Melbourne 2012: Day Two. The Watto Conundrum.

The difficulties that arise from the early to bed early to rise bit kicked in as I scrolled down the Twitter feed around four this morning to find a couple of comments on Shane Watson's fitness and future. That's an issue that had been given a fair pummelling on the radio commentary yesterday, and the first reaction was an ah, yes, more of the same.

Scroll down a bit further, though, and there's the report of the latest injury. That calf muscle is playing up again, and it raises questions on around four fronts.

So, with The Reader's indulgence, I'd like to explore them.

The first relates to potential, how we try to spot it at a young age and what happens when we think we've succeeded. Then there are the separate issues related to Watto's batting and bowling and, finally, there's the question of the vice-captaincy.

I'd need to get out the Bowen Schoolboys' scorebooks to check on it definitively, but I suspect my awareness of a Shane Watson may date back as far as 1991, when I took a busload of kids on a loop through south-east Queensland. This was something that had its origins four years earlier when two rather influential figures associated with Queensland Primary School Cricket approached me with a question about this idea they'd be kicking around.

One of them was the President of the State body, the other the State Coach (later the key powerbroker on the selection panel). Both came from the Ipswich Schoolboys coaching setup, which is, or was, from what I've seen a unique non-club-affiliated setup that offers Saturday morning coaching to primary school kids from Year One upwards. That bit is, I think, significant, because it means they've got the ability to look at kids from before they hit the Under-Eight group, which is where Junior Cricket tends to kick in.

It was also, and I think this also has some bearing on the way things turned out, a time when there was a genuine border war between the school cricket set-up and the state-wide Junior associations, and the war concerned priorities in the Under-Thirteen age group.

For years, the Juniors had selected representative sides in the Twelves, Fourteens and Sixteens, which left the schools free to do their thing in the Thirteens and Fifteens at a time when state carnivals run by the two separate bodies clashed, so kids had to go one way or the other.

There's also, in the south-east of the state, a couple of Sunday fifty over competitions, the Treloar (formerly Shell) Shield for the Year Sevens and McCasker Trophy for Year Sixes. The teams that play for these are one step below the regional sides that head off to the State Carnival, and the existence of the two competitions was, to put it rather bluntly, a pain in the neck when you weren't from the southeast corner and were looking to push kids towards State selection.

It was difficult to avoid the suspicion that the selection panel had already drawn up a list of players of interest (that was invariably denied, usually with some vehemence) and the NQ position tended to be that if we wanted to get our kids looked at properly we needed to get someone onto the selection panel, though there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Which is why, when Granty and Les cornered me and asked whether I reckoned they'd be able to get a game in Bowen if they put their Shell and McCasker sides on a bus and headed north, my response was an immediate and definite yes.

That first trip came in a marathon exercise in 1988, and involved games in Rockhampton, Bowen, Burdekin, Townsville, Pioneer Valley and Gladstone over the two week September vacation. They weren't going to repeat the exercise every year, which explains why, having hosted them in '88 and gone along for the ride while they headed to Townsville, I organised a bus trip for Whitsunday kids in 1989.

They repeated their exercise in '90 and that explains why I was back down there in '91, when there may well have been a Year Five kid with the surname Watson playing for their McCasker side against my bus trip kids.

There was definitely a Watson on the bus when they headed north on '92, because he belted my collection of local kids all around the park, scoring a substantial ton while I set about trying to get a wicketkeeper from Proserpine noticed in the other game, where an assortment of last year's Bowen kids, a couple of ring ins and a smattering of this year's side were taking on the Ipswich Shell side.

Watson was there in the West Moreton side when we went down to the State Carnival in Toowoomba later that year, and may have been the bowler Josh Movigliatti slapped for six off the last ball of the fiftieth over, securing the margin that eventually won us the game and put us on the road to winning the State Final.

He was there again when we went to Bundaberg next year, and went on to make that year's State side (which was obviously what he was being set for) and subsequently picked up a scholarship to Ipswich Grammar school, providing an education one suspects his parents may not have been able to afford to pay for. I'd organised something similar for a Bowen kid some five years earlier.

Watson subsequently made his way through the ranks, up to the point where he headed off to the Australian Cricket Academy and was subsequently lured for a spell in Tasmania before he headed back to the Sunshine State and subsequently relocated to Sydney.

Now, that's a rather longwinded ay of getting to the point, but the point here is that we're talking someone who has obviously been identified as something special from a very young age and been carefully nurtured to bring him along.

You probably guessed that already, but the long windedness is my way of pointing out that I saw some of the early part, and I'm not Kerry O'Keeffe saying He went to Ipswich Grammar, didn't he? I know he did, and I know the boarding master who would have largely set those arrangements in place. He was driving the Ipswich Schoolboys' bus in '88, '90 and '92.

Significantly, by the time he hit secondary school Watson had succumbed to the first round of stress fractures in a lengthy list of injury problems.

This word of mouth thing is something that will seem very clannish to an outsider, but it was obvious Shane was being set for stardom, and it was obvious from the time he was twelve. In Bundaberg, if I recall correctly, he hadn't had a great Carnival, and I saw him being spoken to quite seriously as he waited to bat in the Final. Spoken to, in fact, by the most influential member of the selection panel and the State President, both of whom, of course, had known him since he was knee high to a grasshopper.

Now, anyone who has done any coaching at all has probably dreamed of finding a kid who's good enough to play for Australia, and there aren't too many who actually have, but you don't get into contention for an Australian side without picking up significant word of mouth along the way and that word of mouth can often influence people to persist with players in situations where someone else might get dropped.

I'm not suggesting Shane needed to make runs in that State Final to make the State side, but the game was delicately poised, and I think that if West Moreton or Metropolitan West were going to win that game they needed runs from their star batting all-rounder.

I don't think you can look at Watson's current situation without being aware of those factors running through his background. He was set for stardom a long time ago, and he's been thought of in that Botham, Kallis, Flintoff role since he was in short pants.

So, where are we going with this one? What about the batting, the bowling and the vice-captaincy?

Let's turn the attention to the batting, because that was what he was doing yesterday when the failure to turn fifties into hundreds was put under the microscope.

Since age eleven he's been rated good enough to play for Australia, and along the way he's picked up influential supporters on the basis that he's good enough to bat in the top six, and will be a very useful third or fourth seamer. It's that combination that counts here.

If he's just being looked at as a bat, the failure to convert is, indeed, a strong argument for someone else. On current form you may well be inclined to look elsewhere if you're just looking at the batting.

And if you're just looking at the batting then, yes, he might be better suited to opening. Fine. But if you head down that direction it seems you're putting a line through the bowling side of things. Maybe not ruling it out completely, but definitely limiting that fourth seamer's role.

For mine, he bats somewhere between Three and Seven if he's going to bowl, and if he isn't he can open, but the same form factors that apply to every other specialist bat apply.

But there's the bowling to consider as well, and in the current situation where injury problems are being associated with sending down more than fifty overs in a Test, Watto's overs are a very important consideration. Take them out of the equation and go into a Test with three specialist seamers and a spinner and you're back in the situation where Siddle and Hilfenhaus were ruled out of Perth after Pattinson broke down in Adelaide.

In the current situation there's definitely a place for a third or fourth seamer who can bat in the first seven. In fact, if you're going to play a spinner (and that's another kettle of fish) that's where he has to bat because his fast bowling confreres and the spinner will be Eight, Nine, Ten and Jack.

There's a further significant consideration. When you're talking Watto and adding fourth seamer to the equation you're not just getting a common or garden fourth seamer. When he's fit and firing he's bordering on the genuinely quick side of things with the genuinely quick temperament to match.

We might be looking for someone in the Kallis mould, and he might not be quite there, but throw in that temperament and you've arguably got someone in, say, the same class as Botham with a significantly lower crap ball quotient.

Or a Flintoff who bats a bit better...

Which, I guess, underlines the Bowling Watto goes somewhere between Three and Six argument. If he's not going to bowl he may be leaving a vacancy for someone who can bowl and bat Seven with Wade at Six, but that starts to bring in questions about Hussey, doesn't it?

Then there's the Vice-Captaincy which is, from where I'm sitting, a mistake. Assuming the Vice-Captain is the heir apparent to the Captaincy there's no point in giving it to somebody who is, increasingly, looking like a game by game proposition.

If he's forced out through injury the Vice Captaincy should go elsewhere, and it shouldn't be automatically restored when he's back in the fold again.

On the question of his replacement it's obvious Khawaja is the first cab off the rank, which, in turn, opens up other possibilities if and when Watto returns. If Khawaja fires and question marks remain beside the names of Cowan or Hughes, Usman can bat Three and the survivor can open with Warner.

Given the fact that we're heading into the final Test on Wednesday, with the short turnaround there's the possibility of further fractures in the fast bowling ranks, so Khawaja's inclusion may raise the question of who bowls Watto's overs. In that regard, I'd return to my earlier point that anyone with aspirations for a specialist batting spot in the Australian top six would be well advised to work on his bowling.

In any case, since we've got a couple of relatively inconsequential One Day series after this we can bowl Siddle, Johnson and Bird to the point where they'll need to be rested, can't we?

The key questions for today, for Hughesy's money:

Does Johnson get his ton? If he does, might that justify a move up the order to Eight or, dare I say it, Seven? With Wade slotting into Six when Hussey goes and the fourth seamer who can bat a bit (and I'm thinking Henriques, Christian or perhaps Mitchell Marsh here) at Seven or Eight?

Oh, and do Siddle and company get the day off tomorrow?

Perth 2012: Day Four

And, in the end, it was as comprehensively clinical as the most pessimistic observers might have feared.

But at least it didn't happen the same way in Brisbane and Adelaide, which would have run towards nightmare territory. That, of course, raises the question of whether the Proteas were happy to accept the draws in the first two Tests because they fancied their chances in Perth but we don't really want to go down that road, do we?

What Perth 2012 does underline, however, is the gap between the current #1 side and everyone else, and between the top three and just about everyone else. The pecking order is, it seems, largely unchanged.

South Africa are opening up a break from the rest of the field and look like maintaining that ranking because it's difficult to see how anyone's going to manage to knock them over at home, and unless they're served up a diet of subcontinental raging turners it's hard to see a comprehensive defeat when they're touring.

Look at the batting lineup and with the emergence of duPlessis and Duminy to come back they've got someone to cover for Kallis when he goes. They still need a top ranked spinner, but in a setting where Steyn, Philander and Morkel are operating, with or without Kallis, Peterson is always going to have a chance since he's the bloke the batsmen are likely to go after.

As I remarked to Jimbo in the walk this morning Clarke and Hussey might have been looking to hit him out of the attack to force Smith to turn to someone else, but if you were in Smith's shoes why would you?

Defending more than 600 over two days it doesn't matter if the spinner goes at a run a ball provided the bats are having a go at him. It'll establish whether the bowler can handle a serious assault, and while the bats are chancing their arm the bowler's always got a chance.

Looking at our batting on the day there wasn't a whole lot to be cheerful about apart from the Starc/Lyon cameo at the end.

Warner went early, and was probably always in danger having to start up twice.

Watson got a pretty thorough working over before getting caught at slip without answering any of the questions about his suitability at Three, which won't come as a surprise to anyone who has watched his progress (or lack thereof) over the years.

I first saw him as a ten-year-old and it was obvious he was expected to develop into something special. He's shown glimpses of that since, but hasn't managed to deliver consistently. Whether he ever will is going to depend on factors that still need to be sorted out. I don't think he's opener material unless he's going to limit the bowling, and he's obviously seen as an important part of the attack, so that's unlikely.

Technically he's probably good enough to slot into Three, but has failed to deliver when he's there, which means he's probably not happy and would prefer to bat somewhere else. That's a problem because, as the captain of my 92 NQ Schoolboys' side remarked, Watto tends to get what he wants.

Actually, what I think he needs is an obvious rival for the all-rounder slot so that he has to knuckle down to hold his place rather than being assured of slotting straight back in as soon as he's over his latest injury.

Much was made of the Protea guard of honour as Ponting walked to the crease but, seriously, you're going to do that, aren't you? The ABC commentary team were referring back to Bradman's last Test appearance, where the English team gave him three cheers and he was bowled second ball, allegedly unable to focus on the ball because he was a bit teary.

I'm not sure about the teary bit, but all the great batsmen have their own ways of setting themselves before the start of their innings, and if there's something you can do to disrupt that you're going to try it, aren't you?

Cowan fell to a fairly obvious trap, playing on instinct and hooking the short one from around the wicket, caught in the deep off Steyn. He'd done his job and should have been looking to go on, but there you go.

Clarke got himself stumped seemingly trying to hit the spinner out of the attack, which is all very well in theory, but in this situation it doesn't seem to have been the smartest option. Here, it didn't matter if Peterson went for 300 because he was always likely to pick up a couple of wickets.

Hussey drove, nicked and got caught behind off Steyn, Wade got caught at short midwicket off Peterson, Johnson caught behind off Philander and Hastings slammed a few off Peterson before getting caught at slip off Morkel.

The Starc/Lyon cameo got itself underway whileI went down the street to follow up on some missing cat sightings, but was never going to do anything more than provide a little bit of light relief at the end of a comprehensive trouncing.

From here, looking towards the Sri Lanka series the big questions involve Ponting's replacement at Four, where Watto fits, how long for Hussey and who, apart from Siddle (and possibly Starc) is going to join Lyon in the four man bowling attack.

My team, pending the Chairman's XI game:

Cowan, Warner, Khawaja, Clarke, Watson, Hussey, Wade, Siddle, Starc, Hilfenhaus, Lyon, Johnston. Hilfie or Johnston for drinks waiter duties...

Adelaide 2012: Day Five

You might think I'm veering towards coach speak when I say I've taken a few things out of the fifth day draw in Adelaide and the England-India result in Mumbai, but they're not necessarily positives although I'm sure they do matter.

First comes the observation that it isn't just the strength of your squad that matters, what counts is the quality of your backup resources.

Second, it doesn't matter how good your resources are if you don't employ them appropriately.

Third, getting to the #1 Test ranking is no mean feat in itself, and having reached that ranking you'll need to work like Billy-o to maintain your position.

Fourth, your strongest side on paper isn't necessarily the best side for the conditions you'll have to deal with.

When you look at it, and whichever way you look at it, there are three factors that had a big influence on South Africa's ability to survive the full six hours and ninety-eight overs.

The first of them is Jacques Kallis. While he wasn't able to bowl, Kallis batting on one leg is a match for most people batting on two. Neil Manthorp was consistently reminding all and sundry on the ABC radio coverage that, statistically, he's the greatest all-rounder the world has known, and it's obvious that he's not just a bloke who can both bat and bowl a bit. He's a phenomenal competitor whose batting alone would be enough to get him into any Test side in most eras of the game.

58 in close to two hours in the first dig was a major factor in limiting the time Australia had to take ten wickets in the second, and 46 in two and a half in the second was a major factor in coming away with the actual draw.

It wasn't just Kallis. Having lost Duminy through injury in Brisbane and Philander breaking down or pulling up sore before Adelaide, the Proteas had the depth on hand to cover Duminy with du Plessis and Philander with Kleinveldt.

The latter mightn't have looked impressive in the first innings, and he's definitely got an issue with his front foot (he bowled 11 of the 29 no balls for the match with Imran Tahir accounting for another 7), but in picking up Warner, Quiney and Cowan at the start of Australia's second innings he did a bit to delay the declaration and limit the time available to take the ten wickets.

Kleinveldt mightn't be good enough to force Steyn, Philander or Morkel out of the eleven but he's a handy replacement if one of them is ruled out through injury.

Similarly, duPlessis' 110 in going on for eight hours mightn't be enough for him to hold his place when a fully fit Duminy returns but he'll have the South African selection panel looking to see if anyone else's place in the batting order is in jeopardy before dropping him.

My second point is that while it's nice to have resources they're not much good unless you use them appropriately, and I've got issues with the way in which both captains used their wrist spinning options.

Smith, I thought, went dangerously close to throwing things away with the way he handled Imran Tahir. Admittedly, he was down a bowler once Kallis broke down, and Tahir didn't bowl well. 0/260 off 37 overs isn't good bowling but I reckon his figures would have been better if he'd been given a more supportive, attacking field.

Now, it may be one of those situations where you have a captain who doesn't rate one of the players he's been given, and that assessment may well be accurate, but you can only work with what you've been given, so you ought to try to do it appropriately.

Similarly, I thought Warner should have bowled more than six overs in the second innings. Fifty from Lyon was a sterling effort, and I thought the offie bowled well without luck, but given the wrist spinner's ability to pick up extra bounce you'd have thought the variation would have been worth exploring. Clarke, I noted, gave himself eighteen overs, and I reckon he'd have been better off bowling Warner for some of them.

Hilfenhaus and Siddle bowled 34 and 33 respectively and had Warner bowled a few of those we might have managed to squeeze in another couple of overs into the day and Siddle might have been left with a bit more fuel in the tank when it came to the crunch at the end.

The result that came out of Mumbai contributed to my third and fourth observations, and you could use it as an argument for the appropriate use of resources.

Just in case you missed the gory details, coming off a nine wicket victory in the First Test, India won the toss and elected to bat, as you would, and managed a handy 327 in their first dig, with Panesar (5/129 and Swann (4/70) doing the damage. England countered with 413 (Cook 122, Pietersen 186 and no one else managing 30) and then, with Anderson and Panesar (6/81) taking the new ball, rolled India for 142 (Gambhir 65, Ashwin the only other bat to reach double figures and Swann taking over from Anderson after four overs to take 4/43).

That left England needing 57, a target they reached in a the tenth over, taking a tad over half an hour to do so.

India was sitting pretty in the #1 Test ranking not long ago, something they'd achieved largely through comfortable wins under their own conditions, and England, having also spent time in that top slot, lost it through an inability to perform at the optimum level in the subcontinent.

Which shows, I think, that while getting to the #1 Test ranking is no mean feat in itself, you're not going to do it unless you can perform at home and then win your share of games when you're playing away, and having reached that ranking you need to work like Billy-o to maintain your position.

The South African effort to produce the draw could accurately be described as a team working like Billy-o to achieve a result, and it underlines the fact that with or without Kallis, Duminy and Philander they'll be a tough nut to crack.

To me, the most significant thing to come out of Mumbai was the performance from Panesar and the fact that Cook, fairly early in his captaincy, chose to open with him in the second innings. You can't help but feel Monty owed his place on tour to a need to have someone cover for Cook, but when the penny dropped and the Poms decided they needed to play two spinners, in he went.

They'd gone in to Ahmedabad with three quicks with Swann, Pietersen and left arm tweaker Samit Patel to handle the spin duties. Patel, who batted Six, held his place in Mumbai, but only contributed four overs in the first innings.

On paper, looking at that story, you'd have to say that the English pecking order had Panesar firmly slotted in as the fourth spinning option, but when something needed to be done they brought him in and Cook brought him on as first change. Monty then justified the move by taking out Sehwag and Tendulkar before the twentieth over.

So while you might have reached the #1 slot through a three man pace battery with a batting all-rounder who bowls medium pace and a spinner to round out the attack, there'll be times when one or more of those blokes will have to go if you're going to be competitive in the conditions.

You can't help thinking the English approach to the subcontinent has been to say well here's our best side, let's hope they can perform in the conditions rather than consciously weighing the options and going with horses for courses.

With three days until Perth, this point about your strongest side on paper not necessarily equating to the best side for the conditions you'll have to deal with may well come into play.

South Africa would be at their strongest with Kallis and Philander fit, but with Kallis unlikely they'll have to make do with a less than optimum combination, and with a three Test series against Sri Lanka starting on Boxing Day you won't necessarily be looking to give Siddle and Hilfenhaus a run at the WACA.

Australia's strongest side on paper might well include Lyon, but he seems unlikely to play in Perth, with Starc coming in for Pattinson, one of Hazlewood, Hastings and Johnston coming in for the spinner and the other two on hand to cover for Siddle and/or Hilfie.

There was an interesting comment in this morning's press that bowling more than fifty overs in a Test match dramatically increases the likelihood of breaking down in the next, and on that basis, Pattinson (53 at the Gabba) should have had alarm bells ringing. Hilfenhaus got through 47 up there and 53 in Adelaide, while Siddle contributed 53 and 63, so there's every chance Australia will go in on Friday with a side that reads Warner, Cowan, Watson, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Wade, Johnston, Hastings, Hazlewood, Starc.

But let's wait and see how things pan out.

Adelaide 2012: Day Four

While you'd have been pretty sure the horse had bolted when Australia went to lunch yesterday at 7/206 with Wade and Pattinson still there after Clarke and Hussey departed in the morning session by the tea break with Smith and Amla gone it was a definite case of no use shutting the gate.

Sure, they've got de Villiers and du Plessis at the crease with Kallis to come, but you'd reckon that unless rain intervenes you wouldn't need much more than two sessions to find the half dozen decent deliveries that would wrap up proceedings on a fifth day track in Adelaide. As for 353 runs to win, regardless of what was accomplished in Perth on an improving autobahn four years ago, you can rule a South African victory right out of contention.

More particularly, given the fact that the Proteas managed 37 off the same number of overs between tea and stumps and Lyon's rather remarkable figures of 15 overs, 7 maidens, 2 for 15 you'd figure the offie will be getting more than his share of action with men clustered around the bat.

If that doesn't work, and Siddle and Hilfenhaus can't deliver the goods at the other end there's always the prospect of Clarke and Warner rolling their arms over with slightly less aggressive fields.

Actually, given an early wicket or two, it could all be over by lunch.

The part time bowling side of things, with Clarke, Warner, Quiney and Ponting getting a trundle yesterday, and sending down just under a quarter of the fifty overs so far, would have you suggesting that up and coming batsmen with ambitions of playing at the international level might be advised to work on their bowling a bit.

After all, there has been a considerable amount of work put into getting the likes of Glenn McGrath to the point where they can stick around with the willow, you'd reckon there'd be a fair case for getting the batsmen to spend net practice doing a bit more than just rolling the arm over and trundling them down at medium pace or sending down a bit of half-hearted spin.

It's not as if you're talking rocket surgery in that department. You're not looking for someone who has mastered the factors that induce reverse swing, the dodgy biodynamics of the doosra or the intricacies of the flipper. All you need is someone who can land the ball fairly tidily for a couple of overs and has reasonable mastery of a variation (or, at the most, two).

That presents some intriguing possibilities. Quiney delivered some tidy medium pace, and it would be interesting to know whether he has anything else in his armoury. At that pace, something like the old knuckle ball would possibly be worth working on, and if that didn't work out it'd be worth investigating other variations that would deliver a slower ball.

Even if it didn't translate into a spell at the bowling crease you'd think that sort of work would definitely come in useful when it comes to the batsman's key role, which is, of course, to deliver large quantities of runs without getting out.

Let's pause a moment and consider these things a little further. Not that I'm suggesting Quiney isn't going to find himself back playing for the Bushrangers as soon as Watson's fit or Khawaja is deemed to have displayed a run of form that deserves a recall.

The point behind the pace bowler's slower ball (and I'm applying the same principle to anything from military medium upwards) is to induce the batsman into a false shot by getting them through the stroke early so the ball is hit in the air rather than along the deck. That means you bowl it with the same arm action you'd usually use but find a way of slowing the ball down as it leaves the hand.

Arm speed the same, but slower out of the hand, compris?

There are a couple of ways of doing that, and the topic gets fairly detailed coverage in Dennis Lillee's The Art of Fast Bowling, which is where I picked up on the knuckle ball.

The trick here involved folding the middle finger in behind the ball and flicking the knuckle upwards as the ball leaves the hand. What this should do is impart a bit of topspin as it slows the release speed so the ball will loop a bit, arrive slightly later and bounce slightly higher, hopefully inducing that elusive catch.

It should be almost impossible to read out of the hand, since there isn't much change in the wrist action and could, in the right hands, be a rather tricky little delivery to deal with.

In any case, if your military medium net bowler is consciously working on and exploring the various ways you can cut back the release speed the knowledge is quite likely to be helpful as far as your main job description is concerned.

The same principle would seem to apply to a batsman who explores the intricacies of wrist spin or sets about a part time career as a finger spinner. There's plenty to be learned there, even if it doesn't translate to a swag of wickets under match conditions.

And, if you've got that little variation in your bag of tricks Clarke looks like the sort of innovative captain who's likely to make use of it.

As far as Perth is concerned, of course, you'd have to reckon Quiney's days are numbered, and assuming Watson is fit he'd slot straight into Three, with Starc replacing Pattinson and possibly Bird from Tasmania or Queenslander Feldman getting some exposure to the Australian setup by being named in the twelve. Bird's got 25 wickets at a tad under 20 in the Shield this season after a 6/25 yesterday against the Warriors, and you'd reckon he's be free to fly across to Perth to join the squad by tomorrow afternoon, given the state of play at Bellerive (WA 67, Tasmania 2/201).

Lyon, of course, could well end up carrying the drinks, and the selection panel might go for a squad of thirteen by slotting Mitchell Johnson into the squad as well.

The other question, of course, concerns Ponting. Watch the press conference this afternoon for more in that department...

Adelaide 2012: Day Three

Going into Day Four it seems we're back to two possible results with the prospect of a genuine nail-biter lurking just on the other side of the horizon.

Of course, as is so often the way with these things, having said that we'll probably see things very close to wrapped up today with a comprehensive victory to one side or t'other early on Day Five, but that's the nature of the beast, isn't it?

A 273 run lead with five wickets in hand means an Australian victory is going to depend on how many runs Clarke, Hussey and Wade can chip in with, and how well Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Lyon can bowl. From the South African side of the fence it'll come down to the size of the run chase and how well their top order fares against a depleted bowling attack that's minus one of the key strike weapons.

Take that Protea formula and scrutinise it closely and it'll come down to how quickly they can get rid of those three bats and how well those three bowlers are allowed to bowl. Smith and Amla are class players, Petersen and Du Plessis look like they've got potential and Kallis and de Villiers might have question marks over the fitness level but they've got class on their side and plenty of time if the leg and the back can hold themselves together.

Oh, an Rudolph can bat a bit as well.

Looking back on Day Three, you can see the turning points pretty clearly. Rudolph and Smith went early, de Villiers, Steyn and Kleinveldt didn't stick around, Kallis and Du Plessis added the runs that took the Proteas out of follow on territory (not that it was ever going to be enforced) and then, once the initial breakthrough had been made Steyn, Morkel and Kleinveldt lived up to the pace attack pecking order and made the Australian supporter rather glad Philander and Kallis weren't part of the equation.

Looking forward, everything's going to come down to the amount of pressure that can be exerted in the first session. That, I think, will determine the result and dictate how long it's likely to take. If two out of those three bats are still there at lunch with the lead around 350 you can probably rule the South African victory out of calculations, though a quick run through the tail after the resumption would make things interesting.

Chasing around 400 in four and a bit sessions in circumstances where Clarke, Hussey, Warner and Quiney are going to be doing their share of the bowling would appear quite doable when you've got Smith, Amla and Kallis likely to spend a lengthy spell at the batting crease.

The key factor, from what I can see, is going to be the old DRS, which is going to figure increasingly in the calculations as things get tighter and tighter. That's an interesting one, because regardless of the intention when it was introduced it's now a significant factor in determining the outcome of a particular match. Sure, it might have been meant to eliminate the howlers, but nowadays it seems equally important as a second chance to knock over a batsman, or for a batsman to avoid being knocked over.

You used to rely on the umpire's competence, eyesight and judgement, working on the principle that mistakes will eventually even themselves out. Everyone on the field has hid own take on the merits or otherwise of a particular decision, and I'd like a dollar for every time I've seen an inconsistent response to what could be seen as an umpiring mistake.

There were a couple of times when I signalled Byes in a kids game, only to be informed that the batsman had hit the ball. Fine, was my standard reply, if the keeper had caught it I would've given it Not Out. That usually seemed to remove the grievance.

Equally interesting was the response from a notoriously temperamental senior cricketer in Bowen who had never, ever, been dismissed LBW. In a situation where the batting side provided the decision maker you couldn't help feeling there was a bit of bias entering into the equation and I always suspected that when this bloke got rapped on the pads the benefit of the doubt might have gone to the bowler, even though the decision usually came from one of his team mates.

If that seems strange, I was sitting beside the rest of his side when the finger went up on one occasion and noted the hilarity with which the decision was greeted, though I also noted the group scattered as he made his way back to the side line.

When he was bowling, of course, anything that went anywhere near the pads was Out by definition, and a decision to the contrary was usually followed by a remark about large amounts of money influencing the decision.

Things are likely to get rather tense in Adelaide over the next twenty-four hours, and it'll be interesting to see what happens when Smith, in particular, gets a verdict he doesn't agree with. He obviously wasn't happy with the referral that cost him his wicket being turned down, and in a situation where a clear head will help the decision making process it's easy to be distracted by issues that you can't, in the long run, do very much about.

The outcome of the next two days will have a lot to do with focus and careful management of resources, and no one will be wanting to get distracted.