And, in the end it was remarkably easy, and relatively niggle-free.

That does not, of course, mean that the rest of the series won't be tightly fought and/or confrontational, but the niggle, unlike the sledge (which can be delivered from a distance) only works when you're close enough to really get under the opposition's skin.

That's on the playing field, anyway. Off the paddock there are all sorts of ways of getting the niggle in.

One of the best exponents was, Sourav Ganguly, whose patrician demeanour, apparent disdain for matters Australians would regard as key elements in team bonding (staying at the same hotel, for instance) and stubborn refusal to deliver himself to the toss on time were guaranteed to irritate Steve Waugh and company.

Ironically, the DRS, which I saw as a significant distractive issue turned out to be one of the key elements in the outcome, since the majority of umpiring mistakes that might have been overruled under the DRS went in Australia's favour when we were batting on Day Three.

Michael Hussey was bound to go eventually, but India needed to get him on Day Three, didn't they? And if they had, Clarke mightn't have been able to use Lyon as a nightwatchman to protect Pattinson, who was supposed to bat at Nine.

You could sense the anti-DRS case was running out of team when the criticism of the technology went from unreliability to the suggestion that grounds in, say Chittagong or Georgetown, Guyana mightn't have access to replays of the same high quality that are available here.

When you get into that sort of hair splitting the case is, effectively, lost, because you're conceding that the accuracy isn't such a great issue.

But the DRS was only one of the factors that could have brought things closer.

India's inability to remove the lower order in both innings was a significant factor in building that just under three hundred lead, as we went from 7-286 (Haddin gone) and 8-291 (Siddle) to 333 in the first dig and 6-148 (Haddin) to 240 in the second.

Much of that second innings recovery was, IMHO, down to the use of Lyon ahead of Pattinson with the bat, and suggests Clarke has a bit more tactical nous than his predecessor. Lyon might only have lasted eleven deliveries, but that was almost two overs Pattinson didn't have to face on Day Three,

Starting with a 230 runs lead and two wickets in hand, once Hussey was gone that final partnership should never have got us another fifty runs on, and the Zaheer Khan drop off Pattinson was another decisive factor. Pattinson was on 15 at the time and went on to make 37 not.

The other decisive factor was, of course, the Australian attack, and you'd almost be inclined to suspect Clarke wouldn't mind if, say, Pattinson were suspended for a game because you might well be reluctant to break up this combination to bring back Cummins or Harris.

It was interesting to hear the radio commentators invoking the old Dennis Lillee adage about retaliating first, and Clarke's gesture towards the cap badge just before the bouncer that brought Zaheer Khan's dismissal suggests there's a bit more old fashioned hard-nosed captaincy under that latte-sipping metrosexual exterior. Interesting.

It also suggests that when the niggle does arrive we won't be taking too many backward steps.

Had things been closer, we may well have seen something along the limes of the Gambhir-Pattinson incident from the first innings, many more instances of batsmen pulling away at the last minute because of talk behind the back or movement in the line of sight.

Had things got really tight towards the end with the Indian tail exposed I'm sure we would have heard much more about intimidatory bowling.

But regardless of an outstanding performance with bat and ball from the Australian lower order that's not to suggest that everything is rosy in the garden. The batting is still a major problem and the fielding, while on the way up, isn't as sharp as it should be.

And it's the batting that's going to continue to be an issue over the next twelve months.

You might, on the basis of a 60 to Ponting and 89 to Hussey be saying their places in the side have been cemented, but that's only for this series while there's no Watson on the horizon and no one making big scores in the Sheffield Shield because they're all playing Big Bash T20.

Pause for a moment, if you will, to consider Australia's schedule over the next twelve months. We've got a tour to the West Indies for five ODIs, two T20s and three Tests, five ODIs against England and one against Ireland, then the World Twenty20 in Sri Lanka before home series against South Africa and Sri Lanka.

How many of those intervening series are likely to feature Ponting and Hussey?

They're out of the T20 picture for a start, and while you might want one or both for the ODIs in England, it's a series that doesn't appear to have any real significance apart from fulfilling TV broadcast rights obligations.

You might, admittedly, think about including them in the side for the Tests in the Caribbean, but with the Windies not travelling that well at the moment and a series that's going to clash with next year's IPL, if that isn't an opportunity to have a good look at the other batting option before the series against South Africa I don't know what is.

There should be at least one full round of Shield cricket before South Africa arrives, so you'd be hoping the selection panel would be suggesting Messrs Ponting and Hussey enjoy the off season and come back refreshed for South Africa, when the side will be selected on current revealed form.

Alternatively, of course, they can hold a press conference.

Actually, a press conference might be a very good idea, even if it's just to say that they're looking forward to the break and a fresh start against the Proteas.

Batting camp? What batting camp?

While we're busily handing out gold stars and placing red ticks beside bowlers' names, one inevitably comes back to wondering what the hell went on in the much vaunted batting camp.

Actually, we can probably guess what went on in the batting camp, based on what we've already been told, but that begs the question of whether the actual problems have been identified.

Yesterday's effort with the ball through the first session was as good a performance as you're going to get from an emerging attack in conditions that weren't totally bowler-friendly. One notes comments from both sides about never really being in on this pitch, accepts that there's some validity in them, and then goes on to applaud the manner in which the quicks stuck to the new bowling plan and had persistence pay off big time.

When we're looking at that, there are two things that have to be noted. The first is Craig McDermott's directive to pitch it up and give the ball a chance to swing. With that fuller length all the bowlers look much more dangerous by doing things that we weren't quite managing to do under the old regime.

Like swinging the ball when it's new and getting it to reverse later on.

One also notes little things like the revisions in Hilfenhaus' action that combined with the change in definition of a good length to deliver his first Test five-for.

So, I hear you ask in your relentless quest for knowledge, why can't we do the same thing with the batting?

Well, in a way you could, but it's going to take a lot more work than a direction to the technical staff to change the good length parameters by moving them a metre towards the bat.

What follows may be a little on the technical side, may not be an accurate depiction of current thinking at the top level and is definitely the sort of thing a cricket purist could spend a lot of time debating with a glass of amber fluid in one hand while the other performs the regulation hand gestures required when discussing batting technique.

The first thing that should be noted is that orthodox notions of technique have evolved over time, and represent a gradual tweaking of technical issues that date back well into the nineteenth century and the days of uncovered pitches in English conditions. As the game has evolved some of those issues have been taken out of the equation (i.e. uncovered pitches) and conditions in countries outside England have taken some of the English factors out of play. You also have techniques developed on consistent, artificial surfaces that don't quite demand the same precision associated with playing on turf.

But if I had to identify the two key elements in the orthodox batting technique, they're the issues associated with the movement of the front foot and the subsequent positioning of the head.

A picture, they say, is worth a thousand words, so, in the interests of brevity, let's have a picture.

So, what have we got here?

First the lines.

The most important of them are the horizontal one that designates a good length and the vertical one that represents the batsman's eye line" as defined by his stance.

The good length decides whether you play forward or back, the eye line determines whether you're playing to the off side or the leg side.

Of the two other vertical lines the front foot leg side line defines the limit of where you can get to and actually hit the ball on the leg side. Anything on the other side of it is basically unhittable, which is why they're so strict on Wides in limited overs cricket.

The second line, designating the danger zone represents a line that's not quite wide enough to cut, but possibly not close enough to hook or pull. If you're a fast bowler who's aiming to bowl short, this is where you want the ball because a cross bat shot will be difficult to control, and there's the possibility of physical harm if the batsman can't avoid or hit the ball.

From there, it's a matter of moving your feet into a position where your head is over the line of the ball. The only shots where this doesn't apply are the cuts, which is why the coaching manuals I read as a kid suggested avoiding the shot until September (i.e. the very end of the English season).

You can see roughly where the front foot needs to go for the front foot shots , and one notes that moving the front foot to the leg side is a key component of the hook and pull shot.

I could go on at much greater length about all this, but let's leave it at that for the moment and consider what happens when you don't get your head over the ball, which is a difficulty in picking up the line of the ball and a subsequent vulnerability when the ball moves through the air or off the deck.

With the number of played ons in this game, does that last bit sound sort of familiar.

Now, it's quite possible to throw the bat at a ball pitched outside off stump without getting your front foot across to the line. It's even possible to take your foot forward and hoick the ball over onto the leg side. It's something limited overs cricket encourages, but it leaves the bat susceptible to the ball that does something.

And this is where the difficulty lies. It's easy enough to change the parameters when you're looking at the bowling, and once you have you're down to tweaking and refining.

With the bat you're looking at breaking down long standing habits, even if you have managed to correctly identify the technical issues, and we're talking something that's going to take more than a couple of days of what some of the radio commentators were labelling naughty boy nets.

That's about enough on the subject for now, though I'm always up for a lengthy discussion of such matters…

So, what about today?

Well, to state the bleeding obvious, it's all down to how long we bat. A 230 run lead may already be enough, but 250 would be better. 300 is possibly beyond reach, but you never know. Maybe if Hussey and Pattinson can make it through the first hour it might be gettable. The highest successful chase in an MCG Test is in the 330s, so you'd guess anything beyond that would be ungettable.

Or it should be, if you're talking an ordinary Test side.

This Indian side, of course, isn't an ordinary batting order. If you had to pick an order most likely in world cricket at the moment I suspect this is the one you might go for.

Regardless of the target set, today is the day that will decide the game, and batting through to lunch would leave two sessions for the four man attack to operate in, with the possibility of overnight rest if the game goes into Day Five.

On that basis it's going to be up to Pattinson, Siddle and Hilfenhaus to stick to the established bowling plan and see where it takes us.

Above all, the whole Australian side must ignore the niggle that will come as sure as the blood follows a punch on the nose.

If I had to identify a possible source for that, it'll be the suggestion of movement around the sight screen as the bowler is running in. There'll be others, of course. Catches will be disputed, we'll have some argy bargy about bowlers' follow throughs, and I expect there'll be something very close to an ugly incident some time between lunch and tea, with another between tea and stumps.

But those, incidents when they come, and I'm sure they will, must be recognized for the gamesmanship they almost certainly will be. India are here to win the series, and you wouldn't be expecting them to remove any weapons from the arsenal, would you?

Oh, and if I was in charge of the MCG I'd be barricading off the seats twenty metres on either side of the sight screens and ensuring absolutely no one can get in there.

And I'd have had those barriers in place before the Indian side arrived at the ground.

A Man Hears What He Wants To Hear (Take Two)

Or not. As the case may be.

Last time we were talking advice, and adding the and disregards the rest bit from the Paul Simon song, but this time we're talking snicks, aren't we?

Fielders and bowlers are very good at hearing snicks, even where there might not be a snick at all, a factor that results in regular high volume demands for an independent adjudication.

Batsmen (and, yes, I know I could be using batters, but I'm inclined to the view that batter is something you put on fish, and I prefer my fish without the slightest hint of violence, but, as I frequently do, digress)….

Batsmen, on the other hand, tend towards deafness, and are disinclined to notice associated tremors on the willow, which explains the frequency of discussions about walking, doesn't it?

Amid the controversy, sometimes the independent adjudication delivers an assessment that's at odds with the strongly held view of one of the interested parties.

Which is why we have this DRS, isn't it?

There is, of course, another reason why the beast exists, namely the propensity of television networks to conduct repeated forensic examination of the accuracy of the aforementioned independent adjudication.

Of course, when they were making those forensic examinations in the pre-DRS era they'd rabbit on endlessly about how wonderful it would be if the umpires were able to have access to all this marvellous technology while they proudly put their latest little toy through its paces.

And, yes, I know this is old territory, but I think it's important.

Having come up with a system that works pretty well from where I'm sitting, one wonders why it isn't universally accepted, and the only reason I can see for an argument about the accuracy of the technology is a perception that its use or non-use is going to be advantageous to the side in question.

Two referrals should be enough to eliminate obvious howlers, and a prudent captain won't waste his first one on a vague possibility that you might get Tendulkar cheaply. You might, after all, need that one when he's on a hundred and ninety, putting the attack to the sword and they're eight-for.

Trying it on for Sehwag early in the piece and losing one with Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Dhoni to come isn't exactly smart thinking either.

It's a bit different when your side is batting, of course, but if you've got a top order bat who repeatedly asks for unsuccessful referrals he'd want to be scoring a swag of runs, wouldn't he?

Given the fact that Sachin Tendulkar is a vocal critic of the DRS (strange, he's been on the wrong end of more dodgy decisions than some nations' entire Test XIs) I'm inclined to scratch my head and wonder what on earth is going on.

That mystification was significantly underscored by Harsha Bhogle's remarks on the matter on ABC radio yesterday morning.

From his point of view the technology is inadequate since the hot spot failed to detect the snick that was actually there.

As a rule, the absence of forensic evidence tends to eliminate possibilities, but there you go. A man hears what he wants to hear…

Even when there's no forensic evidence to support the allegation.

But all this does is underline the fact that we've got an Indian side that's here to win a series, and, arguably, are lining up as many factors as they cam on their side of the fence, while simultaneously removing as many as possible from the other side.

Fair enough. Under similar circumstances we'd be doing exactly the same, wouldn't we?

All of which underlines the fact that we've got a close contest on our hands at the moment, and, hopefully, a tense struggle through four Tests.

Based on what happened on the field yesterday we've got a beauty on our hands.

Given the presence of Sehwag, Dravid and Tendulkar at the crease the emerging Australian attack went about their business remarkably well.

Pattinson continues to impress as one spearhead, and there's the prospect of Cummins as the counterfoil. Siddle is showing the benefits of the change in bowling approach, Hilfenhaus looks much better than he did this time last year. Against this batting order I thought they've gone rather well, though I note with some alarm seven-sixty-fifths of the overs bowler coming from Messrs Hussey and Warner.

And Lyon, against a batting lineup that probably eats several finger spinners before breakfast, acquitted himself rather well. He's still a work in progress, but at least he's making progress.

And then, of course, there was the batting. That first ball after the tea break, for example.

But it's only one example.

At three-for, with Laxman, Kohli and Dhoni to come and a tail that'll probably wag itself you'd probably regard something around four hundred and fifty as par, so the first hour or so this morning will, in the currently popular parlance, be key.

But, as usual, we knew that, didn't we.

Actually, all of this merely underlines long-standing knowledge, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, given form over the years you have to suspect as things go down to the wire we'll have the increased possibility of fireworks. The niggle has started already with the DRS bit, and the Pattinson-Sehwag disagreement over the appropriate path for a bowler's follow through suggests we're in for increasing confrontation over the next few days.

Regardless of the outcome of this match, you can confidently expect more of the same when hostilities resume in Sydney, Perth and Adelaide.

From where I'm sitting it's effectively a game of chicken, and it'll be interesting to see who takes the backward step I don't think it's going to be India….

Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad

Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

That, a quick Google reveals, comes from the pen of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, though you'll find remarkably similar sentiments expressed by Lycurgus, Sophocles, Euripides, Seneca and John Dryden.

And that quote makes a handy counterpoint to headlines like Poor decisions mar Test series opener and opening statements like Three dubious umpiring decisions and the lack of a video review system.

After Day One it's obvious that we're in for a very hard fought and intensely contested series, but then we already knew that, didn't we?

Reviewing yesterday's play, with two less wickets  you'd have awarded the day to Australia, with those two factored in you'd possibly call it evenly poised, but when you consider the manner of those two removals you'd probably give India the nod.

It's obvious that they're here to win, and if they can wrap up the Australian innings before lunch you'd reckon they'd be well on the way to One-Nil.

Looking back on the six dismissals I'm inclined to ascribe Warner and Marsh to the rain delay, Ponting and Clarke to good bowling and Hussey and Cowan to the niggle factor I'll be coming back to further on.

Any serious cricket follower would probably like a dollar for every time a wicket has fallen just after an interruption, but yesterday's rain break was, I reckon, definitely something different.

We get regularly find wickets falling just after a resumption, and that's usually in circumstances where batsmen have time to prepare themselves to resume hostilities. I wandered out of the office when they wandered off the paddock, had a brief chat to 'Er Indoors and was surprised to find them back on so soon.

Usually, when there's a rain break you find a designated resumption time, which gives players time to reset themselves. This time around you'd reckon Warner and Cowan would no sooner have got the batting gloves off when they were being told to get 'em back on again.

Batting first on Day One, most top order batsmen are likely to be vulnerable, and, even if you discount the effect of the interruption Marsh's dismissal is the sort of thing that's always likely early in the innings.

Ponting looked shaky early, and caught second slip suggests the Indians reckon they've got him worked out. It'll be interesting to see what happens when he's dismissed LBW falling across his stumps (which you can probably back into favouritism for the second dig, see below),

Clarke was set up nicely by Zaheer, chopping on a delivery he expected to go away, leaving room for that cut. Smart bowling and a sign that while Zaheer and Ishant Sharma might be slightly underdone they're not that far off, and are going to be a genuine handful if they can maintain their fitness.

Yadav looks like a handy third seamer, and Ashwin got a couple to grip and turn, so you might be inclined towards the four specialist bowlers is enough school of thought.

Well, you might, but I'd counter with Day One, our batting and those dodgy decisions I've been trying to steer away from. Let's see how our four are going late on Day Three, shall we?

Make no bones about it, India regard a series win here the same way as Steve Waugh and company viewed an away win in subcontinental conditions and they're out to maximise their chances.

I might be a cynic, but you can see an underlying theme coming through when people start talking about accepting the umpires decision, things evening themselves out in the long run and continuing the ways things have been played for over a century.

Gamesmanship has been part of the game since J.C. was taking the new ball for the Bethlehem Under 10s, and while the intention of the DRS is to avoid the obvious howlers, the possibilities of niggle offered by a refusal to accept the technology are, as far as I can see, part of a conscious ploy.

One wonders how far down the track it'll be when we start hearing references to foul mouthed racist Australians, for instance.

When we do, we'll more than likely be hearing how everything is all sweetness and light among players who appear for the same IPL franchise, won't we?

And, of course, it won't be the IPL team mate who'll be doing the niggling.

No, India have set themselves not to expect second chances, everybody else is used to the escape valve, and when the howler arrives we'll get the shrug and the That's cricket, won't we?

If you want to beat an Australian side that includes Mr Ponting you'd expect someone like Duncan Fletcher would have a few creative ideas, and this no DRS thing definitely fits a pattern.

Or maybe I should make that a Prattern...

A thorny question

I don't know which of the whoever bats second will probably score a squillion runs scenarios I find more depressing.

Given a Cricinfo report suggesting that this year's drop in pitch will offer early life and is unlikely to break up once that early life departs, you'd expect a side with a strong batting order to be inclined to insert the opposition, bat for about two days and then see if they can be winkled out on Days Four and Five to win without needing to bat again.

Which will, of course, make the toss and subsequent decisions rather interesting.

You'd hope that whoever bats first would last well into the second day, and preferably lasts until some time through the middle session, giving the bowlers a short spell with the new rock before Tea and two and (probably) a half hours in the final session before a bib bowl on Days Three and Four.

You definitely wouldn't be looking to a repeat of last year's opening day even if it is India batting first, because rocketed out on Day One would reduce opportunities to enjoy Sehwag, Gambhir, Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman and Dhoni at the crease.

I could watch those guys bat all day, and there's every chance I probably will.

Repeatedly.

Having them at the crease all day, and given there's a fifty-fifty chance India will be batting second it could well stretch to two - not that I'm objecting to the prospect provided we've managed something over three hundred batting first - means there's going to be an awful lot of work for the bowlers.

Having had the series in Sri Lanka and South Africa to cement his place in the side it'll be interesting to see how Lyon goes against a batting order that has been known to destroy spin bowlers.

And given the lengthy spell at the crease you'd have to assume there'll be something go amiss with one of the bowlers. Ten days of Test cricket over the next fortnight and all that…

Murphy's Law would suggest that we'll lose one of the quicks and/or have something go amiss with Lyon, and given the whatever can go wrong will go wrong and when it does it'll go wrong at the worst possible time factor means that if we lose a quick it'll probably be Pattinson.

That would make two potential spearheads of an emerging attack gone in the space of three Tests.…

So there's my reason for not looking forward to two days of Sachin and Company at the crease.

I am looking forward to it, actually, but in a way I'm not.

We could, on the other hand, find ourselves batting second against an attack where you'd have to place question marks over the fitness of Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma, and surely, I hear you ask, Hughesy's looking forward to watching Australia amass something in the vicinity of six hundred.

This is where the I don't know the worse scenario bit really kicks in, since a score around the six hundred mark is probably going to mean a big hundred or two, and there's every possibility that or two might mean both of Ponting and Hussey, and a belief that both can stick around into the indefinite future.

Under those circumstances, given the fact that we went for Hussey over Christian at Six, where does Watson slot in, given the assumption he's an automatic selection if fit?

And with that, I rest my case for the moment. Reflections on Day One to follow tomorrow morning.


 

About that squad...

Encountering Jimbo and Black/Blonde Betty on this morning's walk saw an opening exchange along the following lines:

So, Hughesy, the selectors didn't read your blog?

And you wouldn't expect them to, would you? And, on the whole, I reckon I got things pretty close. Bearing in mind I don't get phone calls from Australian cricketers with question marks over the fitness and I wasn't at tThe Gabba to overhear conversations between Harris and Andy Bichel.

Black/Blonde Betty, being of the canine persuasion, remained silent throughout.

No, I went on, the interesting bit would be knowing what they were thinking before Harris and Watson were ruled out. Wasn't figuring Marsh would be fit, so I was wrong there. But otherwise…

And with the squad of thirteen named you'd probably be thinking Mike Hussey's continuing career is almost entirely dependent on Marsh's fitness.

Marsh ruled out, Hussey and Christian both fit into the eleven. Marsh fit, and you'd think it becomes Hussey or Christian, though I note that over on Cricinfo reports suggest Inverarity is talking Marsh or Christian, Starc or Hilfenhaus.

Which, in turn, raises the question of whether Ponting's in the side until a fit Watson makes his way back into the squad (assuming Marsh is still fit).

Without Harris, Hilfenhaus is probably the logical choice if you're looking for experience rather than youth, and you'd probably expect him to squeeze in ahead of Starc at this point.

The selection of this squad, however, starts to clarify some issues around the pool of players from which they're going to select the team, so let's consider some of those issues.

I've been looking for a squad of around twenty that'd cover future Test and ODI commitments, remembering that T20 is an almost completely different kettle of fish.

So if we're looking at a squad of around twenty, what have we got.

Well, we've got this squad of thirteen for starters. Six bats, an all-rounder, a wicketkeeper, four quicks and a spinner.

Supplement those with another name in the all-rounder, keeping and spinning departments and we're up to sixteen, so throw in another couple of bats and another couple of bowlers and there you are.

So you'd assume, in a squad of twenty, the all-rounders are Watson and Christian, the 'keepers are Haddin and Wade, and the spinners are Lyon and someone you might almost be tempted to pick with a pin. If we're talking an offie, Hauritz may be next cab off the rank, particularly since Ponting's away from the captaincy. One suspects lack of captain confidence was largely responsible for Hauritz's omission in the first place.

If we're talking left arm orthodox it's probably Holland and Beer, and if we're looking for a leggie maybe Boyce and Smith, though Smith's a candidate for that all-rounder bracket as well.

Which, of course brings us to the batting group.

Given Warner, Cowan, Marsh, Ponting, Clarke and Hussey are there at the moment and Khawaja and Hughes continue to be players of interest, the questions concern longevity (Ponting and Hussey) and next cabs off the rank. You'd probably expect Ferguson in there, and beyond that it'll depend on where you're sitting and who you're looking at.

The bowling's more straightforward. We've got the spin department filled out, so in the pace department it's Pattinson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Starc (note assumed pecking order) with Harris waiting on the sidelines along with Cummins, both more than likely straight back in when they're fit. Throw in Copeland in the background and you've probably got room for one more, and that one would presumably be Cutting.

Those fringe spots are going to be clarified, one suspects, when we move into one day mode, but we can throw Mitchell Marsh in as another contender in the all-rounder spot.

So, to make some lists (and let's alphabetise to take out the pecking order).

Bats: Clarke, Cowan, Ferguson, Hughes, Hussey, Khawaja, Shaun Marsh, Ponting, Warner, plus one (three in the long run to cover for Ponting and Hussey's departure),

All-rounders: Christian, Mitchell Marsh, Smith, Warner

Fast bowlers: Copeland, Cummins, Cutting, Harris, Hilfenhaus, Pattinson, Starc, plus one.

Spin bowlers: Beer, Boyce, Hauritz, Holland, Lyon, Smith?

When you remove the two senior batsmen and throw in a couple of fresh young faces that looks like a rather impressive squad, with a fair bit of potential. Label me upbeat...

A squad for Melbourne

They're announcing the squad for Melbourne later today, so I guess it's time to dust off the old crystal ball and apply a bit of Primary Schools' selection thinking in an attempt to guess a possible outcome, so let's see how close we go.

The starting point is, I guess, the twelve from Hobart, and the first question concerns omissions. Given the players who are looming on the horizon you might be inclined to draw a line through both Hughes and Starc (Watson for Hughes, Harris for Starc) and leave it at that, but there are other questions that need to be considered, so it's a case (at least it's a case from where I'm sitting) of sorry Phillip, hang on a bit Mitchell but don't be holding your breath.

So, Hughes out, Starc on the verge, who comes in?

Well, it's obvious that both Watson and Harris are almost guaranteed a walk up start, provided both are fit, but we've also got Cowan coming out of the Canberra bat-off with a ton, so he has to go into calculations.

With Watson, Harris, Cowan and Hobart twelfth man Christian added o the surviving ten from Bellerive we've got a squad of fourteen to fit into eleven places in a starting line up.

From here we split them into definites: Warner, a fit Watson, Clarke, Haddin, Pattinson, a fit Harris, Siddle and Lyon

and the possibilities: Khawaja, Ponting, Hussey and Starc from Hobart and Cowan on the horizon.

We then take those definites and slot them into a batting order. After that we'll start asking questions and filling in the gaps.

So, Warner, Two, Three, Watson (subject to possible move), Clarke, Six, Haddin, Harris, Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon, Twelve.

Twelve is easy enough. Starc sits into that spot based on the possibility of injury and the quick turn around between tests.

Warner, Two, Three, Watson (subject to possible move), Clarke, Six, Haddin, Harris, Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon, Starc.

Given the assumption that Starc is there to cover for injury to someone in the bowling group, the back to back test factor, the need for a fourth quick in the eleven the next question involves Watson.

So, is he going to bowl?
If no, Christian has to play, and therefore has to bat Six.

 If yes, you can hold that Six open for long enough to consider cover for Harris if he plays and breaks down during the match. If he breaks down before the game, Starc could slot in there. Alternatively Christian could slide into Eight but you're still probably a bowler short.

No, Christian has to platy, preferably batting Six, but Watson fit to bowl, and Harris injured could see him drop to Eight.

But let's stop pussyfooting around. Christian at Six, tweaking to follow if injury becomes a concern.

Warner, Two, Three, Watson (subject to possible move), Clarke, Christian, Haddin, Harris, Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon, Starc, which leaves the question of how we slot Watson, Cowan, Ponting, Khawaja and Hussey into Two, Three and Four. Five contenders for three spots, so which way do we go?

I'm assuming Watson's moving down the order with an increase in bowling workload. If he's not bowling, he could open, but he's going to be bowling some time, so rule that out.

We want to be looking towards a long term opening combination, so it's a choice between Khawaja, Cowan and Hussey for Two. Any of the three could do it, but Hussey would be a temporary fix. Khawaja has been thrown in at the deep end against the new ball at three, and hasn't done enough to suggest a move upwards. If he stays, he'd need to bat down the order at Four.

Cowan may be pushing thirty so he's no spring chicken, but he's a specialist opener  in form. He could have three or four years in him if he's got the goods.

Warner, Cowan, Khawaja/Ponting/Hussey, Watson (subject to possible move), Clarke, Christian, Haddin, Harris, Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon, Starc.

And isn't that last spot a doozy?

Doesn't have to be, but it's a matter of whether we're looking at biting bullets.

There's also the possibility of moving Watson up to Three, which would work if, for example, you wanted to look at Khawaja at Four. That's a question of where you see Khawaja as a long term prospect. I don't think he's done enough at Three, though you'd also note that he's repeatedly been exposed to the new ball after the loss of an early wicket.

Given the fact that they haven't let him go yet, I suspect Ponting will hold his place, which then raises the question of when he does get let go. Sorry Mr Cricket, sorry young Usman, but that's the way I reckon it'll shake out.

On the other hand, we still need to be working towards the squad of twenty, with the current eleven, a reserve keeper and spinner, three bats and four bowlers. There's a spot for Khawaja there, though you'd hardly be thinking Ponting and Hussey are both long term prospects.

If I was doing the selecting I'd name a squad of thirteen (the twelve I think they'll pick plus Khawaja) and look at him a cover for a batting injury between now and Perth with Starc in the same role as far as the bowling's concerned.

My twelve: Warner, Cowan, Watson, Ponting, Clarke, Christian, Haddin, Harris, Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon, Starc.

Hobby horse resumed...

I know I said that I'd be refraining from cricket comment until we have some sort of form line coming out of Canberra this weekend, but there are some things that can't be allowed to pass without comment and this is one of them.

The notion that Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey have anything to contribute beyond the immediate short term seems to go against all notions of strategic planning,

Seriously, if you're guaranteeing both a place just under a fortnight out from the game you're ruling out other possibilities before you start selecting the actual side.

Guaranteeing Hussey a spot at Six rules out, for example, bringing Watson back as a batting all-rounder, and if he's not up to bowling in this next game rules out slotting Christian in that spot with Watto further up the order.

And if you're guaranteeing Ponting his spot at Four, you're saying the non-bowling Watson has to open or bat Three…

But apart from those next game issues there are long term strategic planning issues.

For a start, we should be looking towards a batting line up capable of scoring six hundred in two days and a bowling attack that can dismiss a strong batting line up twice. This isn't going to happen overnight, but it's the sort of thing we should be working towards.

More significantly, while we're heading in that direction we need to be working our way up the Test rankings. After the series win in Sri Lanka we're apparently sitting at Number Four, where we're always going to be under threat from the likes of Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

No, the safest way of avoiding being knocked out of the Top Four is to get to Three, Two or One and leave the looking over the shoulder bit to whoever you've pushed into that slot as you work your way towards Number One.

More significantly, assuming the proposed Test Championship actually gets off the ground, there's a vital reason why you don't want to be Four.

I haven't seen the actual format for this Championship bit, but it will almost certainly only involve the Top Four.

Assuming that's the way things go there are only two possibilities for the format. You either go for two qualifying games (or series, but that's probably not going to happen) and a winner plays winner final or a full round robin with the top two teams playing off in the decider.

That round robin format would need seven games, and I suspect that scheduling issues will ensure the format will go with two qualifiers and a final. If that's the case you either draw the names out of a hat or go with One plays Four and Two plays Three.

In that scenario if you're Number Four you'll be playing the top dog for a place in the final, and that's after you've been looking over your shoulder to make sure no one tips you out of contention.

Assuming you want to move above Number Four you're going to need to knock someone out of the Top Three to make room for you, which in turn means at least one series win against England, India and South Africa.

The series against India is the start of that, and you'd fancy our chances at home against a side that tends not to play well away from home, and there may be a case for Ponting or Hussey in the immediate future, but let's look beyond that.

After this series against India we're at home to South Africa with away series against England and India. We'll be playing the other sides along the way, but if we're looking to get to Three we're going to tip someone out of the Top Three to make room for us, aren't we?

Seriously, how far into the future are we going to go with these two great players who may have served the side well in the past but are increasingly going to struggle against quality seam bowling, which we can expect from England and South Africa. Surely we're not suggesting they'll still be key in twelve months time against Steyn, Morkel and Philander?

Worse, if we allow them to hang on by the fingertips when they do eventually go we'll be throwing the replacements straight into the pressure cooker.

No, possibly as far as the end of this series, fellas, if you hold your place as the side is picked on form and strategic concerns rather than having selections slotted in around you.

Hobart Post Mortem

Well, it should have been a cakewalk, and yesterday's result shows how close this two Test series could have been had the Black Caps held heir chances in Brisbane.

Ironically, the injury to Vettori that gave Boult his first Test cap may well have been the difference between the sides this time around. Without the spinner to clean up the tail the four man pace attack did the job for the Kiwis and out-bowled a developing attack that's not quite there yet.

You could also go around pointing out that any team that can lose 8/74 deserves to lose, but in the meantime it's back to the drawing board while we wait for the two Chairman's XI games against India to sort out a team for Melbourne.

We have, however, answered a couple of questions.

 There's no doubt that Warner has done enough to hold his spot, and there's no way that Hughes can hold his. Clarke has done a good enough job as captain, but needs runs, and Pattinson, Siddle and Lyon are the basis of a decent bowling attack. So, injury permitting, we've got an eleven comprising:

Warner, Two, Three, Four, Clarke, Six, Keeper, Eight, Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon.

I noted, on my flick through the websites this morning, a predictable call from Bob Simpson for Simon Katich to be recalled and installed as captain. Presumably that also would involve dropping Clarke, given the apparent notion that you can't have both of them sharing a dressing room, despite the fact that they both play for New South Wales.

I filed the Simmo comment under Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Simmo has, after all, been working with Katich fairly closely.

I was, however, more taken by his comment that the policy when he took over as coach was to decide who were the best seventeen players in Australia and then give them as many chances you could possibly get.

That mirrors my thoughts as I made my way back down Kennedy Street at lunchtime yesterday, and, arguably, immediately rules out Ponting and Hussey. Probably rules out Katich as well, when you look at it closely, but it's an idea with definite merit.

My thoughts yesterday were along the lines of an eleven for Melbourne, with shadow players to round out a squad of twenty and further shadows to cover any withdrawals due to injury, loss of form or retirement.

That retirement bit, by the way, is only there as an at some point in a relatively distant future consideration.

No, eleven for Melbourne, plus a backup keeper and all-rounder, three bats and four bowlers. We've acknowledged that the bowlers need to be managed carefully, so there's the justification for a four/three split between ball and bat.

Hopefully, out of that group of twenty you'd have enough talent to mould into a long term proposition, and if it was given some degree of official confirmation it could form the basis of communication between the selection panel and the players on the fringe of national selection.

While we're looking at these things we need to ensure that decisions are based on cricket factors and long term strategic planning rather than short term issues, sentiment and player preferences.

In terms of the big picture clearly none of the three aforementioned elder statesmen have much to offer beyond this summer, and if you're going to start planning for the future, with Katich gone you can't see much point in holding on to Ponting and Hussey beyond yesterday.

Actually, there's not much point in holding onto Ponting or Hussey, though Punter may get a short term reprieve. If he does it has to be on the understanding that he'll be holding that press conference before a specified point in the future. If he can't agree to do that, he should go now, and if he does agree and fails to follow through that should be the end of him.

Yes, he'd like to play on through the summer, and Mr Cricket would like to hang around at least as far as Perth, but it's fairly clear bowing to player and captaincy preferences has been a major factor in creating the pickle we find ourselves in.

Mitchell Johnson was a match-winner, an essential member of the attack, and an all-rounder in the making and had to be persisted with, which meant that Watson had to open, which in turn helped push Katich onto the sidelines when someone decided Hughes had done enough to merit a recall, because we always had Watto at the other end, which meant that Khawaja…

Speaking of Khawaja, where does he fit in all this? He's no good thing to hold his spot at Three, but when you look at it much of his run of low scores comes from arriving at the crease early after the departure of a certain opener caught Guptill, bowled Martin.

It will be very interesting to see how he goes for the Chairman's XI at Manuka, and since what transpires in the nation's capital is going to have a significant influence on the team selected for Boxing Day it's probably a matter of wait and see and try to figure out the jigsaw once we've got some form to go on and a better appreciation of where Messrs Watson, Marsh and Cummins are as far as fitness goes.

Back some time over the weekend....

So, two days, 169 to get, ten wickets in hand

In the absence of solid rain I guess you'd be looking at a cakewalk.

Taking 7/87 in the two and a half hours before lunch, of course, set things up nicely, starting with Ponting's second sljp snare that removed Kane Williamson from the equation. At four for with Brownlie in early on a day that looked like the ball was going to continue to do things you'd have been fairly upbeat, but I find it difficult come up with any description other than threw it away after watching the Black Caps' tail fold.

In a situation that literally sreamed for occupying the crease, grabbing any runs that were there and turning the runs required/remaining time quotient as much in your favour as you can manage, the batting from the lower order after Pattinson removed Taylor and Brownlie suggested that we were somewhere around lunch time on Day Four rather than Day Three, another hundred runs to the good and the key factor was getting Australia back at the batting crease ASAP.

Overall, I thought Australia bowled well in a situation that involved drying up of the run rate and picking up chances as and when they arrived.

Under the old regime this would have involved working back of a length and waiting for a mistake, but the keep it pitched up and look for the nicks policy came good, Starc's bouncer unsettled Brownlie and Lyon rolled up the tail as the Kiwis did their best to co-operate by seeking out Hussey at deep long on.

This Australianattack is still a work in progress, but at least it's a work that's progressing towards a target. Siddle is actually getting the ball to swing, Pattinson will hopefully be around for a long time, Lyon looks the best finger spin option we've had in a long time, Starc looks a viable option to Johnson and Bollinger and we've got a number of contenders on the sidelines waiting for their go.

So we're looking good in that department.

When it comes to the batting, it's a matter of looking at the way we pad out the bowling order, and where we go from there.

There's an obvious need for a batting all-rounder, and Watson's the walk-up starter in that role, with Daniel Christian as the fallback and Mitchell Marsh as an emerging possibility for the same role.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to see the three of them in the same side on the subcontinent, with Pattinson or Cummins as the specialist quick and two specialist spinners and part time tweaking from Clarke and Warner. In that sort of line up you'd have Marsh or Christian at Eight, the keeper at Seven and t'other one at Six.

But that's getting a bit ahead of things.

First up it's a matter of sorting out what happens with Watto, where he fits into the batting order, how much he bowls and whether he needs cover.

Hughes has looked better second time around, but he's no good thing for Melbourne, regardless of how many he scores this time around.

On a game by game basis a hundred to Hughes might save his spot, but the same questions are going to be asked, and somewhere down the track they're going to be asked by an attack that's a bit more penetrative than the tradesman-like Kiwis. At that point we'll be playing someone in the upper echelons of the Test rankings and it's going to count.

So there's the message to Messrs Ponting and Hussey. We're heading for Number Three in the Test rankings. That's going to involve beating at least one out of England, India and South Africa, and we need to do that both at home and away.

Seriously, gents, how long do you see yourself fitting into that long-term picture? Time for a press conference in Hobart and another somewhere around Perth at the very latest.

Hobart Day Two

It will be interesting to see how the national selection panel go about things in the wake of yesterday's remarkable first session.

Unlike Day One, which didn't produce much that needed in-depth reflection as far as Australia was concerned, there are a couple of major decisions that will need to be taken in the wake of a morning session where we lost 6/69.

It's already obvious that Hughes will be replaced for Melbourne, but in a situation where you'd have been looking for someone to put his hand up the way Dean Brownlie did for the Black Caps. His knock on the opening day was the difference between the two teams, and if you're a Kiwi supporter you'd be looking forward to a lengthy spell with D. Brownlie firmly entrenched in the middle order.

Kiwi supporters would also be upbeat about Boult and Bracewell as long term prospects, and while Vettori would be an automatic selection if fit, you'd think he'd be regaining his place at the expense of Southee or Martin rather than either of the two newcomers.

Williamson and Taylor have a chance to nail things down this morning, with Brownlie still to come, a deck that seems to have flattened out and the prospect of bowling to defend a total that will be closer to 400 than 200.

The question of whether that four man pace attack will be able to do the job on a wearing surface without the spin option will make for fascinating viewing on Monday and Tuesday but as a bowling group I thought they looked a better, more balanced unit than our three quicks and a spinner, though Lyon will be a key player on Day Three.

That second innings, however, is going to raise a number of issues, and hopefully deliver at least one answer. Unlike the first dig, when the bowlers were able to ask constant questions,

One assumes that Day Four will offer the best conditions fore batting, with Day Five presumably throwing a wearing pitch into the equation.

With Hughes' fate seemingly sealed, he will, of course, more than likely come up with a big hundred, but I suspect that a double century would only delay the inevitable. The opener's role is to display a bit of stickability on Day One in bowler-friendly conditions, and it seems Hughes hasn't sorted out his technique to the point where can consistently answer the questions the opposing attack will be posing.

Warner, one assumes, will have the series against India to cement his spot at the top of the order, but a score here would help his cause immeasurably. The big question will concern his opening partner in Melbourne.

Runs to Khawaja in the second innings here will cement his spot, and he could, if necessary move up one spot if the panel wanted to see Watson batting higher than Six.

Ponting, to all intents and purposes, will be batting for his place in the side for Melbourne, though I suspect he'd be best advised to hold the press conference and make the announcement before the Indians take on the Cricket Australia Chairman’s XI at Manuka Oval next Thursday.

If Ponting holds his place it will only be because the panel wants his experience at Four while they sort out One, Two, Three and Six. Clarke is safe at Five, but that's the only certainty apart from Warner's spot at the top of the order.

Much of that reshuffle will come down to the question of how much bowling Watson can expect to do. If the answer is none, you could make a case for putting him back to open, but that raises the question of where he bats when he's fit to bowl again.

No, Watson at Four or Six.

Khawaja and a fit Marsh look like filling Two and Three, though which of them goes where is still an issue.

The final spot in the batting order will depend on that Watson bowling issue. Given the need for a fourth seamer, if Watto's not going to bowl you'll want Christian at six. If you've got a question about Watto breaking down you probably still want Christian at Six, which means the only spot for Watson is Four, in which case it's Bye Bye Punter.

But that's the long term issue. More immediately, we have Starc and Siddle looking to cement their place in the attack and the question of how many we're going to be chasing and when the chase is going to start. That's the sort of issue that'll make for fascinating viewing and underlines the fact that there's nothing quite like Test Cricket in the sporting universe.

Hobart Day One

Rain interruptions at Bellerive yesterday and evaporation problems associated with last night's bottle of red mean I'm pushing it if I'm going to get this tapped out and published, hurl myself at the shower, rock up to the butcher on the corner and get back before what I assume will be a nine o'clock Queensland time resumption to make up for lost time.

Fortunately yesterday's play didn't produce much that needs in-depth reflection.

Another Pattinson five-for confirmed the impression from The Gabba and underlines my comment that he mightn't match his second innings figures from there too often but while he's working that line and length the possibility will always be there.

Lyon, once again, was tidy under conditions that didn't suit, Siddle was reasonably impressive in the work horse role and Starc didn't deliver enough to cement his place in the side when Cummins comes back into calculations.

The Black Caps batting was more or less what you'd expect in the conditions and could well have gone from five for to all out in a hurry without Brownlie's sterling effort with the bat. He's a definite find, and had Vettori been able to take his place in the line up we'd have been chasing a fair bit more than 150.

Five for sixty was about what you'd expect from that line up against this attack in those conditions, and ninety from the bottom half of the order was a reasonably sound effort under the circumstances.

Hughes' dismissal and the problems Warner and Khawaja experienced against the new ball in general and Martin in particular suggests things wouldn't have been all that different had Clarke lost the toss or elected to bat in the morning.

Left arm debutant Boult looked handy through his two overs and if rain hadn't intervened when it did Australia could well have been three, four or five for by the time the scheduled stumps rolled around.

As far as Hughes is concerned, regardless of what he manages in the second dig, it's probably a matter of who rather than whether or when, and you'd suspect that Mr Cricket's days are numbered as well.  I'm still inclined towards Marsh for Hughes and Watson for Hussey, though if the selectors go for Watto at the top of the order they may well decide they need the extra bowler in Christian at six.

Time will, as always, tell.

Why you should always talk to the groundsman

Given the likelihood that both sides seem to be heading for Bellerive with unchanged elevens, one might suspect there isn't a great deal to ponder in a preview.

Well, there is a bit, as far as the ongoing evolution of the Australian side, but those issues have been fairly widely canvassed.

The question marks remain over Hughes' place opening the batting, Ponting and Hussey as long term prospects and who makes way for a returning Cummins when he's finally fit.

Throw in the possibility of Watson and Marsh coming back for Melbourne and you've got a predictable set of issues that will be partially clarified over the next couple of days.

The biggest question over the game at the moment seems to involve the playing surface at a ground where some tracks needed white stripes painted down the middle and reclassifying as autobahns.

The advance publicity suggests the strip this time around will be a fair bit livelier than that, but appearances can be deceptive, and one assumes Ross Taylor knows what he's doing when he says he hasn't taken a look at the track the day before the game starts.

Maybe he's sent bowling coach Damien Wright, who spent a decade playing for Tasmania, claiming 127 wickets at an average of 26.92 in Hobart, to do that in his stead.

Alternatively, he may well be looking to avoid local disinformation, but a reluctance to examine the surface and consult closely with expert local knowledge seems to run directly against Hughesy's Number One Priority when it comes to playing on turf.

You should always, if possible, talk to the bloke who's in charge of preparing the wicket. Doing that delivered my 1992 NQ Primary School side a State championship. Had the opposing coach done the same we would have lost.

We'd had a rain interrupted carnival that year, and a combination of factors had us back on turf after two days on astro, playing a side we were probably going to beat on the wicket that was going to be used for the final the following day.

We weren't guaranteed a place in the final, since we needed to win this game and have the right result in another game, so we concentrated on first things first when we went out for a look while the groundsman was busily rolling the pitch.

In situations like this it also pays to play dumb, which isn't difficult when you only come across turf wickets at State carnivals, so you preface your questions with remarks about a total lack of turf wickets at home before raising the key issue of what it's likely to do.

That's a major concern when you're looking at something that has the consistency of around the plasticene rather than the rock-hard concrete end of the spectrum. Having left a thumb imprint on the edge and made the preliminary play dumb remarks I raised the key issue.

"Be lively for the first hour, then it'll flatten out," I was informed.

"And in the afternoon?" was a predictable supplementary question.

"Slow and low," was the reply. "And it'll get slower and lower as the afternoon goes on."

"So," I concluded, "you win the toss and bat."

A nod was all the confirmation I needed, the relevant instructions were passed on to the captain who did his bit by winning the toss and everything else went to the script.

Having defended 120-odd on a track where the batsmen were having trouble hitting the ball off the square when the final wickets fell I sent a couple of runners over to check the results of the other game, where a kid named Shane Watson may well have been making sure Metropolitan West beat Darling Downs.

We'd beaten Met West, Darling Downs had beaten us, but we'd had the bye on the day when rain washed out all games. We got no points on a day when everybody got three for a no result rather than six for a win or one for a loss.

Had they been able to play that day, Met West and Darling Downs would probably have won, and they would have been playing for a place in the final. Darling Downs win and they're in. Met West win and we're in.

As indicated previously that result went the right way and we were into the final. It was my first go as coach, but I'd been there the previous time NQ made the final and just went down defending a total of ninety.

So it probably comes as no surprise to find us out at the wicket while the roller was going up and down the next morning.

The predictable inquiry followed and produced an assessment of not quite as lively as yesterday in the morning but slower and lower in the afternoon.

On that basis it looked like a case of win the toss, bat and take out the carnival.

The opposing coach and captain appeared on the scene, poked, prodded and left thumb prints, exchanged significant glances and departed without a word to the groundsman.

They then won the toss and sent us in, anticipating a swag of wickets for their big quickie, who managed a couple.  There was a Year Six kid named Nathan Hauritz bowling relatively successful darts, and you mightn't have thought 114 was enough batting first, but we'd seen what happened the day before, and if it was going to be slower and lower anything over a hundred was probably a winning score.

As it was, we rolled them for around eighty-four.

Now, there's nothing to suggest we're looking at a similar scenario in Hobart over the next couple of days. Michael Clarke has indicated he might be tempted to win and bowl, though he might also change his mind.

On that basis, I'm really looking forward to the pitch report...

So, on to Hobart…

And while we're en route to Bellerive we can slot a couple of pieces into the jigsaw puzzle and place three large red ticks beside Lyon, Pattinson and bowling coach/advisor McDermott. Maybe a couple of gold stars to go with the red ticks, but let's not get too carried away.

There are still a couple of questions, but things are definitely looking a tad clearer.

Yesterday's performance with the ball confirmed we've found the medium term answer to the finger spinner riddle. Lyon's 7/88 reads as the best Gabba Test match return for an Australian off-spinner, and I note with some interest that the only better returns by an offie come from Lance Gibbs (8/170 in 1968) and Erapalli Prasanna (8-218 the year before). That's exalted company, so let's hope he keeps going…

In the quest for an attack that'll take twenty wickets James Pattinson definitely looks the goods, provided he can maintain the same line and length he bowled yesterday. He might be pushing to match the figures he had in the middle of that spell but as long as he's bowling that line and length the possibility will be there.

Remember that most of the radio commentators were bullish about Day Four as the best batting day on that particular Gabba deck…

And that spell put a big tick beside McDermott's fuller length, give the ball a chance to swing philosophy that had the technical staff moving the pitch parameters a metre towards the batsman when they're defining the length.

Actually, this little issue possibly confirms some long-held suspicions about the bowling coach's role in the pecking order. When Troy Cooley was brought back into the fold after his sterling effort with the English attack in 2005 I found myself scratching my head and wondering why our bowlers were't able to swing the new ball or reverse it later in the innings.

After all, the Cooley co-ordinated Poms did it in 2005 and the non-Cooley co-ordinated version did it out here last year.

From where I'm sitting it starts to look like Cooley's role as far as the blokes he was working with were concerned was to provide technical support while the bowlers sorted out the strategy. That's the same issue I raised in an earlier post (A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest) and it definitely means we need a clear channel of communication between selectors, bowling coach and players.

The selectors define what they want to see out of the attack, the coach provides the support and the bowlers deliver what they're asked to deliver rather than what they choose to define as desirable.

Pattinson with a fit Cummins looks like a sharp attack, Starc may or may not have Hobart to demonstrate what he's capable of, Copeland is lurking on the fringes and naming Christian as cover for Cutting also suggests we've got a shadow for a bowling Watson pencilled in.

Comments on ABC Radio News this morning suggest Cummins will be back for Bellerive on Friday, but I'd be inclined to stick with the same attack and see what we reckon as far as Starc and Siddle are concerned.

But we're looking good in the bowling department.

The only major question mark beside the batting group, apart from the Ponting/Hussey retirement issue (and it's clear where I'm sitting on that one) concerns Hughes at the top of the order.

When you look at that question he's only hanging on by the skin of his teeth while Watson and Marsh are on the injured list.

Personally, as far as the side for Melbourne is concerned I'd be seeing how we get through Hobart, giving the side a couple of days off and reconvening the current twelve (with Christian in for Cutting) along with Watson, Marsh and Cummins and taking a couple of days to ponder the possibilities.

Assuming Hughes' days are numbered, and Marsh and a bowling Watson are both fit, my choice, three weeks out from Boxing Day, would be Marsh for Hughes, Watson for Hussey and Cummins for Starc.

Injuries between now and then, or a non-bowling Watson would complicate matters slightly, but in the event of Watson not being right to bowl or Marsh not being fit Watson for Hughes, Christian for Hussey.

Sorry, Mr Cricket, but we need a bowling option in the middle order and if Shane persists with the belief that he can open the batting and bowl his share we still need a bowling option in the middle since his share as an opener will probably be less than his share as a middle order bat.

So, at one-up in the two Test series we can leave things for a bit. I'll be back Friday morning for a preview and, in the meantime, I've got another couple of fish to fry.

So, Day Three, a substantial first innings lead and what do we know now?

Well, for a start, never discount the impact of luck.

The Pup should never have got that ton, Starc shouldn't have got off the mark and under other circumstances we'd have been struggling to get to 295. But you ride your luck, look to accept (or take advantage of) every chance you're given, and see how far the ride takes you.

So 70 to Ponting, 139 to Clarke, 80 to Haddin, a 32 run cameo from Starc and 132 runs to the good with McCullum back in the sheds seven overs into the second innings and you'd be looking at a fairly comfortable victory, wouldn't you?

Well, you would, but there are a couple of issues regarding the steady renovation of the Australian side.

For a start, a glance at the Black Caps' bowling figures indicates the difficulty you're going to have with a four man attack where there's only really one bowler of genuine class.

This four man Australian attack has no established bowlers of genuine class, though there's the opportunity for someone to stick his hand up and claim that mantle. It doesn't mean that's going to happen today, but the opportunity's there if someone's good enough to grab it.

The ten overs from Guptill, Brownlie and Williamson only cost twenty-nine and delivered the wicket of Haddin, but the fact that four bowlers weren't enough on a good batting track underlines the importance of Watson's overs when he's there and fit to bowl and underlines the importance of someone who's good enough to count as a front line bowler in the top six.

At the moment we're still looking for an attack that'll take twenty wickets, and Watson (or someone along the same lines) is going to be a vital part of that picture.

Which inevitably brings us back to Messrs Ponting and Hussey and the timing of their departure.

Assume Watson is fit and ready to bowl at Bellerive. He must come back, so who goes out?

Now, please don't say Hughes, Warner or Khawaja.

We're looking at a long term gig at the top of the batting order, and it seems fairly obvious that if Watson's going to do his share of the bowling he can't (or rather he shouldn't) open the batting.

Personally, given the fact that he's probably the best bat in the side after Clarke and Ponting (we're talking technique and potential here, folks) it seems a waste to put him in the position where he's liable to receive a first day new ball Jaffa.

Watson's long term batting position should be at Four, Five or Six. The judge's decision should be final, and no correspondence should be entered into.

That means if he's fit for Hobart it will have to be a case of Sorry Mr Cricket unless somebody has the sense to give a press conference and announce their retirement.

One suspects that if somebody does, the somebody won't be Ricky Ponting. He seems to be labouring under the delusion that a couple of decent scores will be enough to cement his place in the side into the medium term future, which presumably, in his own mind, stretches through the series against India and the West Indies and beyond.

There's one thing we should have learned from the spin bowler shuffle debacle and that is when you've identified a bloke to fill a long term role he deserves a chance to show what he's capable of.

Hughes, Warner and Khawaja should, injury permitting, be right for Bellerive, Boxing Day and the WACA. Midway through the seres against India if the three of them haven't delivered it'll be time to be looking for replacements, and if there's one or more new faces in the mix then, they deserve a couple of games to show whether they've got what it takes.

Maybe if Khawaja doesn't look like the answer at Three you might consider keeping Ponting at Four while the new bloke finds his feet, but there would also be a case for Khawaja, who is obviously seen as a talented player with long term potential, to have a chance to cement his place in the side at Six, then work his way back up the order.

More particularly, however, recent dismissals suggest that the bowlers have established a chink in Ponting's armour, and as someone pointed out recently, umpiring referrals have closed off something he used to be getting away with as he falls away across the line.

Given the fact that it's Ricky Ponting you'd probably want to refer a close not out decision. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. We are, after all, looking at getting one of the world's greatest batsmen out, and more than likely doing it fairly early before he has a chance to do too much damage.

We've also got the case where one of the world's greatest batsmen is determined to prolong his own career, so if he's given out under the same circumstances he's going to refer the decision.

Those two factors coincide with his dismissal yesterday. Regardless of the result of the appeal there wasn't enough ball hitting the stumps to reverse the umpire's decision.

I don't know how much TV umpires watch, and how closely they look at referrals in games where they're not officiating. I don't, for that matter, know how much attention they pay to the referrals in games where they are officiating.

One suspects, however, an umpire looking at these things might come to the conclusion that when Ponting falls across the line and gets hit on the pads you can probably rule out any benefit of the doubt as far as hitting the stumps is concerned, and if Ricky refers you're not going to be left looking like a goose.

So there's an increased possibility that close calls that would have been given the benefit of the doubt back in pre-referral days will be given out. If you're talking a series where the opposition don't want the referral system that'll probably still be the case.

On that basis, if you're the opposition, you know that targetting Ponting's pads is likely to be productive. You get the decision, Ricky'll refer, and Australia loses one of the two. You don't get the decision, you refer and, while you might get it overturned, you might also be creating the possibility that next time you go up for LBW the decision may come down in your favour.

We're talking the man who lost The Ashes twice and did a lot to create the circumstances we find ourselves in, so he's overstayed his welcome as far as I'm concerned. If you reckon that's a bit harsh, the LBW issue provides a cogent argument against his continued place in the side.

It is to be hoped that he'll have the sense to see where things are headed and call that press conference.

Looking into Day Four, the big question is going to be how well the new look attack performs.

Pattinson's spell yesterday afternoon was a significant improvement on anything he did in the first dig, though I thought he was still a tad too short. Siddle's three overs suggest we need to be looking elsewhere when it comes to new ball duties.

Starc has shown he can contribute useful runs with the bat, which is something we used to say about Mitchell Johnson when he was firing, and now it's a matter of seeing whether he can deliver with the ball.

Lyon will get plenty of work, and I'm expecting him to further cement his place in the attack.

And I'll be watching Haddin's glove work (not that I'm an expert in that department) and Khawaja under the lid at short leg….

Day Two: Same questions, not many answers

Well, there is one.

Nathan Lyon definitely looks like the best off-spinning prospect since before Tim May, which does, in turn, raise the question of what happened to the very promising Dan Cullen, but let's not get ourselves distracted by side issues except to say that the issues that may have raised their ugly heads with the quest for an offie may turn up again when we go looking for a bracket of leggies and left arm tweakers who'll fill out the spin bowling resources.

As far as the spinning department is concerned, we're still feeling the aftermath of the Warne era, and it's to be hoped that we don't see the emergence of a spin bowler who dominates the way Warne did in his heyday any time soon.

In a way, it'd be nice if we could, but it took a long time to turn up the original Warne, so you wouldn't be holding your breath in the quest for Warne Clones.

No, what we want is a bracket of players jostling each other for a spot in the national side with no one being guaranteed their place on a long term basis.

Lyon looks like a medium to long term prospect on the right arm finger spin department. He's given Hauritz and Kreja something to beat and any aspiring youngster on the way through something to emulate.

Now we need a similar situation in the other two major subsets of spin bowling, and spotting a Chinaman bowler or two would be handy as well. Once we've done that there'll be a battery of bowlers to choose from when we're heading into spin-friendly territory.

The pace attack, on the other hand, looks much the same as it did yesterday morning, though you might be inclined to give them a let off based on the chances dropped off Brownlie and the fact that Vettori is a competitive scraper who's been around for long enough to build an impressive record as a lower order bat.

On the other hand, if you can't break through, or even look like breaking through in yesterday morning's circumstances you're going to have problems with a strong batting line up aren't you?

No, as far as the quicks go, we're a long way from where we'd like to be. From Pat Howard's comments about Harris, and the need for him to demonstrate his fitness over five days you wouldn't be looking towards him in the short term. The fact that Cutting bowled only nine overs against Victoria before back soreness after lengthy spells in the nets at the Gabba trying to win a Test spot would appear to rule him out of immediate contention as well.

Actually, the Cutting injury raises the rather ugly question of what might have happened if he'd got the nod ahead of Pattinson.

As far as alternative candidates are concerned, you'd assume Cummins would fit into the frame if fit.

If not the next NSW cabs off the rank would have to be Josh Hazlewood (31.4-4-111-4) and Copeland (32-14-62-2) based on those performances against WA. That assessment might seem a little Blues-friendly as far as assessments are concerned, but without Cutting and Harris Queensland don't appear to have asked too many questions of the Vics, there doesn't appear to be much on offer from Sandgroper territory and the leading non-Blues alternatives would appear to be SA's Peter George and Mr Hilfenhaus.

Plenty of question marks and not many answers in that lot...

We're also light on for answers when it comes to the top order batting.

I was looking for a big partnership between Hughes and Warner in four innings against the Black Caps, and fully expected we'd find ourselves two for not many with both openers back in the sheds somewhere along the line. That, after all, is in the nature of the beast when it comes to opening the batting.

In this case, however, it's a matter of old questions unanswered rather than new issues raised. There's a technical issue with Warner that might have been exacerbated by a short spell before lunch and an over from Vettori, but anyone who sways back is always going to have problems if the ball follows him.

After yesterday's remarks about ten good balls Warner went to one of them and Hughes copped another, so while you wouldn't be happy at 2 for 25 it's always a likely scenario. Unanswered questions rather than new issues raised.

Khawaja's run out was something that happens, though you'd suspect that there was a degree of not quite turned on in there as well. One wonders whether there are still running between the wickets drills in the team preparation. If there ain't, there should be.

Which brings us, of course, to the two other major issues that came out of the day's play. I haven't been privy to the comments in the Trans-Tasman press, but would offer these comments on the enforcement of the front foot no ball rule.

First, we're supposed to be looking at ninety overs in a day, and the situation that arose with the light meters yesterday wasn't desirable, but rules are rules and if they've been told to work this way where light meter readings are concerned, this is the way you work.

One suspects ninety overs in a day also comes into play where the front foot no ball is concerned.

You know he quicks are going to be right up there on the line, so how much leeway do they get?

Assuming you're an umpire do you call the bowler every time you reckon he's stepped over?

Umpiring kids, I tried to give a warning when they were getting close, suggest they move the mark back about that much, and then call every one from then on.

In most of those cases we were looking at kids in line for rep. selection, so if I didn't call them someone else probably would further down the line.

If you're trying to get through ninety overs in a Test day, that approach will be problematic.

Seriously, if the umpires called every front foot no ball you'd end up with a two-front furore concerning over rates as well as the was it/wasn't it forensic replay on the TV coverage.

Faced with that alternative, the current situation where it seems the policy is call it when it's blatant, and refer it upstairs if you've got a question mark and a wicket falls off the delivery seems fair enough from where I'm sitting.

There is a solution that would solve over rates and go close to taking front foot no balls out of the question. All you'd need would be a formula that allowed specified reductions from the ninety for specific interruptions on the field, calculate the number of overs that are missing and impose a bonus runs to the batting side penalty based on the highest scoring overs from the day's play.

However, if you think that idea has any chance of getting through the ICC I really need to talk you about this collection of the world's finest bridges  I happen to have for sale….

So, after 51 overs on Day One at The Gabba, what have we learned?

Well, to be Perfectly Francis (Thank you Fred Dagg), not a great deal that we didn't already suspect.

We already knew McCullum could whack the ball around, that Vettori could stick around (the man has a couple of Test match hundreds, after all) and that this probably wasn't a batting order that was going to be demolishing too many attacks on the way to forcing the Black Caps into the top half-dozen Test playing nations.

As far as the bating goes, I think we can refer to a number of soft dismissals and leave it at that. After all, I'm totally unfamiliar with the alternatives on the New Zealand cricket scene, and all I can go on is what I've seen.

In any case, I'm more concerned with the evolution of the Australian side and the way back into the Number Three spot on the Test rankings, which means rolling one out of England, India and South Africa out of that spot.

The most likely means of doing that in the short term is a series win against India, which will mean taking twenty wickets against a strong batting line-up.

On the strength of what we saw yesterday, this attack isn't going to be able to do that.

It's often remarked that when it comes to bowling, all you need to do is to send down ten good wicket-taking deliveries. Allowing for the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, the reality is that when you take ten wickets some will come from certified Jaffas, some from soft dismissals and some from crap balls that didn't deserve a wicket.

I think it's fair enough to describe most of yesterdays five-for as soft dismissals, and Jaffas were few and far between. They're usually few and far between, but the numbers were down and the intervening distances greater.

But there are a few things that are obvious.

First, as a spinner Lyon is coming along rather nicely. He's now looking good to hold down his place in the side, which means Messrs Hauritz and Kreja have something to top if they're looking for a recall.

Now we need to be looking for a leggie and a left arm orthodox to fill out the spin contenders' ranks.

Next, it's obvious that Peter Siddle isn't the man to lead the attack much beyond this game. That's not to suggest he can't hold down a place in the side, but he's a twenty-five to thirty overs in a day mostly up the hill into the breeze back of a length workhorse rather than a man who's going to come out and lead the attack. Mind you, in this attack, he's the leader by default on the strength of seniority, but that's not a situation that's going to last.

As far as the rest of the attack is concerned, what we saw yesterday underlines how much we need Watson in the side, and the importance of the overs he bowls.

Take out the nerves on debut factor, and Pattinson's later spells were a significant improvement on the first, so there's potential there. Subtract the 13 that came off his first over from the analysis and 10/1/37/1 is a bit more expensive than you'd like, but it's early days yet,

Starc was, I thought, the better of the debutants, got a bit of shape back into the bat to go with the left arm jagging across staple, and has clearly shown that there are alternatives to Bollinger when you're looking for a non-Johnson left armer. With Johnson out for most of the summer, we'd seem to have that side of things covered.

Siddle, who probably wouldn't have been taking the new ball under other circumstances, was tidy, but tended to be a bit short, underlining what should be his actual role in the attack rather than his present leader by default status.

As an aside, in a four man bowling attack sending down ninety overs in a day you're going to be looking at someone to send down twenty-five to thirty, two to look after twenty to twenty-five and one to chip in somewhere between ten and twenty.

Under normal circumstances, with Watson fit, he'd be looking at the ten to twenty role and you'd be scaling things back with an extra specialist bowler, so that you'd have three blokes who could send down fifteen to twenty-five and the workhorse responsible for twenty-five plus. Lyon would be one of the blokes in the middle, Siddle would be a prime contender for the workhorse role and you'd have the means to limit the workload on the likes of young Cummins.

Then, of course, we come to the fielding, where we need to start by questioning the absence of the fielding coach. I don't know what happened with Mike Young and Steve Rixon, but it's obvious we need someone sharpening things up. Yesterday was tidy at best, with several notable lapses.

Let's just say there's no way Michael Clarke should be at first slip and leave it at that, shall we? Watson will be back in that role, but there's a definite need to work out a viable and reliable slip cordon.

The other situation that needs close examination is Khawaja at bat pad. He may well be the best option for the position out of the current eleven, but he's going to need a lot of work if he's going to be a long term in close man. I thought he tended to move his weight backwards by instinct and tended to come up too early. I don't know a whole lot about the technical side of coaching wicketkeepers and bat pads, but I do know that once you've started to go up or back it's hard to deliver a split second change forward or downwards.

So there's a bit to work on, some promising signs and the interesting prospect of seeing how quickly we can grab these last five wickets. That, as far as I can see, equates to keeping Vettori quiet and working over the bloke at the other end. Should be interesting.

Then we'll see Hughes, Warner and Khawaja against their attack at that will be interesting, taking note of suggestions that young Bracewell is the new Richard Hadlee.