Would India have been able to compete with Australia if they had Smith, Warner, Bancroft, Pattinson?

[Marathonrunner]

No place for if and buts but oz batting would have been stronger but then we could also have seen best of Boomrahhhh as well

 

[ind_win]

Reason-Jealousy, Hypocrisy. Realisation that their own teams have not achieved even a fraction of what this Indian team and its predecessors have achieved in Australia. Their own teams have also played so called B teams of Australia in Australia, but they failed to register any wins against them.

I can sense that from non-Indians.
But why Indians ?
Do you (not you, to those Indians who complain) not feel happy when one/some of your countrymen are doing things that were never done before or are doing better than before ?
If you are not happy, there is something wrong with Indians.

Many times I used to wonder how come 25 lakhs of British ruled India/sub-continent for 250 years.
This is the exact reason why largest MNCs are never from India - courtesy of efforts from own countrymen.
Very easy for the reasons as above.

 

[Rahul1]

This thread is basically a different variation of this thread.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-Tests-without-Kohli-Pujara-Rahane-and-Bumrah

 

[AAli98]

Series has been handed to Ind on a plate, warner would have got quick runs at the top instead of this canteen emply Harris.

Smith would have taken days to get dismissed as he was in the form of his life.

 

[BlackShadow]

Series has been handed to Ind on a plate, warner would have got quick runs at the top instead of this canteen emply Harris.

Smith would have taken days to get dismissed as he was in the form of his life.

Form of his life where he averaged 20 in South Africa?

Aussie battas have boosted his average, and on these difficult pitches, he would have struggled like he usually does on such tracks.

 

[latecut]

India had defeated Australia in Australia at Adelaide (in 2004) when Australia had a full fledged batting side where they had seven all time brute batsmen in their line up. If that Indian side (with a weaker pace attack) could dismiss all seven batsmen, then I see no reason why the current Indian pace attack would not have dismissed Smith and Warner cheaply.

 

[BlackShadow]

Too many ifs and buts, mostly by Desi posters.

How about questioning SA's win on Abbas and Haris's absence?
Would England beat India if India's best two bowlers weren't injured for the series?
Would India still lose if they won crucial tosses in England and South Africa?

 

[AAli98]

Form of his life where he averaged 20 in South Africa?

Aussie battas have boosted his average, and on these difficult pitches, he would have struggled like he usually does on such tracks.

Smith only scored 687 runs in his last years ashes.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Smith only scored 687 runs in his last years ashes.

Exactly. Marsh scored a 100 too in Ashes. Smith’s presence would have motivated Marsh brothers and Khwaja.

Also his presence motivated the bowlers to extract more swing. His absence is being underrated here.

 

[BlackShadow]

Smith only scored 687 runs in his last years ashes.

He beasts on typical Aussie battas, everyone knows that. Mitchel Marsh played like Bradman that series, while Warner and Shaun Marsh scored 450+ each, averaging 70.

I am talking about conditions we have seen in this series. Since you mentioned "form of his life", why skip the most recent tour of South Africa?

 

[RainMan_]

Is this even up for a debate? Smith is by far the best test batsman in the world right now. Look at the way he smashed Indian bowlers all over the park in India. Just imagine what he would have done to them in his own backyard.

Given the psychological condition of the Australian players after the sandpaper incident, they have done quite well so far.

 

[latecut]

He beasts on typical Aussie battas, everyone knows that. Mitchel Marsh played like Bradman that series, while Warner and Shaun Marsh scored 450+ each, averaging 70.

I am talking about conditions we have seen in this series. Since you mentioned "form of his life", why skip the most recent tour of South Africa?

Smith and Warner are not playing against India, but the two Marsh brothers are playing against India. Both brothers have scored far less against India than what they scored against England in that Ashes series. Smith and Warner would have done likewise.

 

[AAli98]

Ind fans are just getting insecure, fair play uv won the series, but there is no way in the world Ind would have won if Smith & Warner were playing.

Smith would have still been batting in 250* on this mcg wckt as we speak..

 

[Stalin]

That’s rubbish.

If India came close to losing home series to both Australia and South Africa.

Pujara had huge impact on those series.

India B would have definitely lost them.

When did India come close to losing against Australia and South Africa at home ?
Last time South Africa competed in India in tests was in 2010.
And if you are implying the 2017 series with regards to Australia, after the Pune miracle Australia were never in it for the rest of the series. They lost in Bangalore and Dharamshala and only managed to scrape for a draw in Ranchi on the final day. The scoreline of 2-1 might suggest that it was close, but it wasn't. And the fact that India's best batsman failed miserably in that series and didn't even play the decider and still the team won says a lot itself.

 

[RainMan_]

He beasts on typical Aussie battas, everyone knows that. Mitchel Marsh played like Bradman that series, while Warner and Shaun Marsh scored 450+ each, averaging 70.

I am talking about conditions we have seen in this series. Since you mentioned "form of his life", why skip the most recent tour of South Africa?

Oh god. Some of u guys never cease to amaze me. I mean, seriously? U r questioning smiths quality as a batsman ?

Make no mistake, he would have single handedly taken every single indian bowlers to the cleaners if he had played in this series. Do u know how many runs did he score in India the last time he toured there? Yes, close to 500 if i m not mistaken.

As a batsman he is by far the best batsman in the world right now. Smith and warner represents almost 70% of the total batting strength of Australia.

 

[BlackShadow]

Smith and Warner are not playing against India, but the two Marsh brothers are playing against India. Both brothers have scored far less against India than what they scored against England in that Ashes series. Smith and Warner would have done likewise.

Most Aussie batsmen have been HTBs for a long time, and have been exposed the moment they leave Australia.

Even in Australia, look at their performance when decent attacks showed up and pitches had some juice. Got destroyed by South Africa, now the same against India.

 

[BlackShadow]

Oh god. Some of u guys never cease to amaze me. I mean, seriously? U r questioning smiths quality as a batsman ?

Make no mistake, he would have single handedly taken every single indian bowlers to the cleaners if he had played in this series. Do u know how many runs did he score in India the last time he toured there? Yes, close to 500 if i m not mistaken.

As a batsman he is by far the best batsman in the world right now. Smith and warner represents almost 70% of the total batting strength of Australia.

Or Indian bowlers would have taken care of them like South Africans did last time they toured Australia.

These are not the pitches Warner or Smith are used to feasting on.

 

[RainMan_]

Ind fans are just getting insecure, fair play uv won the series, but there is no way in the world Ind would have won if Smith & Warner were playing.

Smith would have still been batting in 250* on this mcg wckt as we speak..

Spot on.

This Australia team is filled with mediocore batters. Only smith and warner r the real quality players. But sadly none of them r playing in this series.

Stupid australian board is good at shooting in their own foot.

 

[Stalin]

Spot on.

This Australia team is filled with mediocore batters. Only smith and warner r the real quality players. But sadly none of them r playing in this series.

Stupid australian board is good at shooting in their own foot.

Still those mediocre batters would have smashed the bowlers of the Powerhouse team into a hiding. And powerhouse team batters would have combined to score less than Usman Khawaja.

 

[Ab Fan]

It is true that if Australia had Smith and Warner, India won't have won the series.

But that's the case most of the times. SA failed to win a single series vs Australia till 2008 when they had McGrath and Warne. They won vs India in India 98 when we were nobodies.

England won in Australia 2010 when they had the weakest lineups as well. England also won in India 2012 when India had weak bowling and except Pujara, batting was weak.

Pakistan drew in WI 1988 because there were couple of legendary players for WI not playing in the match they won.

So, this is how things went in the past, things are going today and this is how things will continue in the future.

 

[jashan83]

Too much iffs and butts. It is always interesting & funny to see these crop up after Indian wins.

Well a team is what is at that moment. Secondly to the question of the thread there cannot be a certain correct answer

 

[loves_cricket]

Aus would have ahead in series but we are not complaining as it is not our fault.
I am very happy with results so far.

 

[Napa]

Too many ifs and buts, mostly by Desi posters.

How about questioning SA's win on Abbas and Haris's absence?
Would England beat India if India's best two bowlers weren't injured for the series?
Would India still lose if they won crucial tosses in England and South Africa?

Also, Shaw being injured is a big blow to India. He averaged 118 in the WI series. Having Shaw instead of Vijay, Rahul or Vihari would have added about 50 runs to each Indian innings.

 

[Buffet]

It is true that if Australia had Smith and Warner, India won't have won the series.

But that's the case most of the times. SA failed to win a single series vs Australia till 2008 when they had McGrath and Warne. They won vs India in India 98 when we were nobodies.

England won in Australia 2010 when they had the weakest lineups as well. England also won in India 2012 when India had weak bowling and except Pujara, batting was weak.

Pakistan drew in WI 1988 because there were couple of legendary players for WI not playing in the match they won.

So, this is how things went in the past, things are going today and this is how things will continue in the future.

Rightly said. Most of the series win against good home teams have come when key players went missing in series or in some tests or team was going through transition. That's how it works.

 

[Tusker]

It is true that if Australia had Smith and Warner, India won't have won the series.
.

India is also missing many first choice players -Ashwin, Hardik, Shaw, Saha . Two of them are bowlers who can bat and therefore make big impact. So how do you know India would not win with first choice players?
[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

 

[Napa]

India is also missing many first choice players -Ashwin, Hardik, Shaw, Saha . Two of them are bowlers who can bat and therefore make big impact. So how do you know India would not win with first choice players?

[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

Also, is is unclear whether Smith and Warner would score heavily against India. Their averages in SA were 24 and 36 respectively. The Indian pace attack is pretty good. Even if they both averaged 10 more than the current Australian openers, that wouldn't be enough to win them the two games they lost.

 

[Bhaijaan]

India is also missing many first choice players -Ashwin, Hardik, Shaw, Saha . Two of them are bowlers who can bat and therefore make big impact. So how do you know India would not win with first choice players?

[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

In Australia none of them is first choice.

You dont become a first choice opener on the basis of few good knocks vs West Indies in India.

Shaw has a lot to prove.

And Saha,? Lol

Pandya yes at 6

Ashwin yes but never a match winner in Australia.

Australia is playing without 4 frontline players 3 of whom are outright match winners and Bancroft wouod only strengthen their batting.

 

[Tusker]

Also, is is unclear whether Smith and Warner would score heavily against India. Their averages in SA were 24 and 36 respectively. The Indian pace attack is pretty good. Even if they both averaged 10 more than the current Australian openers, that wouldn't be enough to win them the two games they lost.

Good Points but also there is the small matter of huge pressure they ( Smith and Warner ) would be under due to the ball tampering incident. Pretty sure they would be ridiculed , heckled and generally subjected to intense scrutiny by all especially with Kohli not being shy of Sledging.

 

[mastersaan10]

Yes Australia would have been alot more competitive

 

[Tusker]

In Australia none of them is first choice.

You dont become a first choice opener on the basis of few good knocks vs West Indies in India.

Shaw has a lot to prove.

And Saha,? Lol

Pandya yes at 6

Ashwin yes but never a match winner in Australia.

It doesn't work that way. Playing outside India most of our players will never be automatic first choices then but yet here we are winning matches in SA , Eng and AUS and the matches we lost have been very close matches. Two great examples are Ishant and Shami. Look at their past records in Aus and in this series that tells you the story. Also just like Prithvi Shaw Bumrah too supposedly had a "lot to prove" seeing as he has never played Test cricket in Aus before how did that pan out ? And dont forget Ashwin took most wkts in Adelaide and completely blocked out one end when things were flat.

And you never answered my question in a different thread - Do you see anyone undermining the 2004 Aus series win in India because we were missing SRT, Ganguly, Harbhajan ?

Australia is playing without 4 frontline players 3 of whom are outright match winners and Bancroft wouod only strengthen their batting.

Who would these 4 front-line players be replacing from the current team ?

 

[Ab Fan]

India is also missing many first choice players -Ashwin, Hardik, Shaw, Saha . Two of them are bowlers who can bat and therefore make big impact. So how do you know India would not win with first choice players?

[MENTION=142162]Napa[/MENTION]

Ashwin or Hardik isn't any big upgrade to Jadeja or Rohit(he plays as specialist bat). Saha was a better keeper than Pant but clearly Pant has performed better with bat than Saha could have done.

Shaw has played just 2 tests vs WI at home. Australian bowling in Australia is a completely different challenge altogether and for someone who is 20 years old, thinking he would have made any difference in the consequences of the game with absolutely zero experience of overseas is a delusion.

At the end of the day, it is round about the best India have put up on field as they have the options.

Smith and Warner in Australian conditions are altogether different beast and stating their low averages in previous South Africa tour doesn't deminises their capabilities with the bat, particularly in home conditions where they have been beast for last 5-6 years. That SA series was a one-off and it can happen with any batsmen in the world.

India would have been still competitive but winning the series was out of question for any team,not just India, with Smith and Warner in that lineup along with an attack of Starc, Cummins, Hazelwood and Lyon. We just saw how England were defeated 0-4 last year.

However, India would have been still competitive while most other teams would have suffered humiliation at the same time against an Australian team in Australia with Smith and Warner present in the lineup.

 

[dani2k]

Well no one is speculating whether India would have competed better in England had Bhuvneswar and Bhumrah played the first two tests.

Would have , should have, could have - all could add up only on the moral victories count which no one cares for. Bottom line is the opposition DIDNT performand India DID - all that counts.

And God save Australia if they are dependent on two proven cheats for their victories. With such values who knows whether they cheated only while bowling? After all, everything was fair (and still is) until they 'crossed a line' isnt it? (God knows what that line is!)

 

[rhony]

Bancroft? Pattinson? Lol C'mon

 

[Tusker]

Ashwin or Hardik isn't any big upgrade to Jadeja or Rohit(he plays as specialist bat). Saha was a better keeper than Pant but clearly Pant has performed better with bat than Saha could have done.

Thanks for proving my point which is that you never know how the replacement is going to turn out. And it applies to the Australian players too!

Shaw has played just 2 tests vs WI at home. Australian bowling in Australia is a completely different challenge altogether and for someone who is 20 years old, thinking he would have made any difference in the consequences of the game with absolutely zero experience of overseas is a delusion.

Just like how Mayank Agarwal succeding would be equally delusional right ? How did that work out ? As I said you never know what the replacements will do. Who would have thought Rahul would be out of the side after that 4th inngs hundred in Eng ? This is Test Cricket injuries and sh!t happens all the time. Only the teams with deep reserves win consistently and deserve to be #1.

BTW I didnt see you complaining when Kohli , Ishant , Shami missed out in Dharmshala test. How did that work out for Aus ?

At the end of the day, it is round about the best India have put up on field as they have the options.

The same applies to AUS. Did someone from BCCI bribe Smith and Warner to get banned ? Did they arm twist CA to ban them for a year when they could have just banned them for a match or two ? Why are you feeling insecure ?

Smith and Warner in Australian conditions are altogether different beast and stating their low averages in previous South Africa tour doesn't deminises their capabilities with the bat, particularly in home conditions where they have been beast for last 5-6 years. That SA series was a one-off and it can happen with any batsmen in the world.

And so can law of avgs catch up at home too - Ask Rahane and Kohli.

India would have been still competitive but winning the series was out of question for any team,not just India, with Smith and Warner in that lineup along with an attack of Starc, Cummins, Hazelwood and Lyon. We just saw how England were defeated 0-4 last year.

However, India would have been still competitive while most other teams would have suffered humiliation at the same time against an Australian team in Australia with Smith and Warner present in the lineup.

The pitches that England faced were completely different from the ones we are seeing here this series.

 

[ILcricket]

I think we would have forfeited the series & trophy by refusing to tour

 

[K4Kohli]

India would have won series in SA and England if Kohli had won more tosses. Damn itttt

 

[Ab Fan]

Thanks for proving my point which is that you never know how the replacement is going to turn out. And it applies to the Australian players too!



Just like how Mayank Agarwal succeding would be equally delusional right ? How did that work out ? As I said you never know what the replacements will do. Who would have thought Rahul would be out of the side after that 4th inngs hundred in Eng ? This is Test Cricket injuries and sh!t happens all the time. Only the teams with deep reserves win consistently and deserve to be #1.

BTW I didnt see you complaining when Kohli , Ishant , Shami missed out in Dharmshala test. How did that work out for Aus ?




<B>The same applies to AUS. Did someone from BCCI bribe Smith and Warner to get banned ? Did they arm twist CA to ban them for a year when they could have just banned them for a match or two ? Why are you feeling insecure ?</B>




And so can law of avgs catch up at home too - Ask Rahane and Kohli.




The pitches that England faced were completely different from the ones we are seeing here this series.

As apparent with my post that you quoted, it is actually you who is getting insecure. Atleast learn what I am saying before getting into debate.

Accept it or not but with Smith and Warner present, India won't have won or even drew this series in Australia. However, this doesn't undermine India's achievement because most teams win series against big teams in alien conditions when that team is either missing one or two key players or are in transition.

Mayank has done well in first test, this doesn't prove anything about Shaw. We have seen in past how Rohit Sharma and Shikhar Dhawan, who started off with big daddy hundreds at home are still struggling to keep bat on ball in overseas conditions, lol, let alone talking about a 20 year old guy.

 

[Ab Fan]

"Law of avgs can catch up at home-ask Rahane and Kohli."

What does this mean?

 

[Tusker]

As apparent with my post that you quoted, it is actually you who is getting insecure. Atleast learn what I am saying before getting into debate.

You are the one doubting if India would win if x,y and z were present by indulging in blanket assumptions that they would score runs for fun disregarding all facts. So its you that is insecure here not me.

Accept it or not but with Smith and Warner present, India won't have won or even drew this series in Australia.

How do you know this ? Eng beat India in India back in 2012 with all big guns playing. Pakistan drew in Eng twice against top English team.

However, this doesn't undermine India's achievement because most teams win series against big teams in alien conditions when that team is either missing one or two key players or are in transition.

Well you and few others have already done the undermining by making blanket statements that we wouldn't win.

Mayank has done well in first test, this doesn't prove anything about Shaw. We have seen in past how Rohit Sharma and Shikhar Dhawan, who started off with big daddy hundreds at home are still struggling to keep bat on ball in overseas conditions, lol, let alone talking about a 20 year old guy.

And that highlighted bit wasnt applicable to Mayank how ? I mean he hasnt even succeeded/failed in tests in India as he came in straight from Ranji trophy where Shaw made runs by the truckloads. You must be joking if you consider Mayank to be a better talent than Shaw lol.

As I said your ability to run-down your own team is quite remarkable. Typical desi mentality of Ghar ki Murgi tamaatar. Be proud of our achievements and learn from how the Aussie fans look at their team and achievements without indulging is such silly whataboutery. I mean have you ever seen any Aussie question their series win in 2004 under similar circumstances ?

 

[Ab Fan]

You are the one doubting if India would win if x,y and z were present by indulging in blanket assumptions that they would score runs for fun disregarding all facts. So its you that is insecure here not me.



How do you know this ? Eng beat India in India back in 2012 with all big guns playing. Pakistan drew in Eng twice against top English team.



Well you and few others have already done the undermining by making blanket statements that we wouldn't win.




And that highlighted bit wasnt applicable to Mayank how ? I mean he hasnt even succeeded/failed in tests in India as he came in straight from Ranji trophy where Shaw made runs by the truckloads. You must be joking if you consider Mayank to be a better talent than Shaw lol.

As I said your ability to run-down your own team is quite remarkable. Typical desi mentality of Ghar ki Murgi tamaatar. Be proud of our achievements and learn from how the Aussie fans look at their team and achievements without indulging is such silly whataboutery. I mean have you ever seen any Aussie question their series win in 2004 under similar circumstances ?

OMG! Where did you saw my post where I have run the Indian team down. Read my first post completely before you downplay that.

I just stated facts. Anyways, these things don't matter really to me and I don't care if Indian team wins or loses. I am just here to discuss cricket and have some fun time out.

On Shaw, he is a great talent no doubt but like most cricketers, he will need some time to really get into grooves and score hundreds across all conditions. It's a start for him and he still has some way to go to prove himself. He is not a proved performer, so you can't say if his presence would have made huge difference. Steven Smith is a proven performer for last 5-6 years and so is David Warner at home.

 

[Ab Fan]

You are the one doubting if India would win if x,y and z were present by indulging in blanket assumptions that they would score runs for fun disregarding all facts. So its you that is insecure here not me.



How do you know this ? Eng beat India in India back in 2012 with all big guns playing. Pakistan drew in Eng twice against top English team.



Well you and few others have already done the undermining by making blanket statements that we wouldn't win.




And that highlighted bit wasnt applicable to Mayank how ? I mean he hasnt even succeeded/failed in tests in India as he came in straight from Ranji trophy where Shaw made runs by the truckloads. You must be joking if you consider Mayank to be a better talent than Shaw lol.

As I said your ability to run-down your own team is quite remarkable. Typical desi mentality of Ghar ki Murgi tamaatar. Be proud of our achievements and learn from how the Aussie fans look at their team and achievements without indulging is such silly whataboutery. I mean have you ever seen any Aussie question their series win in 2004 under similar circumstances ?

That's my post:-

"It is true that if Australia had Smith and Warner, India won't have won the series.

But that's the case most of the times. SA failed to win a single series vs Australia till 2008 when they had McGrath and Warne. They won vs India in India 98 when we were nobodies.

England won in Australia 2010 when they had the weakest lineups as well. England also won in India 2012 when India had weak bowling and except Pujara, batting was weak.

Pakistan drew in WI 1988 because there were couple of legendary players for WI not playing in the match they won.

So, this is how things went in the past, things are going today and this is how things will continue in the future."

Where am I downplaying your team?

 

[Tusker]

That's my post:-

"It is true that if Australia had Smith and Warner, India won't have won the series.

But that's the case most of the times. SA failed to win a single series vs Australia till 2008 when they had McGrath and Warne. They won vs India in India 98 when we were nobodies.

England won in Australia 2010 when they had the weakest lineups as well. England also won in India 2012 when India had weak bowling and except Pujara, batting was weak.

Pakistan drew in WI 1988 because there were couple of legendary players for WI not playing in the match they won.

So, this is how things went in the past, things are going today and this is how things will continue in the future."

Where am I downplaying your team?

By declaring that India wouldnt win series if those two were playing while conveniently ignoring the fact that India too is missing first choice players and then further making illogical statements to say that us missing first choice players isnt a big deal.

BTW that should be our team not your team unless you dont support India

 

[Tusker]

"Law of avgs can catch up at home-ask Rahane and Kohli."

What does this mean?

Both have failed in home series . Kohli vs Aus in 2017 and Rahane vs SL and few other teams. Just because someone is a great player doesnt mean that he will continue to pile runs series after series. Doesnt work that way.

 

[Tusker]

OMG! Where did you saw my post where I have run the Indian team down. Read my first post completely before you downplay that.

I just stated facts. Anyways, these things don't matter really to me and I don't care if Indian team wins or loses. I am just here to discuss cricket and have some fun time out.

see my previous post.

On Shaw, he is a great talent no doubt but like most cricketers, he will need some time to really get into grooves and score hundreds across all conditions. It's a start for him and he still has some way to go to prove himself. He is not a proved performer, so you can't say if his presence would have made huge difference. Steven Smith is a proven performer for last 5-6 years and so is David Warner at home.

Was Mayank Agrawal a proven performer then before this Test match ? Wasn't Kohli a proven performer before he failed in the Aus series at home in 2017 ?

 

[loves_cricket]

A or B or C is missing injured banned blah blah blah
Fact is this Indian team is not filled with ATGs and look at unsettled opening pair long tail and playing away. So they have done great and happy for results.

 

[Canford Cliffs]

Posters here need to be mindful that Kohli's India is not the same team that played under Dhoni. This team is a well oiled machine with all bases covered and comprises of supremely fit cricketers. Cricketers who can run in to bowl 145kph even in the last over of the day.

This team almost won the series in SA but due to sheer luck (read toss) they missed it. In Eng, India's main bowler Bumrah got injured. Even then we fought pound for pound in each and every session, except the Lords test. Now with everyone fit and all these players having gained enough overseas experience, this win in Australia was expected. Smith or Warner wouldnt hv mattered much, India is just a superior cricket team and would hv won anyway.

 

[Reyansh2017]

By declaring that India wouldnt win series if those two were playing while conveniently ignoring the fact that India too is missing first choice players and then further making illogical statements to say that us missing first choice players isnt a big deal.

BTW that should be our team not your team unless you dont support India

Totally agree with your point. He is clearly down playing indias achievement by saying that india will not win or cannot draw a series if Smith and Warner are in their team.

If he is so certain of their performance then based on aus performance in sa south Africa has no chance of winning in south Africa but we know how it went.

How is he so sure that they will not be out of form like kohli did in india

 

[Mamoon]

Bumrah would cause Smith plenty of problems.

 

[Ab Fan]

see my previous post.



Was Mayank Agrawal a proven performer then before this Test match ? Wasn't Kohli a proven performer before he failed in the Aus series at home in 2017 ?

Mayank Agarwal played his first test, so obviously he wasn't a proven performer.

Smith and Warner are proven performers for many many years for Australia time and again and again. So, they missed them in this series.

Anyways, I am out of this as I am not interested in any kind of pointless argument here. I just said what I felt and you are free to agree or disagree on it. I wasn't downplaying India's performance but if you feel so, fair enough. That should be the be all and end all.

 

[Reyansh2017]

Mayank Agarwal played his first test, so obviously he wasn't a proven performer.

Smith and Warner are proven performers for many many years for Australia time and again and again. So, they missed them in this series.

Anyways, I am out of this as I am not interested in any kind of pointless argument here. I just said what I felt and you are free to agree or disagree on it. I wasn't downplaying India's performance but if you feel so, fair enough. That should be the be all and end all.

Please tell how are you so sure that those players may not have terrible series at home? If they are so great why they lost against South Africa in Australia?

 

[Tusker]

Please tell how are you so sure that those players may not have terrible series at home? If they are so great why they lost against South Africa in Australia?

Quite right, thats a very good point.

 

[Tusker]

Mayank Agarwal played his first test, so obviously he wasn't a proven performer.

So how do you know the same wouldnt be the case for Prithvi Shaw ?

Smith and Warner are proven performers for many many years for Australia time and again and again. So, they missed them in this series.

As was Kohli but he failed in 2017 home series vs Aus. So how do you know Smith wouldnt fail likewise ?

Anyways, I am out of this as I am not interested in any kind of pointless argument here. I just said what I felt and you are free to agree or disagree on it. I wasn't downplaying India's performance but if you feel so, fair enough. That should be the be all and end all.

The point is it is one thing to make controversial statements and quite another to back them up with proper facts and logic. Once that happens it becomes a irresponsible statement. This is the single biggest reason why our cricketers weren't taken seriously in the past, because we have millions of negative nannies who are more than happy to run down our own cricketers and their achievements for the sake of 10 mins of fame. Why would anyone take us seriously if our own people don't ?

 

[Ab Fan]

Please tell how are you so sure that those players may not have terrible series at home? If they are so great why they lost against South Africa in Australia?

It was a one-off. India might also find things tough if they don't have Kohli and Pujara in their lineup. Don't you think SA have weakened with no Kallis, no Smith and no AB? It is a basic understanding that when world class players in a team are absent throughout the series, the team becomes weak. Or if you want to debate against that, then do give the answer to the above question.

And if you think Smith and Warner are not great players, what do you make of their averages of 60 & 48, which will further rise if we look at their sole home averages?

 

[Ab Fan]

So how do you know the same wouldnt be the case for Prithvi Shaw ?



As was Kohli but he failed in 2017 home series vs Aus. So how do you know Smith wouldnt fail likewise ?



The point is it is one thing to make controversial statements and quite another to back them up with proper facts and logic. Once that happens it becomes a irresponsible statement. This is the single biggest reason why our cricketers weren't taken seriously in the past, because we have millions of negative nannies who are more than happy to run down our own cricketers and their achievements for the sake of 10 mins of fame. Why would anyone take us seriously if our own people don't ?

This is unnecessary Rona-Dhona. If you perform well, you will be respected eventually. Old era players like Gavaskar and Kapil are very much respected, not sure what your point is.

 

[Tusker]

This is unnecessary Rona-Dhona. If you perform well, you will be respected eventually. Old era players like Gavaskar and Kapil are very much respected, not sure what your point is.

the only rona-dhona that is being done is by you. Do you see any Pakistani poster doing that for their series draw in 1987-88 vs WI while all the best WI players were missing ?

And no Sunny and Kapil do not get nearly enough credit for their achievements for the same old ghisa-pita reasons.

 

[Ab Fan]

So how do you know the same wouldnt be the case for Prithvi Shaw ?



As was Kohli but he failed in 2017 home series vs Aus. So how do you know Smith wouldnt fail likewise ?



The point is it is one thing to make controversial statements and quite another to back them up with proper facts and logic. Once that happens it becomes a irresponsible statement. This is the single biggest reason why our cricketers weren't taken seriously in the past, because we have millions of negative nannies who are more than happy to run down our own cricketers and their achievements for the sake of 10 mins of fame. Why would anyone take us seriously if our own people don't ?

Agarwal has performed in one test, not for years and years like Smith has done. OMG! how hard is it for you to understand great players are the ones who if don't play any series, team will miss them more often than not.

Why SA look so terrible away from home nowadays, given they don't have Kallis, Smith and AB? It's because these great players are missing.

Why India lost to England in 2012 home series?? Because their great batters were all done by that time and that was a weak team in transition.

These rona-dhona are irrelevant. You can continue to be in your own delusions where past Indian players are not rated or respected or in the delusion that this Indian team is a legendary team like the Aussies of 00s or WI of 80s and can demolish any team with any great player.

There is no such fame in stating true facts. But it is important to expose these delusions and accept facts that are truth and real.

 

[Reyansh2017]

It was a one-off. India might also find things tough if they don't have Kohli and Pujara in their lineup. Don't you think SA have weakened with no Kallis, no Smith and no AB? It is a basic understanding that when world class players in a team are absent throughout the series, the team becomes weak. Or if you want to debate against that, then do give the answer to the above question.

And if you think Smith and Warner are not great players, what do you make of their averages of 60 & 48, which will further rise if we look at their sole home averages?

There is an exception to everything. You are telling as if it is a given or sure shot thing. The same indian team with even better bowling of Australia has drawn tests last time.

According to you the bowlers must bamboozle the indian team if it is given? Why is it not happening?

 

[Reyansh2017]

Agarwal has performed in one test, not for years and years like Smith has done. OMG! how hard is it for you to understand great players are the ones who if don't play any series, team will miss them more often than not.

Why SA look so terrible away from home nowadays, given they don't have Kallis, Smith and AB? It's because these great players are missing.

Why India lost to England in 2012 home series?? Because their great batters were all done by that time and that was a weak team in transition.

These rona-dhona are irrelevant. You can continue to be in your own delusions where past Indian players are not rated or respected or in the delusion that this Indian team is a legendary team like the Aussies of 00s or WI of 80s and can demolish any team with any great player.

There is no such fame in stating true facts. But it is important to expose these delusions and accept facts that are truth and real.

What facts are you talking about? That smith, warner will not fail ever at home?

 

[Ab Fan]

the only rona-dhona that is being done is by you. <B>Do you see any Pakistani poster doing that for their series draw in 1987-88 vs WI while all the best WI players were missing ? </B>

And no Sunny and Kapil do not get nearly enough credit for their achievements for the same old ghisa-pita reasons.

I have seen good Pak posters accepting real facts and truth about it. They don't downplay it but neither am I downplaying it. Like them, I am also just accepting real facts and truth.

If you think I am downplaying it, I can't help.Its a delusion. You perhaps saw me as OP here,lol.

 

[Reyansh2017]

Agarwal has performed in one test, not for years and years like Smith has done. OMG! how hard is it for you to understand great players are the ones who if don't play any series, team will miss them more often than not.

Why SA look so terrible away from home nowadays, given they don't have Kallis, Smith and AB? It's because these great players are missing.

Why India lost to England in 2012 home series?? Because their great batters were all done by that time and that was a weak team in transition.

These rona-dhona are irrelevant. You can continue to be in your own delusions where past Indian players are not rated or respected or in the delusion that this Indian team is a legendary team like the Aussies of 00s or WI of 80s and can demolish any team with any great player.

There is no such fame in stating true facts. But it is important to expose these delusions and accept facts that are truth and real.

Your are the one who is in delusion thinking that smith and Warner will smash india everytime they play.

 

[AZulfi]

The inclusion of Warner and Smith would definitely strengthen the Australian team. As for the other two (Bancroft and Pattinson), they are as good as the guys currently playing for Australia

 

[Reyansh2017]

I have seen good Pak posters accepting real facts and truth about it. They don't downplay it but neither am I downplaying it. Like them, I am also just accepting real facts and truth.

If you think I am downplaying it, I can't help.Its a delusion. You perhaps saw me as OP here,lol.

Even don Bradman was not able to score 4runs in order to achieve 100 average.

Here you are coming and claiming that this is given which is funny to the extreme

 

[barah_admi]

India would not beat that version of Australia in Australia BUT right now, those players are not around and we can only judge on what we see. India have done really well to win two tests. There is a middle ground, India are not some giant test side yet (they showed how they can fall apart so easily in SA and England) but they are good enough to beat a mediocre Aus in Australia. That should be enough.

 

[Slog]

Form of his life where he averaged 20 in South Africa?

Aussie battas have boosted his average, and on these difficult pitches, he would have struggled like he usually does on such tracks.

Lol dream on

 

[Slog]

India had defeated Australia in Australia at Adelaide (in 2004) when Australia had a full fledged batting side where they had seven all time brute batsmen in their line up. If that Indian side (with a weaker pace attack) could dismiss all seven batsmen, then I see no reason why the current Indian pace attack would not have dismissed Smith and Warner cheaply.

Similar to now the 2003 Aussie side was missing Warne and McGrath. Also lee

 

[ace58]

David warner and Smith never faced a bowler like Bumrah though. The closest is probably rabada and warner and smith average mid 30s in matches played against him.

 

[Hasan123]

Bumrah would cause Smith plenty of problems.

Smith could take apart Ishant and Shami. Look at his record vs India lol.

 

[Canford Cliffs]

Similar to now the 2003 Aussie side was missing Warne and McGrath. Also lee

Lee played in 2003....Sehwag smashed him like a club bowler in boxing day test match after getting hit on head.

 

[Slog]

Lee played in 2003....Sehwag smashed him like a club bowler in boxing day test match after getting hit on head.

Australia won the match he played. Try again

 

[Tusker]

I have seen good Pak posters accepting real facts and truth about it. They don't downplay it but neither am I downplaying it. Like them, I am also just accepting real facts and truth.

Like who? Whereas there is no shortage of Indian posters running down Sunny and Kapil on a regular basis there are some who question Sunny's avg vs WI, some who claim 1983 WC was a fluke etc etc . Even Tendulkar and Kohli are not spared in a quest to come across as sophisticated cricket fans. Disgraceful idiots IMO and sadly we produce them by the millions.

If you think I am downplaying it, I can't help.Its a delusion. You perhaps saw me as OP here,lol.

I wouldn't even be talking for so long if that was the case. You know your cricket and are a well known poster here but it is quite shocking to see such callous opinion from you which you cannot even substantiate without resorting to tedious logic.

 

[JaDed]

Who knows .. don't care..for all you know we always lost to Aus coz they kept 'reversin' ..don't know what else they were doing, glad finally with high tech cameras cheating has stopped and now all I want is India to win.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Aussies are proven cheats. Even their biggest hero Shane Warne was banned. Even though I hate India with every inch of my body, I can't make the case for bent Australians.

 

[Canford Cliffs]

Australia won the match he played. Try again

Bro...why so angry?

You said, Aussie side was missing McGrath, Warne and Lee in 2003 series. But it is factually incorrect. Brett Lee played the entire series, except the 1st test in Brisbane.

Also it was a 1-1 tied series due to Indians played some brilliant cricket against the best side in the world.

1st test Brisbane - Tie
2nd test Adelaide - Ind won
3rd test MCG - Aust won
4th test SCG - Tie

Love the way our Asian neighbours defend Aust when ever India tours there and does well. Its always bcoz XYZ players were missing

 

[gazza619]

I think India would have won even if all the missing Aussie players were playing. Perhaps the margins would have been a bit closer in the 1st and 3rd test.

 

[AZulfi]

Australia are playing at home for god's sake. If India plays a home series against any team without Pujara and Kohli, they'll easily win it. Because it's the bowlers who win you test matches. And a few good batsmen ( i dare say even average batsmen) to put a decent total.
You must give credit when it's due. Any other team except (SAF and Kiwis) , would have been thrashed apart by this very team in Australia.

Kiwis don't win tests in Australia no matter how good the (Kiwi) team. Problem is partly psychological. England and SA surely can and have won many tests down under.

 

[KP From India]

Lol! You are comparing Mayank the test batsman to Rohit/Dhawan?
Are you aware that there is a small thing called batting technique in test cricket?

 

[KP From India]

Also Warne was never a factor va India.
He had 1 decent series vs Ind(in Ins 2004) that too 14 wicketa in 3 matches including half of the tail wkts.If anything, we missed on some easy runs.

 

[WengerOut]

In 2004, Ind had Australia on the mat in the 2nd test at Chennai. Unlucky for them, rain played spoilsport.

 

[Ab Fan]

Even don Bradman was not able to score 4runs in order to achieve 100 average.

Here you are coming and claiming that this is given which is funny to the extreme

You are right that they can fail as well, no doubt on it. However, there are more chances that they would have performed, particularly with both playing together, than failing because they were great players.

 

[jnaveen1980]

You are right that they can fail as well, no doubt on it. However, there are more chances that they would have performed, particularly with both playing together, than failing because they were great players.

Smith is an FTB. Even slightest movement of the pitch or variation he gets found out. His technique is horrendous against moving ball. He gets squared up. Applicable for Warner as well. YOu can see here. Struggling against 82 mph Stuart Broad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_JolrQC5mE