Trent Bridge Day 1

So, I hear you ask in your relentless quest for knowledge, what have we learned from that little lot?

The first thing we’ve learned, at least as far as The Little House of Concrete is concerned, is that Hughesy needs to hunker himself down in The Office’s comfortable chair before the first ball is bowled, with the radio tuned to the ABC commentary and the dressing gown handy in case we need a little added warmth in the wee hours. We’ve got fortifieds from Baileys of Glenrowan to warm things up on the inside, and the dressing gown will do for the exterior, particularly the legs on nights that tend, with the wind chill factor and all, to be crisp.

Expecting a time lapse between the radio call and the on screen action I was sitting at the computer last night when Madam appeared, announced she was watching the first bit and settled into the comfy chair. At one for a few more than I would have preferred and the bowling leaving a bit to be desired, I thought it was time to try Hughesy’s almost foolproof method of ensuring something happens by wandering off to bed.

This quite often produces results, but I don’t recall too many instances where the stratagem has proved quite as successful, delivering no less than thirteen wickets, but we’re getting ahead of the narrative here.

So, what did we learn?

Let’s start with the Australian team selection, particularly the decision to hand Ashton Agar his baggy green, the 434th player selected for Australia, and the twelfth youngest to get the honour. If you need to catch up on the Agar story you can do so here, but the selection suggests a degree of horses for courses in the selection stakes.

The thinking appears to involve Kevin Pietersen’s perceived weakness against left arm orthodox bowling, and comments from Lehmann (here) suggest the spinner’s spot isn’t completely cut and dried.

More particularly, with Lyon bowling offies, Agar’s left arm tweakers and Fawad Ahmed’s leggies it looks like we’ve got three reasonable cards covering the standard spin options. That could make the next tour to India rather interesting.

The other interesting selection issue is, of course, Warner. Rocketing him off to play for Australia A in Zimbabwe (there’s a four game there starting the same day as the Lords Test with the first of two unofficial Tests against South Africa A kicking off a week later) means he might be back on board later in The Ashes series, with  Old Trafford starting on August 1, the Test at Riverside (Durham) kicking off on August 9 and The Oval on August 22.

There are three day tour games against Sussex (between Lords and Old Trafford) and Northamptonshire (leading in to The Oval) so, while Warner would have been able to get some time in the middle there, with Zimbabwe and South Africa A probably guaranteeing a more competitive opposition you’d have to guess he’s still on the periphery of the picture and a chance of figuring in calculations if the existing order fails to deliver.

Then there’s the short term middle order. With Rogers, Watson and Clarke as definites, we needed three names to fill the remaining spots in the first six, and Cowan, Hughes and Smith get the nod. Two lefties and a righty to match the two righties and a lefty, which sort of opens up the right/left combination I mentioned yesterday.

As things have worked out, if Smith and Hughes can go on from here they’ll be cementing their place in the middle order for a while. How long Cowan gets at Three is going to depend on how he goes in the second dig, but if he fails there you’d figure a first ball gozzer here means he’ll have to deliver at Lords to hold Khawaja (and possibly a returning Warner) out for Old Trafford.

At this point crystal ball gazing is a dodgy practice, but you’d have to think that the first session tomorrow will be the key to the rest of the match.

Twenty-one overs into the innings reverse swing should be coming into the equation, so it’s a matter of how Smith, Hughes and Haddin handle it, and how long the tail can wag. Based on revealed form you’d have to be bullish about Siddle, Pattinson and Starc with the bat, with a question mark over Agar at Eleven.

Hughesy’s predictions tend to end up fairly wide of the mark, and a considerable distance from the money, but that’s not going to stop me making them.

Assuming we’re still batting at lunch time that should have us twenty-five to thirty runs behind, and if we’re still there at tea, you’d figure we’d be somewhere between sixty to eighty to the good. Bat on after tea and there’s a fair chance of a lead of a hundred plus, and the bigger the plus the better the chance of a win.

That, of course, is the numerical side of the equation.

From there we’ll need to knock them over for a reasonably low total. Phil Tuffnell was fairly bullish bout the likelihood of the wicket turning square, so you’d figure the more time we can bat, and the bigger the lead, the better the chance of an Australian win.

At the moment, you’d have to say England have their noses in front, but there’s not a great deal in it. I thought we didn’t bowl particularly well in the first session, and didn’t force them to play enough with the new ball. We obviously came back well, but 21 sundries (6 byes, 5 leg byes, 8 wides and 2 no balls, in case you’re interested) in a total of 215 suggest we should have bowled better.

We’d be sitting a bit more comfortably if Rogers was still there, and it’s interesting to speculate what might have happened had umpire Dharmasena given it not out. With the forensics suggesting it might have clipped leg stump, and the Decision Referral System returning an Umpire’s Call, had it been given Not Out and England referred it, things would have been very interesting indeed.

A small matter, perhaps, but games are won and lost on small matters...

Off to Trent Bridge

I think it’s fair to say that what you see depends on what you’re looking for, particularly when it comes to figuring out the significance of what’s just gone down within the line of sight.

When the Australian cricket team takes the field I’m looking for a 5-0 result from a team that’s playing at 100%. Not that I expect to see it too often when we’re playing a top rated side in their home conditions, but that’s what I’m looking for, because it probably means there’s not much that could have been done better.

On that basis, of course, Hughesy’s hardly likely to describe the 2005 Ashes series as one of the greatest ever. It’s different if you’re looking at it from a different perspective, of course, and a series that goes down to the wire will certainly keep the spectators engaged for the duration.

Closely fought series are definitely worth watching, but, unfortunately, the dialectical dynamics of sport mean they don’t occur too often.

The way I look at these things (and here I’m setting up a framework that I can use to analyse what goes down over the next six and a half weeks) fairly early on in a two team event one side gains an ascendancy and the other side responds. Sometimes they respond strongly enough to gain the ascendancy, in which case it’s up to the other side to wrest it back, and that sort of pendulum swing continues until one side is no longer capable of turning the tide, and at that point you get a blow out in the score line.

To me, the great thing about Test cricket is the fact that you’ve got five days to act out that sequence of challenge and response.

Let’s talk hypotheticals for a minute.

Based on my par score scenario (Day One, batting side on 8 for round about 300), which I see as even stevens it’s up to the bowling side to wrap things up for something in the vicinity of 350, after which they get their turn at the crease and hopefully, given a decent batting wicket and the best of the conditions, end up somewhere around 4 for 250 at the end of Day Two).

At that point we’re still level pegging at the end of the day, but you’re still going to have those pendulum swings as the batting side builds a partnership and the bowling side gets a wicket.

By the end of Day Three in this scenario, your side that batted first should be back in, attempting to reel in a deficit of around a hundred, and would hopefully have accomplished that for the loss of one or two wickets, which means they’ve got Day Four to accumulate a target and Day Five to ensure the other side doesn’t reach it.

Ideally the victory target is reached inside the last half hour of Day Five and whoever bats Eleven on the batting side is at the crease.

Things rarely fall out that way, of course, but take that scenario as a basis, repeat five times and you’re going to have a cracker of a series because even if the eventual score line reads 5-0 every game has gone the distance, and both sides have been right in it until the death.

Anyway, that’s Hughesy’s definition of a close series, and if you’re looking at a score line that reads two-all as you go into Game Five I’m willing to concede that you’re probably looking at one of the greatest series ever.

Maybe I’ve been spoiled because the first Test series I remember consciously following was that great series between Australia and the West Indies in 1960-61 that started with the Tied Test and included the nail-biting draw in Adelaide as Slasher Mackay and Lindsay Kline held out against Wes Hall and Lance Gibbs.

I don’t recall too many series over the subsequent fifty years that went close to matching it.

With back to back Ashes series kicking off tonight, somewhere during the next day or two we’ll have one side gaining the ascendancy, and, hopefully, from my point of view, it’ll be Australia.

At this point it’s time for Hughesy’s favourite metaphor when it comes to these situations. It’s like a loose set of floorboards where the nails that secure things in place keep popping their heads up, and whoever’s standing on top of them bangs them back down. Eventually the nails will either stop popping back up or they’ll all come loose and the bloke with the hammer will fall through the cracks.

When I look at 2005, I see Australia as the bloke standing on the floor after the First Test, with a whole pile of nails springing out of their nail holes on the first morning of the Second, which put England on a roll that we weren’t able to counter, though it was a very close run thing.

Given the current state of affairs you might be disinclined to make a prediction, but I think things are going to be very close, which will probably mean a 5-0 score line to the home side in six and a half weeks’ time, but I’m reasonably upbeat.

I like Lehmann as coach, and I think we’ll see a much more focussed side than we’ve seen in recent series.

I like Clarke as an innovative captain, and I suspect we’ll see something like the short midwicket Alan Border regularly set in place against Graham Gooch in 1989. That, and the suggestion that Terry Alderman bowled out-swingers, did a lot to secure a famous victory in that series.

You can see the mind games already in the decision not to announce the actual side until the morning of the game. I liked that yesterday, and I like it even more when I read articles like this one.

Back to that 1989 field placing, the short midwicket had Gooch thinking something along the lines of “What are they doing? I don’t hit the ball in the air through there. Or do I?” The uncertainty that came with Or do I? set things up so Alderman, who, remember was supposed to be swinging the ball, could regularly clean up England’s premier bat with balls that went more or less gun barrel straight.

You can expect something along these lines from Clarke through this series if comments made here are anything to go by.

I like Rogers as opener, and, according to this article he brings a little bit more than a heap of runs and current form to the side. There’s that eternal question of how the English bowler gets the Dukes ball to swing when we don’t. Rogers, interestingly, may be part of the solution to what has been a thorny problem.

And, on that basis, I like the fact that we’ve got half a dozen fully fit bowlers on tour seemingly ready to fire.

I expect Lyon to do surprisingly well, and someone out of Hughes, Khawaja, Smith and Warner to nail down a secure place in the Australian middle order for the next couple of years, and don’t dismiss Cowan or Hughes as a potential Three if either is tried in that position.

Over the next six and a half weeks there are a lot of players in the Australian side with a lot to play for and a coach who has, I think, the potential to ensure a couple of them really deliver. That might not be enough to bring back the urn after The Oval, but time will, as they say, tell.

Thirty-five hours out...

About thirty-six hours out from the first of ten Tests in back to back Ashes series, Hughesy is pretty upbeat about Australia’s chances of holding the urn by the end of the Australian summer.

Actually, I’m pretty upbeat about our chances of our having matters under control by the time we head home from The Oval, but I’m willing to concede some things take time to build.

While there’s every possibility something will roll along to upset the apple cart between now and the resumption of hostilities, recent speculation about who decides the Australian batting order and ponderings about whether Peter Siddle will be all right on the night (here) has me thinking things are shaping up rather well.

The question of who decides the batting order and the possibility of some sort of ruction between the Australian captain and the Australian coach suggests, to me at least, the journos covering the tour are in need of a story.

And since we haven’t had any members of the touring party making mugs of themselves in the course of a night on the tiles, with nothing else to write about, we get attempts to generate a storm in a teacup in the quest for column inches.

I’m willing to concede there’s the possibility of some disagreement, but it’s hard to imagine that Michael Clarke’s first sighting of the side he’s being handed will occur immediately before the toss.

The twelve will be done and dusted by now, with the most likely eleven just about set in stone. It’s just that they’re not telling anyone.

Which is fine with me, because we’re looking at a situation where any advantage, however slight, is going to be helpful. We’re actually looking at a situation where any member of the touring party except Matthew Wade and, possibly (but only possibly) Ashton Agar is likely to find themselves in the final eleven.

That means when the Poms are doing their planning they have a few more things to take into account, which delivers a slight tactical advantage. We already have a fair idea of what we’re up against, don’t we? The other side has a bit more guess work to do.

Getting back to that matter of the batting order, pause for a moment and consider the statement that the captain decides the batting order, which, of course, he does because the order in which the batsmen enter the arena is a tactical one, and tactical decisions are the captain’s realm.

I’d be betting that when Lehmann hands over the team list it’ll contain eleven names in alphabetical order and a specified twelfth man. Clarke will have a second list, which will be the suggested or likely batting order, so let’s pause for a moment and cast an eye over that little devil.

The only apparent given in the eleven is that it will feature Rogers and Watson at the top of the order, Clarke in the middle somewhere and Haddin at Six or Seven, depending on whether Faulkner is included in the eleven along with four other bowlers. Once you’ve made that call, One, Two, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten and Eleven are more or less set in stone, aren’t they?

So the only decisions that Clarke has to make will involve the blokes who slot into the scoreboard at Three, Four, Five and Six. Compris?

So let’s pause for a moment and look at the candidates. In Rogers and Watson we’ve got a left hand right hand combination, and Clarke’s a right hander. So, for that matter, in the course of these calculations, is Haddin.

Cowan, Hughes, Khawaja and Warner all bat left, Smith is the only other rightie among the specialist bats. What’s to stop Clarke and whoever gets the nod out of the first three of those lefties both padded up as the openers go out?

A left hand/right hand opening combination is held to be useful because if they’re able to rotate the strike the bowlers are going to have a little added difficulty in maintaining a consistent line and length and building pressure.

Assume, for a moment that the first four reads something like Watson, Rogers, Hughes and Clarke. Pencil in the possibility that whoever goes in at Three (which should be the best bat in the side according to the conventional wisdom) depends on who is the first bat to be dismissed. If you want to keep the left/right combination going, Hughes replaces Rogers, Clarke replaces Watson.

Might be tricky if Watson goes early, but if that’s the way you’re thinking, you’d be looking at a definite order, wouldn’t you?

AS far as the bowling goes, things are fairly open, and I suspect the actual line up will depend on the team’s assessment of the best options against the English top order. You’d reckon Pattinson and Starc are certainties, so the question becomes whether you play a spinner, with Lyon most likely, but not a certainty, to get the nod.

Assume he does, and you’re going in with four specialist bowlers, and the choice comes down to one out of Siddle, Harris, Bird and Faulkner.

In these circumstances, kicking off a series where the batting has the question mark over it, I’d have Haddin at Seven, and I’d be going with the four bowlers, so I’d be giving the nod to Siddle and telling him to expect the work horse role.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, Hughesy’s side for Trent Bridge: Watson, Rogers, Hughes, Clarke, Khawaja, Warner, Haddin, Siddle, Pattinson, Starc, Lyon, Bird (12th man).

Par score after Day One, assuming weather, atmospherics, or any devils in the pitch don’t come into play 8 for 300. More than eight wickets or less than 300, advantage to the side bowling first. Less than eight wickets advantage definitely to the batting side, though they’re level pegging if there’s more than thirteen...

And tomorrow, reflections on the dynamics of a series, and why 2005 wasn’t the wonderful series it was cracked up to be..

Bring On Uncle Fester

Since I’ve got a largish fiction project I’m trying to finish and the morning walk usually provides the opportunity to nut out the next bit, you might suppose developments like the overnight sacking of the Australian cricket coach will be seen as an unwelcome intrusion, since it’s something Hughesy will feel obliged to comment on.

Mickey Arthur’s sacking, and the appointment of Darren Lehmann to replace him, does, however, bring a couple of long-standing issues to the fore, and not just the most obvious ones concerning homework and Joe Root’s wig.

Note the emphasis on the just there. One can’t help suspecting that there’s a lot more going on under the surface with a team that would seem to include a number of individuals with egos larger than many small planets.

Let’s start with the seemingly minor issue of who the members of the Australian cricket team actually listen to.

Elite sports people, of course, are in the position where they’re bombarded with opinions, criticism, helpful and unhelpful suggestions from all directions, friends and opponents. Maybe not quite twenty-four seven, but not far off it.

So you can understand why they might be inclined to be selective about who they listen to. Cricketers who’ve played at the highest level tend, as far as I can see, to only heed the advice of their notional peers, and the current CEO, being a moderately performed ex-Shield player and the High Performance manager, being a Rugby person would not seem to qualify.

That’s not a peculiarly Australian issue. Indian Test players weren’t inclined to heed Greg Chappell’s opinions and suggestions, Bennett King might have coached Queensland to a couple of Sheffield Shield/Pura Cup wins but didn’t last too long as coach of the West Indies. The Astute Reader would probably be able to come up with other international examples.

Much of this, of course, has come about since the emergence of the professional coach, and the rise of national coaching accreditation, something that has allowed a number of moderately performed first class players to build up a career in the game. Take a look around the periphery of most sides that can afford the outlay and you’ll find any number of support staff, any or all of whom can be selectively ignored if you’re not inclined to see their presence as important.

That, from where I’m sitting, would appear to be the source of the recent situation. Mickey Arthur might have been the nominal coach, but wasn’t seen as someone certain players needed to pay attention to when he’s trying to lay down the law.

Of course, if you’re supposedly a vital member of the side you can ignore him but he won’t have the clout to discipline you because he needs you if he wants to win games and hold his job.

That would seem to be the explanation for the homework incident, where a five minute task that might be useful getting everybody’s minds on the job after a break is ignored because four blokes don’t feel it’s important.

On that basis, I’d have to applaud the decision to terminate the contract, and would definitely endorse the choice of Darren Lehmann as Arthur’s replacement because if the current lot won’t listen to an Australian who’s had an extended run at the highest level and showed himself to be reasonably astute in the coaching department there isn’t much chance they’ll listen to anyone.

So I’d like to be a fly on the wall when the Ashes squad sits down at Taunton later today and Lehmann starts laying out the way things are going to operate from here on. Hopefully it’ll be a case of This is how things are going to be rather than Look fellas, I hope all this is all right with you, but I’d like to...

It’s not as if these things are rocket surgery. Ten Tests where we need to take twenty wickets and score more runs than the opposition. There are procedures that need to be put in place, of course, practice routines, training drills, all the nuts and bolts stuff, but that’s not rocket surgery either.

What really needs to be cemented in place is a team mind set, and that’s where the rules, and a bit of arrogance comes in. This is the Australian team. Traditionally, we’re hard bastards in baggy green caps. Second best is not acceptable. That sort of mentality.

Something like an Ashes tour, where one presumes the transport arrangements involve a team vehicle that’ll shuttle back and forth between accommodation and venue, as well as between venues, would seem to be the perfect opportunity to build a competitive unit. Leave the wives, girlfriends and families on the periphery while the job gets done and no fraternising with the enemy.

Remember, in an era when anything you do can appear on Twitter within minutes of it happening, team protocols are there for a reason, and must be adhered to. If that involves appointing a committee who’ll sort out a social itinerary that’s loaded with interesting activities in reasonably secure locations, go for it. You can have a reasonably good time, bond as a unit and, hopefully get that urn back sooner rather than later.

And if there’s anyone on board the bus who isn’t prepared to commit themselves and follow the team protocols, send them straight home.

For a bit of further reading, try Victorian leggie Bryce McGain (here) and Brydon Coverdale (here).

The Warner Imbroglio

I was going to leave this one alone, but a day’s road trip to Townsville gave plenty of time to ponder the issues, a FaceBook tag from Angry provided the excuse and the story continues to unfold, leaving plenty of entrails to sift through.

A couple of points, however, before we move on to the implications of Mr Warner’s latest indiscretion.

The first of them is the old saw that a champion team will always beat a team of champions. Call it Point One, if you like.

Point Two comes with my perception of the Australian cricket team’s job description, The job, as far as I can see, is to ensure that the Australian team sits as close as possible to #1 in each of the three forms of the game.

Point Three is my long-standing belief that anything less than a two, three, four or five-nil whitewash in a two, three, four or five Test series means there are probably things that could have been done or managed better.

So, in a ten Test Double Ashes series unless there’s a score line that reads 10-nil in our favour we’re looking at a performance that could have been better. A nine-nil or eight-nil scoreline without a ball being bowled in the other two Tests would probably rate as well, but there’s still the possibility that something could have been done better.

Finally, Point Four, straight from my Sports Psychology bible: Pressure is something that you put on yourself.

In the light of those four points, and in response to Angry’s very thoughtful act in directing my attention here, my short response is that Warner should have been on the next plane home. A phone call from the manager of three of the four NQ Primary Schools teams I coached produced an Of course he should in response to a statement of that opinion.

By the way, I read that article before the road trip, and it had a fair bearing on the conclusions I drew from the cogitations.

When Jarrod Kimber wrote: Warner's punch isn't a one off for him, and many young Aussie players are doing things that are either blatantly stupid, or amazingly unprofessional way too often over the last couple of years, I couldn’t agree more.

One also notes that the article, apart from David Warner, also cites incidents involving Mitchell Marsh, Luke Pomersbach, Daniel Christian, and Chris Lynn and, of course, the Homework Quartet (Shane Watson, Mitchell Johnson, James Pattinson and Usman Khawaja) and claims the Homework business followed on from the World Twenty20, where a player was heard undermining the captain George Bailey to opposition players.

Cast your eye back over that list. Note, among those names, most of the major candidates for the long-yearned for Australian equivalent of Botham, Flintoff or Kallis, that is, and to wit the genuine pace bowling all-rounder, as well as the once in a generation, century, whatever Johnson, who’s been mentioned as a distinct possibility to develop into that role.

A later article (here) has Clint McKay, Mitchell Marsh, Phil Hughes, Matthew Wade and Glenn Maxwell joining Warner on the evening in question, though it doesn’t give details of the England players who were there. The headline in that story contains allegations action was only taken against Dave Warner after former vice-captain Shane Watson complained of double standards, though the story has been vehemently denied by captain Michael Clarke and Cricket Australia (CA) officials (here)

Watson, of course, having missed a Test because of his failure to do his homework, with Warner (the way I read it) initially looking like only missing the Champions Trophy game against Sri Lanka for what could, under other circumstances with different people involved, have resulted in criminal charges. According to the article Cricket Australia only became aware of the incident when the team management stood Warner down from the Sri Lanka game. Watson might be a noted spitter of the dummy but in this case, if those details are accurate, he’s right on the money.

Watson missed that Test, along with the other three players, because they failed to complete an in house task that wouldn’t have come under the spotlight if the management group hadn’t decided to act. This incident, had they tried to sweep it under the carpet, had the potential to become much uglier than it has turned out to be, and it’s ugly enough already.

The first objection to suggestions that Warner should have been on the plane home is, of course, going to be He’s Dave Warner. We might need him. It’s The Ashes.

Bullshit.

There’s no one in the current Australian team who needs to be given any leeway at all except for the captain, whose degenerative back problem is a long-known issue that is being addressed very carefully. Cast your eye over this article from The Australian if you need to be persuaded about that one.

If you’re going to use the We need him, it’s the Ashes line, Michael Clarke’s the only one it applies to.

Cast your eye down the rest of the likely Test side and you might be tempted to claim the presence of Watson or whoever is vital if we’re going to win, but in that case maybe winning the urn isn’t so important.

In the past we’ve avoided biting bullets because perceived potential exceeds the performance we’re getting, which means, for example, that we need Mitchell Johnson in the side, because he could be a match winner. On the other hand he might bowl absolute tripe and get carted so we’d better have another bowler in there, which means we need to slot Watson in there somewhere, and the only spot that isn’t set in stone is the opener, so tough luck Phil Hughes, who one notes was one of the six players who were in the bar with Warner when this little imbroglio took place. We’ll be back to that point later.


OK, sending Warner home might have weakened The Ashes campaign, but it might also deliver a bit of certainty about the batting order by removing one piece from the jigsaw puzzle. There’s still a choice between Cowan, Hughes, Rogers and Watson for the opening slots, and with Clarke and Khawaja in the middle order you can juggle those four at One, Two, Three and Five/Six.

That would mean the batting order’s sorted, so all they need to do is perform. We’ve got Smith, Doolan and the highly rated Jordan Silk on the Australia A tour, at the moment, so if you need to draft another bat in take a choice between the first two (Smith’s on a ton not out against Ireland as I type), and have Silk join the touring party as a specialist substitute fielder.

In that setting there’d have been a chance for someone to cement a spot while Warner cools his heels at home and has to consider the prospect of being made to force his way back into the side rather than anticipate an automatic recall when he’s done his penance.

I can’t think of a clearer way of sending a message to the rest of the touring party. Don’t stuff up, because if you do...

Winning the two Ashes series would do a fair bit towards tackling Point Two above (Australian cricket team’s job is to ensure that the Australian team sits as close as possible to #1 in each of the three forms of the game) but that won’t become a reality unless we can perform consistently at home and win against India and South Africa on their home turf as well, and if we’re going to do that the team culture in a touring party is going to be a key ingredient in any success.

If you’re an England, South African or Indian supporter, of course, that job description (as close as possible to #1 in each of the three forms of the game) will also apply to your side, and it would also apply to Pakistan if it wasn’t for the security issues that deny them the chance to win at home.

New Zealand, Sri Lanka, the West Indies and Bangla Desh might take umbrage at being relegated to sort of also ran status, but I’d suggest there are financial considerations that’re going to militate against those sides forcing their way to the Top Four in the Test rankings, but World Cups in the ODI and T20 formats provide chances to hit the heights and there’s the potential to exert a bit of influence on the Test rankings as well.

Financial considerations go close to ensuring that India, Australia, England and South Africa are going to fill the top places in the Test rankings because the other countries, who are effectively eking out a hand to mouth existence, can’t afford to employ the support staff that richer sides can enjoy as a matter of course.

Which, of course, brings us back to the Homework Affair, which seems to reflect underlying issues within what you might term the Australian team culture and would appear to be a continuation of issues relating to the interaction of the touring squad and the support staff.

The whole issue of whether all these people are actually necessary is one that we’ll lightly step around for the moment, content to point out that they’re there to do a job, and it’s up to everybody else to ensure that they’re able to do it.

If there’s a dietician or nutritionist in place they’re there for a reason, and if that reason involves players keeping a diary detailing what they eat and drink on a day by day basis and submitting the details at designated intervals then you keep the diary and you hand in the details on time.

And if the Australian coach asks you to jump, you ask How high? You don’t question the need to jump at all. Sure, you might not agree that jumping is necessary, but after you’ve done it you can always ask questions.

I was musing about this point on the walk yesterday morning, particularly with regard to Warner’s occasional rolling over of the arm. I’ve been saying for a while that he possibly needs to bowl more, but a glance at the score cards from the tour of India earlier this year revealed four overs that went for heaps. Not the stuff of a front line bowler, but when it comes to this sort of matter we’re not necessarily talking front line stuff.

Actually, everyone sitting at the top of the batting order should be able to roll their arm over and deliver something reasonable, not necessarily spin, to the point where there’s a need for something different there are a number of options to choose from.

So while this next bit is hypothetical and I certainly hope that it doesn’t resemble reality, you can probably see where I’m coming from when I look for an example of the team coach asking someone to jump.

So let’s say you’re a top order bat and you’re taking it easy rolling your arm over in the nets when the coach sidles over and suggests you might want to put a little more effort into your leggies. What do you do?

Possibly, you respond with something like Sure, coach and set about bowling with a bit more zip and vigour. I have a suspicion there’s not much likelihood of that happening with a number of players across a variety of national sides.

More likely, you ask why.

Now, the reasoning behind the request might be that you’re not really providing much that’s within reach of the bloke who’s at the other end in a system where the batsmen change when the bell sounds. He needs stuff he can hit, and you’re not providing it because, basically, you’d prefer not to be bowling at all.

The coach, more than likely, knows your heart’s not in it and when you ask for a reason he probably can’t say you’re bowling tripe and you’d object if anyone else served it up to you, so lift your act. That sort of suggestion might result in your heading off in a snit, delivering more of the same (or worse) and quite possibly pouring scorn on the suggestion and the coach’s presumption in making it to anyone in the dressing room that’ll listen.

On the other hand, a smart coach will have at least three reasons why your leg spin needs some work, including (Australian example) the state of Pup’s back (which is going to limit how much left arm tweakery he can bowl), concerns with over rates and getting through ninety in a day, the need for the blokes at the other end of the nets to get practice at balls turning this way or that way and I could probably come up with a couple of others without too much effort.

The coach would be looking for responses similar to how do you reckon they’re landing? and how’s the wrong ‘un looking? followed by requests to book some quality time with the wrist spin mentor when a couple of technical issues have been identified.

Unfortunately, in the current situation one can’t help thinking the responses to suggestions that involve things certain players would prefer not to have to do (and I’m not suggesting anyone has an aversion to bowling in the nets, just picking something that might need work and could add another little option to the tactical armoury) tend to be along the lines of Oh yeah? Well I’ll bear it in mind.

Filling in the details of your dietary intake might be a pain, and you might think that dietician isn’t really necessary, but if you’re playing in Chennai and dehydration’s likely to be an issue that paperwork might just turn out to be very important.

And I’ve seen references to other issues that might look like minor infringements but can have a significant effect on the team culture. Turning up late for the bus to the ground, for example.

You probably don’t need to be Einstein to work out that if play starts at eleven and the team warmup procedure takes an hour and a half you probably want to be at the ground around nine. If the trip between the hotel and the ground tends to take between half an hour and forty-five minutes then the bus needs to leave at eight-fifteen, so it’s in the lobby by eight-ten for a departure five minutes later.

Critics of the treatment the Homework Four received may or may not agree, but in most cases where there are team rules and protocols in place they’re there for a reason, and they’re meant to ensure that things run smoothly and the side takes the paddock ready to fire.

Warner and the other Australian players in that particular bar on that particular night, mightn’t have broken any team protocols when they went out for a gargle with some of the opposition but they weren’t showing a great deal of strategic nous when it comes to the invariable needle that’ll come through an Ashes series.

And I’m talking what happens on the field here, not what the poison pens of the Pommy press are going to hurl at you if you give them the slightest excuse. We should be operating under the assumption that every situation involving sportsmen, the general public, late nights and alcohol has the potential to become very ugly very quickly.

Take this current situation. Joe Root appears to have gone out wearing a wig and has set out to be funny by using the hirsute accessory to imitate Hashim Amla’s beard. This is what apparently upset Warner, and the scuffle came out of that. Who knows? That may be one of Root’s standard party tricks.

In this sort of situation, rather than going to clock him one, you might suggest that the bloke doing the impersonation was a racist expletive deleted, announce that you don’t associate with that sort of animal and depart the scene in high or medium dudgeon. Do that, and have one of your mates leak it to the press and you’ve got the other bloke attracting the newspaper headlines, and the Poison Pens of the Pommy Press may be giving him a major serve. That’d be one to the good guys, wouldn’t it?

We know that the actual Ashes series in going to be accompanied by a large quantity of what you might charitably call chirp from English players, supporters and spectators and members of the Australian side are quite likely going to cop it whenever they’re in contact with the public on or off the field.

It’ll be definitely be needle, and will more than likely be served up in anticipation of a response, so you need to set a few team protocols in place to help avoid difficult situations, and you need to make it quite clear that these protocols must be followed.

In the past there’d been a rule that had wives, partners, girlfriends and family excluded from the tour party until the Fourth or Fifth Test of a five Test series away from home, with the sweetener of something like a week’s holiday for everyone along with a fairly low key game or two in Bermuda on the way home from the West Indies. This was, from what I can gather, common in the Border era, and didn’t go down all that well with some of the wives and girlfriends.

In that sort of situation you could set up a small social committee, charge them with preparing a social itinerary for each stop on the tour and give everyone the option of going along with the social itinerary which will probably offer an interesting variety of experiences, staying at the team hotel or, possibly, exploring this relatively harmless alternative if you’re disinclined to go out with the rest of the side and have picked up a dose of cabin fever.

Relatively harmless alternatives might include going out to eat with someone from the opposition, but that sort of thing should have a strict curfew, if it’s allowed at all. Indeed, in a couple of series under Border and Waugh any form of fraternisation with the Old Enemy was strictly verboten.

Didn’t matter if your best mate from the stint you spent playing county cricket was the best man at your wedding, is your brother-in-law and the godfather of your first born son, if he’s a member of the Pommy team you were to walk past him as if he wasn’t there.

There are plenty of examples of ways to unsettle the opposition by seemingly innocuous actions.

One could point to the old Fred Trueman practice of lobbing in the other side’s dressing room before the start of a day’s play and enumerating the number of scalps he’ll be collecting with the ball. You might think of this as harmless banter, but it’s not the sort of thing the opening batsman wants to hear when he’s putting the pads on and it’s coming from the bloke you’re going to be facing in the very near future.

You’re possibly better off thinking about your own innings rather than trying to tune out the bowler’s suggestions regarding his forthcoming bowling analysis.

Viv Richards, on the other hand, was apparently inclined to wander to the crease, nonchalantly gnawing on the chewing gum and acting as if he expected a cheery greeting from anyone on the fielding side he happened to pass on the way in.

Seriously, regardless of the rules and procedures that have been set in place and quite apart from any misbehaviour along the way, anything that gives the other side the slightest hint of an edge is to be avoided.

Warner, in company of at least one bloke with a history of drink-related disciplinary issues is out at half-past two in the morning. Someone does something he doesn’t like so he clocks him one.

This, in an era when practically everyone in the bar at the time probably has a mobile phone that’ll provide an opportunity to record an unsavoury incident and have it splashed across YouTube, FaceBook and Twitter within minutes.

Pressure, in the words of my old Sports Psychology bible, is something you put on yourself. Some people, of course, are alleged to be above such considerations (which probably means, in a pressure situation, they’ve either developed mechanisms to ignore it or fail to recognize that it’s there).

In a few weeks the Barmy Army will be baying, there’ll be eleven blokes on the field who’re willing to give you plenty of chirp, and Messrs Warner and Hughes, both of whom will have big question marks about their ability to handle the swinging ball, are going out for a big night with some of the blokes who’ll be dishing it out to them from close range in a  situation where there’ll be plenty of pressure to be found and put on yourself.

Worse, in a situation where you could fix someone with a steely glare, suggest that he’s an expletive deleted racist and possibly have him react in a manner that’ll attract the media attention (imagine the newspaper headlines, should such a matter manage to leak itself) you react in a way that guarantees the headlines are going to be working against you instead of for you.

Not very clever, Mr Warner.

The Ashes Squad 2013

You may think it's rather like a dog that persists in gnawing at a bone long after whatever meat was there in the first place but I continue to see reminders of that fateful morning in 2005 when Glenn McGrath turned his ankle on a stray cricket ball, Ricky Ponting won the toss and sent them in and Brett Lee proceeded to bowl in a most profligate manner.

It was a decision that might seem to belong to the dim and distant past, but we're still seeing the ripples of its effect, most recently in the question of why we've recalled a thirty-five year old veteran of a single Test to the Australian squad for the Ashes tour.

Regardless of the implications (cited here) of being issued with a baggy green that may or may not have been too small and seems to have resulted in a migraine, Chris Rogers was always going to have to make way for Matthew Hayden's return to the side. That was in the summer of 2007-2008, when the Australian side was rebuilding after the retirements of Langer and Martyn (and Warne and McGrath) with Gilchrist and Hayden on the verge of leaving and Ponting and Hussey starting to approach their use by dates, so you can see why Hayden had to come back in the short term.

Had we held the Ashes in 2005, one suspects the retirement/rebuilding process would have been managed differently.

Still, having chosen to bring on younger players in the interim (Phil Jaques, Simon Katich, Phil Hughes, Shane Watson, David Warner and Ed Cowan) there's the possibility of a pleasingly ironic turn of The Ashes tail if we regain the urn thanks to the efforts of an opening batsman who's spent the past five Australian winters amassing a mountain of runs and gaining valuable experience in English conditions, playing County cricket because he wasn't in the Australian side.

That said, with the predictable reinstatement of Brad Haddin to the premier glove man position yesterday's announcement of The Ashes squad provided few surprises, though it does raise some interesting possibilities and a few intriguing conundrums.

For a start it does look like a bowling attack that'll be able to take twenty wickets in English conditions. Three out of Siddle, Pattinson, Starc, Harris and Bird with either Watson or Faulkner as a fourth seamer and Lyon, who has finally managed a bag of wickets in a Test (and, one notes, is moving to New South Wales, put a big tick in the developing the spinner box) looks like a pretty sharp attack.

It's also interesting to note four of those five quicks in the Australia A squad, along with Lyon and young Ashton Agar as well as Haddin and Khawaja. There'll be plenty of chances to assess form and performance prior to the start of the First Test at Trent Bridge on 10 July. There are tour matches against Somerset and Worcestershire before that,  and Australia A play Scotland, Ireland and Gloucestershire while they get the Champions' Trophy sorted out.

On that basis, crystal ball gazing three months out might seem pretty pointless. You'd expect the twelve for Trent Bridge to include four of the five quicks plus Lyon, with Clarke and Haddin the only obvious certainties. Throw in Rogers and Watson as highly likely, and you've got three batting spots up for grabs with Warner, Cowan, Hughes and Khawaja as the candidates.

Pretty straightforward for mine. Rogers is an opening bat, so put him in first, with Cowan, Hughes at Three, Clarke at Four, Watson at Five and Warner at Six. Haddin is the obvious Seven, Starc, Siddle, Pattinson and Lyon rounding out the eleven with Harris or Bird carrying the drinks.

But we'll see. There are several bridges with quite a bit of water to flow under them between now and then.

Ashes squad:
Michael Clarke (capt), Brad Haddin (vice-capt, wk), David Warner, Ed Cowan, Phillip Hughes, Shane Watson, Usman Khawaja, Chris Rogers, Matthew Wade (wk), James Faulkner, Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle, James Pattinson, Mitchell Starc, Nathan Lyon, Jackson Bird.

Australia A squad:
Brad Haddin (capt), Steven Smith (vice-capt), Ashton Agar, Jackson Bird, Alex Doolan, Ryan Harris, Moises Henriques, Usman Khawaja, Nathan Lyon, Nic Maddinson, James Pattinson, Chadd Sayers, Peter Siddle, Jordan Silk.

Chennai: After Day Four...

Given a lack of pay television in these parts and the refusal of the BCCI to offer a reasonably priced radio option I wasn't going to bother commenting on the current Test series in India but after what has every appearance of a tightly fought four days I can't help myself.

It would be easy to look at things and denounce the batting as not good enough and label the bowling as completely the wrong option, but from where I'm sitting it looks like we've been suckered into this foolhardy notion of we'll play our best side.

That's fair enough, but too often our best side doesn't coincide with the conditions or current forrm, and too often it's built around aspirations rather than reality.

Looking at the two Australian innings in this Test, you'd probably assume we don't play spin very well, and you'd probably be right. Michael Clarke does, but we knew that, and it really looks like we went in on a wing and a prayer with the rest of the top six. After Chennai you'd have to say the only blokes who should be guaranteed a spot in the top six are Clarke and Henriques, who may be better suited ahead of Wade than after him since he might manage to stick around longer.

We don't have a lot of other options on hand over there, so the others are possibly safe once one of them has made way for Khawaja. Until, that is, you decide to turn your attention to the bowling.

Three quicks, a medium paced all-rounder and an offie might be our best bowling attack in these parts, and these three quicks plus Watson and Lyon might be our best bowling attack period, but Watto's not bowling, and you need to consider the conditions.

Given the weather, the track and the general welfare of the players it's obvious we've got at least one quick too many, which brings us back to the on-going Watto conundrum as far as the batting order is concerned.

Bowling Watto and Henriques with a strike bowler (Pattinson) and someone to do the donkey work (take a bow there Mr Siddle) would possibly work just as well as this lineup, but Watto doesn't bowl at the moment, and if he did we'd probably be looking at Henriques and saying, well, that's Watto's job, so we're right in that department.

As far as I can see you need someone to take the new ball and once the shine is off it, it's down to spin, reverse swing and, possibly, someone bowling short sharp bursts. If you go the short sharp bursts bit, it's Pattinson or Starc but not both of 'em.

But, I hear you suggest in your search for wisdom, we've got to play both Pattinson and Starc because they're part of our best bowling attack and, anyway, we don't have any decent spinners.

I'd counter that point with the argument that we don't get 'em because we don't bowl 'em when the conditions are likely to suit, so they don't come on.

I think it's obvious that Maxwell needs to be given a run to see how he goes, and you could probably make an equally strong case for Doherty. Warner needs to bowl more, around the same workload as Clarke, and Clarke needs to bowl a bit more anyway.

Writing this we're nine down and around forty in front going into Day Five, so we know the likely result. Hell, we might even look at it and say that without Dhoni's quite remarkable achievement we haven't done that badly, but we really need to do a bit of thinking before Hyderabad, assuming we actually get there after the recent bomb blasts…

Throwing Maxwell in would strengthen the batting, and given the fact that he tends to be a little prickly, he might contribute some useful niggle. Put him in ahead of Starc and you've got someone to bat Seven or Eight with hitman Pattinson at Nine, Siddle at Ten and Lyon at Eleven.

Up at the top of the order we've got the ongoing Watto conundrum, but I would definitely have Khawaja in for Hughes and leave everything else as is for the moment, with the note that non-bowling Watto needs to contribute runs, and that if he's going to open it doesn't have to be at Cowan's expense. You could always go with Warner at Three and drop Khawaja down a slot, or decide to get Warner to give it a bit of hammer at Four or Five.

Anyway, assuming fitness and the absence of gastric issues, Hughesy's eleven for Hyderabad, track unseen and conditions unknown:

Warner, Cowan, Khawaja, Watson, Clarke, Henriques, Maxwell, Wade, Pattinson/Starc, Siddle, Lyon.