What's new

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

Torborg said:
Australia won the first test in SA, so it wasn't all bad news.

When did India defeat Australia at home while Kohli was injured? If my memory isn't failing me, I believe he averaged almost 10 in the 2017 test series. Mitch Marsh would be proud!

I guess we have differing definitions of 'dismantled'. I'll leave it there. Lol

Geez, some Indians seem overly insecure. We get it, really...you won.
Click to expand...

4th test 2017, Kohli was injured.India was missing their best opener for this series too.

If Kohli could avg 10 in home series so could Smith.
 
Last edited:
Torborg said:
I guess we have differing definitions of 'dismantled'. I'll leave it there. Lol
Click to expand...

Of course, it was dismantled. Your much famed bowling attack was run into the ground and failed to take all 10 wickets despite being handed 3 new balls in MCG and were few overs away from the doing the same in Sydney.

Geez, some Indians seem overly insecure. We get it, really...you won.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're getting at, you lot would've been screaming from rooftops had Dharamsala went the other way. Give credit where it's due, the 2-1 scoreline doesn't reflect how dominant India were in the series. We had the opportunity to make you follow-on in back to back Tests, something which hasn't happened since infamous 2010-11 Ashes for Australia. Rain saved you in last 2 days or there would be an innings defeat added to a 3-1 scoreline.

This thread is pointless because Cricket isn't played on hypotheticals. Kohli went into the 2017 series in his best ever form, scoring 4 double hundreds in 4 series. Averaged in single digits. Smith averaged mid 20s in SA after heading there in best ever form.
 
Bancroft hits match winning 87* (61) on his BBL return.

Some Indian fans said he wasn't missed as a player. :yk

He is one of their brightest young batsmen.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Bancroft hits match winning 87* (61) on his BBL return.

Some Indian fans said he wasn't missed as a player. :yk

He is one of their brightest young batsmen.
Click to expand...

Pattinson hasn't been doing very well at BBL though. But it could have been difficult for India against peak-Pattinson.
 
bancroft was good in SA test series on those difficult pitches he have scored around 200 runs .if it was not stupid mistake he would have performed better than his counter pant against india
 
Who cares?

India won an away Test series in Australia and that is a magnificent achievement.

Not many sides have beaten Australia in Australia in living memory. Before this it was just South Africa, West Indies and England.

Now India are part of a small and privileged club.
 
A great win ends a great tour by Indian cricket team.

But let us stay humble and be realistic. We did not face the best that Australia has to offer, not even half of it.
 
Its been eleven minutes and no one has reminded that this was a weak Australian side. So here I am reminding again.

Australia dearly missed Smith, Warner, Starc, Hazlewood, Faulkner, peak-Pattinson, and an in-form Finch.
 
inform Finch lol what the hell does that mean. All these bowlers would have been toast in one dayers. Smith/Warner only missing ingredients. India missed Bumrah, Pandya. Because of that they rested Chahal in two matches. Pant was not included. India is not exactly fielding their best XI either.
 
BreadPakoda said:
Its been eleven minutes and no one has reminded that this was a weak Australian side. So here I am reminding again.

Australia dearly missed Smith, Warner, Starc, Hazlewood, Faulkner, peak-Pattinson, and an in-form Finch.
Click to expand...

You forgot Bancroft.


The most young Aussie batsman currently.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
You forgot Bancroft.


The most young Aussie batsman currently.
Click to expand...

Kurtis Patterson too. He is a future legend - remember the name - and has been doing very well in Shield. Yet dropped. Instead they played out-of-form Finch. If it was in-form Finch, I could have still understood. But wonder why they would play his out-of-form version.

SA did the same mistake against India. Played an out-of-form De Kock. Thankfully, against Pakistan they corrected this mistake and played his in-form version who went on to make a match winning 100.
 
Last edited:
Smith, Warner would have made a big difference. Australian batting much weaker without them. Australia hadn't played at home after their ban before this series. So I was expecting their other batsmen to perform at home, which didn't happen. The upcoming Srilanka series will prove how poor their batting is without Smith and Warner.
 
I don't think so. We saw what happened when India played a team that had their strongest 11.
 
I dont think so.

Imagine India without Kohli and Pujara in tests and Kohli and Sharma in ODI's. Aus would have won both series.

Taking out the two best players made a lot of difference to Aus, making them the weakest Aus team in history. I think even Pakistan would have beat this Aus team.
 
Darkrai said:
Oh no, It was India Z, 4-1 was certainly deserving. It was the batsmen who failed no the bowlers.
Click to expand...

Bhuvi and especially Bumrah would have taken out that man Sam Curran to ease our last inning chases. Sigh. Only if we played a full strength team. :(
 
KingKhanWC said:
I dont think so.

Imagine India without Kohli and Pujara in tests and Kohli and Sharma in ODI's. Aus would have won both series.

Taking out the two best players made a lot of difference to Aus, making them the weakest Aus team in history. I think even Pakistan would have beat this Aus team.
Click to expand...

Kohli actually didn't do much in this series. It was Pujara and his patience. Neither Smith nor Warner are like Pujara. Pakistan has nobody with the technique or temperament remotely close to Pujara.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
Kohli actually didn't do much in this series. It was Pujara and his patience. Neither Smith nor Warner are like Pujara. Pakistan has nobody with the technique or temperament remotely close to Pujara.
Click to expand...

Pujara scored runs on slow, low pitches not at Perth where he scored less than 30 runs combined. Kohli scored a brilliant century at Perth. On the slow low decks Pak batsmen would have scored 300 runs + and imo enough to win the match against a weak Aus team.
 
Indian team would have lost 4-0 in tests and 3-0 in One dayers if just Bancroft would have played.

As Mohd Yusuf said recently in Geo Tv that this Australian team of batters like- khawaja Marsh Maxwell and Finch are of low grade and quality. Any bowling team can get them out. Even club level team.

So its obvious there is nothing great about this tour, had Pakistan team travelled they would have given even better results .
 
KingKhanWC said:
Pujara scored runs on slow, low pitches not at Perth where he scored less than 30 runs combined. Kohli scored a brilliant century at Perth. On the slow low decks Pak batsmen would have scored 300 runs + and imo enough to win the match against a weak Aus team.
Click to expand...

How is STarc/Cummins/Hazlewood/Lyon combo are weak? They are not slow tracks. Did you see how many times batsmen got hit on their knuckles, head in the series? It requires lot of patience to technique.
 
sunny85 said:
Indian team would have lost 4-0 in tests and 3-0 in One dayers if just Bancroft would have played.

As Mohd Yusuf said recently in Geo Tv that this Australian team of batters like- khawaja Marsh Maxwell and Finch are of low grade and quality. Any bowling team can get them out. Even club level team.

So its obvious there is nothing great about this tour, had Pakistan team travelled they would have given even better results .
Click to expand...

Same khawaja and Paine managed to draw a test against Pakistan in unfamiliar condition batting entire 5th day.
 
KingKhanWC said:
Pujara scored runs on slow, low pitches not at Perth where he scored less than 30 runs combined. Kohli scored a brilliant century at Perth. On the slow low decks Pak batsmen would have scored 300 runs + and imo enough to win the match against a weak Aus team.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But quite positive that India's pace attack in test cricket is now slightly ahead so not sure if Aussie batsmen would have struggled just as much.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
An ATG who featured in 9 out of 9 losses in Australia. It is an achievement to win a Test in Australia not just series.
Click to expand...


I dont know much about this 9 straight loss. But Yusuf bhai once said and quoted in one biography of a Pakistani cricketer. That he saw Sachin shivering while facing Rawalpindi express. He saw it from mid on .
 
KingKhanWC said:
Pujara scored runs on slow, low pitches not at Perth where he scored less than 30 runs combined. Kohli scored a brilliant century at Perth. On the slow low decks Pak batsmen would have scored 300 runs + and imo enough to win the match against a weak Aus team.
Click to expand...

We drew a game against an even weaker Australian side in the UAE despite having over 100 overs to dismiss them . But somehow we will score 300 against Starc,Cummins ,Lyon,and Hazelwood. This same batting line up can't even bat more than 60 overs versus South Africa and has been embrassed by Olivier.

The delusion is real. :salute
 
No delusion mate, it's real.

Go and read the thread where title was " Indian batsmen should learn from Pakistani batsmen in Test cricket."

Read few hardcore comments by true PP fans and u will realize Indian batting is worse than Zimbabwe lineup.

And bowling of Zimbabwe against whom their own clone of David Warner scored 200 is way better than Australia or India.

Not joking z see that thread.
 
Pakistani batsmen can't handle short pitch bowling. No way they would have scored much against full strength Aussie pace attack in Australia. And Pakistani bowling attack also not good enough to do much in Aussie conditions. If Pakistan travel to Australia now they will be easily whitewashed.
 
Not to forget, India had a fully healthy and fit pace attack while Starc seemed to be carrying some niggles and Hazlewood looked out-of-form.
 
There's no way India would have been able to compete with Australia if they had Smith, Warner, Bancroft, Pattinson? It would have been even harder with Ponting, Hayden, McGrath, Warne, and Bradman in the team. These lucky people, I tell you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BreadPakoda said:
Not to forget, India had a fully healthy and fit pace attack while Starc seemed to be carrying some niggles and Hazlewood looked out-of-form.
Click to expand...

Starc was bowling 150+ throughout the series. Niggle is an easy excuse when you are not performing.
 
BreadPakoda said:
Kurtis Patterson too. He is a future legend - remember the name - and has been doing very well in Shield. Yet dropped. Instead they played out-of-form Finch. If it was in-form Finch, I could have still understood. But wonder why they would play his out-of-form version.

SA did the same mistake against India. Played an out-of-form De Kock. Thankfully, against Pakistan they corrected this mistake and played his in-form version who went on to make a match winning 100.
Click to expand...

Twin centuries for Patterson in practice game against SL. India has been lucky not to face him.
 
If India would have played Shaw, Mayank, Kuldeep, Shubhman Gill throughout the series India would have defeated Australia comfortably even with Warner, Smith. Also would have won in England and SA.
 
yuvi said:
If India would have played Shaw, Mayank, Kuldeep, Shubhman Gill throughout the series India would have defeated Australia comfortably even with Warner, Smith. Also would have won in England and SA.
Click to expand...

Full strength India has lost multiple times in Australia but full strength Australia has never lost against India in Australia. So India having more batsmen from domestics instead of current players wouldn't have made any difference. Your point is null and void.
 
I concur with [MENTION=146594]BreadPakoda[/MENTION]. India won't beat a full strength team ever. If ever they beat, the opposition team won't be at full strength or their players would be out of form or their domestic legends were not selected. It is a travesty that India are No 1. ICC should do something about this.
 
BreadPakoda said:
Full strength India has lost multiple times in Australia but full strength Australia has never lost against India in Australia. So India having more batsmen from domestics instead of current players wouldn't have made any difference. Your point is null and void.
Click to expand...
India was never full strength just like Australia is not full strength now. The Indian teams were selected based on board politics not pure merit.
 
Last edited:
BreadPakoda said:
Full strength India has lost multiple times in Australia but full strength Australia has never lost against India in Australia. So India having more batsmen from domestics instead of current players wouldn't have made any difference. Your point is null and void.
Click to expand...
Don't think India ever toured Australia with a all in all good bowling.attack. Having superb batsmen helped mitigate the impact with a lot of draws but ultimately they needed a good bowling attack to win series.

Definitely this pack lacked batsmen the bowlers deserved. For most part of the series they were playing with dummy openers and Rahane in the middle order. Had there been Shaw and Mayank right from the start things certainly would have been much different.

They still won almost 3-1. That's as comprehensive a series win that can be.. overseas.
 
WengerOut said:
I concur with [MENTION=146594]BreadPakoda[/MENTION]. India won't beat a full strength team ever. If ever they beat, the opposition team won't be at full strength or their players would be out of form or their domestic legends were not selected. It is a travesty that India are No 1. ICC should do something about this.
Click to expand...

Finally.
 
All teams that lose to India somehow manage to become their D team against India. Later, their E team manages to maul other teams. :srini
 
Sir Alex said:
Don't think India ever toured Australia with a all in all good bowling.attack. Having superb batsmen helped mitigate the impact with a lot of draws but ultimately they needed a good bowling attack to win series.

Definitely this pack lacked batsmen the bowlers deserved. For most part of the series they were playing with dummy openers and Rahane in the middle order. Had there been Shaw and Mayank right from the start things certainly would have been much different.

They still won almost 3-1. That's as comprehensive a series win that can be.. overseas.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Patty Patterson is the next big thing.

Australia made massive selection blunders against the Indies.
 
Add Jhye Richardson to the list. Things could have been different had he played in place of out-of-form Hazlewood.
 
It is clear that Aussie team were taking it easy against India in order to prepare for sterner tests against SL and Pak. They rested their strong available XI against India
 
Now Sri Lanka, the second strongest test team from Asia are unable to compete against Australian team that is without Smith, Warner, Bancroft, Pattinson etc. :srini
 
latecut said:
Now Sri Lanka, the second strongest test team from Asia are unable to compete against Australian team that is without Smith, Warner, Bancroft, Pattinson etc. :srini
Click to expand...

But Richardson is there. And he is the difference. Without him SL would have been 80/2 right now which is better than how India fared in the first test.
 
Assuming Smith and Warner were around, Australia would likely have won the first test, when India underperformed with the bat but Australia's batting was too brittle to take advantage of it.

Australia won in Perth anyways, and I think India would have fought back and won the the third test. Fourth test was washed out, Australia would have won 2-1 and like India in SA, we would give India credit for competing but they would be out of their range.

It should be mentioned that the only times India were able to be a challenge to Australia in Australia (1985/86, 2003//2004 and this last one) Australia were missing their key players.
 
Australia will beat Sri Lanka,Pakistan ,West Indies,and Bangladesh black and blue even without Smith and Warner in Australia.
 
Richardson clearly the difference maker. India struggled a lot against him in the ODIs. He would have been very effective in tests. Aussie selectors have been quite awful.
 
So I take it that the inclusion of Richardson makes it a full strength Australian test team again. :srini
 
WengerOut said:
It is clear that Aussie team were taking it easy against India in order to prepare for sterner tests against SL and Pak. They rested their strong available XI against India
Click to expand...

Quite right, Aussies have better things to do than make an effort against the "weakest #1 team in history".
:)))
 
freelance_cricketer said:
3 key match winners of the Aussie team are missing from this series and they are still making India fight till death to remain competitive.

Had Smith, Warner and Pattinson all been available for this series at their peak powers Australia would probably have been dominating India quite convincingly.

Comments
Click to expand...
Bump

Seems like true .Warner is beast in aus conditions who average very well in test while smith also average very well at home and now producing his best in away series

Saj Sadiq @Saj_PakPassion

Steve Smith in Test cricket this year:

Innings 4
Runs 589
Highest score 211
Average 147.25
#ENGvAUS
 
At worse aus would have managed to draw series. I doubt they would have lost it with full squad. Smith and warner are too good to fail in all 8 innings.
 
An Australian team with Smith, Warner, Starc, Hazelwood and Cummins are highly unlikely to lose a test series at home. For Asian sides, its more about winning a test match rather than series there.

Most test series wins in away conditions come up when the home team is not at their best.

India are strong at home currently and they hardly lose test matches let alone series.
 
Last edited:
Smith is an absolute monster and add in Warner, who is a nightmare at home.

No chance!
 
Smith is beast, Pattinson and Bancroft are mediocre. Pattinson was hyped by Junaid to the the moon and he is a decent bowler at best.

Warner was not in form I think that time and still isn't performing that great anyways.

India Vs Australia with Smith in form would have been a different story. But if Smith was neutralised then India would have won.

It's all hypothetical scenarios of It's and Buts which carry no truth or facts. It's all assumptions. The only reason this thread was started was to troll and the only reason it's 5 pages long is because some Pakistani friends here need a reason to undermine Indian victory as they don't sleep properly at night without doing that.

Every thing in life can be challenged including ones very existence. This thread is [MENTION=65183]freelance_cricketer[/MENTION] masterpiece.
 
For records like this to end, at times a team needs to be weaker. I still give credit to India for winning the series, but if Steve Smith was around and in form I think Australia would have won or drawn the series.
 
All 3 starc Hazelwood Cummins played. The trio is very overrated because they are inconsistent. Hazelwood is either hot or cold. Starc is wayward, good only at certain times, Pattinson is better in tests and can also bowl yorkers . Cummins is one dimensional and only bowls short.
 
Smith is scoring truckloads against England
I firmly believe bumrah can trouble smith

The pitches in the India series were not typical aussies flat roads, they werealot more bowler friendly than usual. So Warner may not have been effective

I still think india would have won. Or lose with a fight
 
yea no. 2015 smith warner all these beasts were in their prime and could only beat india 2 -0 vs a much weaker bowling attack that consisted of an varun aaron, umesh yadav and an injured pre prime pre peak shami.

The result will still stand. Aussies won't do **** even with smith warner. warnee' s average is the lowest vs india amongst top teams.

smith has never faced a bowler like bumrah, current shami either. Even ishant has transformed and now has reached his full potential.

Kohli has not lost a single test match when he has won the toss.
 
I think Aussies would've beaten India 2-1 if they had Smith and Warner. But, it was not fault of India that Aussies didn't have Smith.

India faced whatever Aussies had and they won fair and square.
 
sweep_shot said:
I think Aussies would've beaten India 2-1 if they had Smith and Warner. But, it was not fault of India that Aussies didn't have Smith.

India faced whatever Aussies had and they won fair and square.
Click to expand...

2-2 worst case had last match not be rained out. otherwise draw or India win 2-1
 
tyron_woodley said:
yea no. 2015 smith warner all these beasts were in their prime and could only beat india 2 -0 vs a much weaker bowling attack that consisted of an varun aaron, umesh yadav and an injured pre prime pre peak shami.

The result will still stand. Aussies won't do **** even with smith warner. warnee' s average is the lowest vs india amongst top teams.

smith has never faced a bowler like bumrah, current shami either. Even ishant has transformed and now has reached his full potential.

Kohli has not lost a single test match when he has won the toss.
Click to expand...

You did'nt watched that series , did you? Not once did the indian bowlers got him out. Everytime he got himself out after making a ton. If india were that good a team then they would have beaten the inconsistent Eng team or the SA team that lost to Sl 2-0
 
Even without smith , Australia absolutely hammered srilanka who whitewashed Pakistan and South Africa in their backyard!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Savak
The myth that Pakistani senior cricketers have been mistreated by the PCB
Replies
5
Views
584
Varun
Varun
Savak
Would PCB have been the second richest board today if it benefited from hosting India Pakistan bilateral series at home from 2009 to today?
Replies
77
Views
4K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
BouncerGuy
Five match-ups that could prove decisive in the World Cup final
Replies
23
Views
831
happydavy
H
MenInG
Pakistan cannot win the ICC World Cup 2023 as they are not mentally and physically strong enough to defeat India, England, Australia and New Zealand
2
Replies
145
Views
10K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
BouncerGuy
Beyond the Boundary: Pakistan Champions Trophy 2025 campaign: Only Win, no time for Learn (By Rana)
Replies
12
Views
1K
jnaveen1980
J
Back
Top