Nope. Comparing to Rahul is not the yardstick. Gill has been poor in his career. We should have trusted that more than his one century in Bangladesh where Bangla were down and the pitch was easy. My point is both Rahul and Gill did not deserve to be in the team. To Bangladesh even. We kept continuing with Rahul and Gill. Comparing Gill to our failed batsmen is disingenuous. Yes, this is a hard pitch. But, you have to score runs somewhere. After his Australia series, Gill has scored runs consistently nowhere. Why does Gill deserve a shot more than Easwaran? The only reason is because you and the selectors see his excellent performance in T20Is and ODIs. My point is that those innings do not really matter wrt figuring out who can bat well in these tough pitches.PKBasu wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 8:56 am Gill and Rahul played the Bangladesh series together. Gill out-performed Rahul comfortably, and hence should have been picked for the first two tests ahead of Rahul. If Gill had failed, Mayank or Eashwaran could have been blooded here. But comparing Gill's numbers from a single test where no other Indian batsman (apart from Pujara in this innings) has got past 25 with Rahul's from tests in which others contributed hugely (including a century from the other opener) is a tad unfair, perhaps even disingenuous.
I fully accept that two innings is not enough. But, then two innings in Bangladesh. Or two tests in India against Australia should also not be the yardstick. Take the last 15 innings. Both Rahul and Gill have failed. Stop the favoritism. Send them both back to the domestics and ask them to score runs. Then, let them come into the test team.