

The point is that 100s of scenarios can be created including Pant dropping catches so Aus can be even more “lucky”

 

Everyone would make millions of $s by theoretically buying commodities at their lowest price and selling at their highest. There would be no poverty 

Pant dropped 1 catch off a spinner. Not a pacer

[Lone Wolf]

Not really..  36 AO..  Could've been 75 Ao.  Lolli is panauti too.  Australia would've won by 5 wickets instead of 8.  Siraj turned out to be a massive upgrade.