1. What would have happened if Australia hadn’t turned to part-time bowlers after Tea on Day 4, when India were at 166-6? Would Harbhajan and Dhoni still been able to withstand the combined attacks of Shane Watson/Brett Lee/Mitchell Johnson? And, given that Australia were bowled out for 209, does it matter? Could India have won anyway, had their lead only been around 250?
2. Who will replace Sourav Ganguly — Rohit Sharma, M. Vijay, S. Badrinath? How will the team composition change — will V.V.S. Laxman stay in the same position, or will he move higher and take Rahul Dravid’s spot at No. 3?
3. When will the old Rahul Dravid return? Despite previous false dawns — a fifty here and there — Dravid has yet to measure up the stellar heights he reached in 2002, or even in 2006. How much time should India give him before it gently suggests he return to first-class cricket to sort his game out? Is that even an option for one of the Fab Four, or would it be considered a not-so-subtle push for retirement? Does that mean we just have to wait until Dravid figures his stuff out?
4. Where does this leave Australia? Was this result merely the fault of some truly awful pitches, or was it something else? In other words, should we consider this a one-off, like Steve Waugh’s loss here in 2001, or is it a sign of deeper rot?
5. Should we even bother watching India play England?