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….