I saw what you did there. You cleverly ignored my point about Dhawan's absence. Why don't you agree that India is fully capable of beating ENG too if we had Dhawan and not useless Rahul?
A fully fit England vs a fully fit India is 50-50
England with Roy vs India without Dhawan is 60-40 England.
India with Dhawan and England without Roy is 80-20 India.
Explanation:
Dhawan is better than Roy, and Rahul is far better than Vince. Rahul is actually an excellent batsman who is low on confidence because there is too much pressure on him to perform. He simply has no room for failure.
No matter how many runs he scores as an opener, he will never be able to nail that position because of Rohit and Dhawan, plus Prithvi Shaw is breathing on his neck as well, and India have not given him a decent run at #4 because of Rahane, Rayudu, Shankar, DK and now they have thrown Pant into the mix as well. In the future, Gill and perhaps Samson will be in the mix as well.
Rahul is lost in the Indian setup and he is unlucky because he is neither from the Kohli, Rohit, Dhawan generation or the Pant, Shaw, Gill generation. If he was born 2-3 years earlier or later, he would have had more concrete opportunities.
Rohit failed for his first 5 years but India still persisted with him and he eventually delivered big time.
Since his ODI debut, India have played 77 ODIs and Rahul has only played 21.
That is not a conductive environment for a batsman to thrive in especially in a high performance team like India, where you are required to score big hundreds frequently like the the maestros Kohli, Rohit and Dhawan.
India simply don’t know what to do with him. They have the greatest top 3 in history, but the #4 has been a problem and they haven’t been patient with him. He has only been given 5 matches.
Had India stuck with him at #4 since his debut instead of wasting time with misfit mediocrities, today the world would have been in awe of India’s top 4 and not just top 3.