As sports fans we have this tendency to believe results of lost games could have been favorable if only some selection decisions were taken wisely. Although one can't deny the impact of having the right team, there is seldom reason to believe one man could have overturned a game.
Good teams generally have a squad and a bench that are all equally capable of winning games. Brad Hodge played just 6 tests for Australia and averaged 56. Should he have played more? Yes. Did the mighty Australian team of his era lose games because of his exclusion? No.
Majority in twitter wanted Pujara to play the first Test and believes he could have changed the outcome of that game. But Twitter also wanted Kuldeep ahead on Ashwin. India would have lost by a bigger margin perhaps if not for Ahwin's timely wickets.
A good selection policy definitely has its long term impacts. For example a policy of picking fitter players or younger players or focus on all rounders etc will show a long term impact. But breaking it game by game and player by player counts as needless analysis.
