TruI don't know if you watched the 2001 series closely. On more occasions than not, Australia had great starts. For instance, at one stage, they were 2 for 214 in the first innings and 1 for 106 in second innings in Kolkata. In Chennai, they were in a dominant position at 3 for 340 in the first innings before Waugh thought he was playing a game of handball. Gilchrist and others around him couldn't capitalize on these starts. Pant did in Sydney 2019.
If nothing else does, bringing together a dispirited team brought down by shameful umpiring in the previously test, to a first time victory in Perth in 2008 should do, as far as meaningful legacy does. Kumble is the leader India should have had for a decade, not just 2007-08.by that definition everyone with a bit of longevity has a “legacy.” If you want to call it that, fine. I’ll adapt and say he has no meaningful legacy.
Mate, I just posted what you said. If that was stupid, that is you, deal with it.You may disagree if you like. Even justify it with a reason. But straight up lying about what someone said is reprehensible. Not to mention stupid when anyone can see the post you're misrepresenting.
Bumrah has a test high score of 10 and averages 2. Dizzy Gillespie has a test double century. Please edit your post, and put Gillespie at 9 as a show of respect to the great Australian all rounder.Gavaskar
Pant absolutely belongs in this team now.Hayden
A couple of astonishing hundreds notwithstanding, Gilchrist has a meh record against India. Dhoni's record against Australia isn't super impressive either. I am going with Pant.
Jadeja gives me the solidity at no.8 along with the awesomeness of a 19 average with the ball against Aus. His legacy will be written in stone once he is done.