If you've been reading these pages and looking forward to lengthy in-depth analysis of the short form international season I'm afraid you're likely to be disappointed.

It's not that two T20s and a three-way ODI series are totally meaningless, more a case of limited relevance and lack of recent exposure to domestic and international competition in both spheres. Looking at both of the short forms it's hard to see them as anything other than exercises in getting bums on seats while raking in the dollars from the TV rights.

Given the fact that the Ryobi Cup and Big Bash competitions have been broadcast on pay TV, which we don't pay for these days it's not as if I've been able to watch a lot (read any) of it.

Sure, in the big picture there's some relevance in both forms, but that relevance largely stems from the ODI World Cup and the World T20, with the latter on the horizon later in the year.

There are also two T20s in the West Indies, though we've already been told there'll be a combined short forms squad heading towards the Caribbean, probably with Wade rather than Haddin looking after the keeping duties, with both Wade and Haddin in the squad for the Tests. Makes sense, given the difficulty of flying in replacements before the next Test if someone comes down with an injury.

The 'keeper's role has attracted some media attention with Haddin's recent admission that omission equates to being dropped, which, if you want to look at it that way, it does.

And at the same time it doesn't. Returning to a recurring theme, and running on from the references to the limited overs World titles, they're obviously the pinnacle as fat as ODIs and T20s are concerned, and you're going to want to be sending your best side to those competitions.

In much the same way the Test series rankings mean that while every series matters, some matter more than others and the ones that matter involve England, South Africa and India along with anyone who looks like tipping us out of the Top Four in the rankings.

You want to have your best possible side for those campaigns, and, as a result if you're going to be rotating players the aim is to rest your key players through the other matches and then select your best combination from a wider pool.

If Haddin wants to view Matthew Wade's role in the T20s and the first batch of ODIs as a threat to his position, he's got every right to think that way, just as the selectors, who've inherited a situation where Haddin's the incumbent and his anointed successor, Tim Paine, is on an extended break through injury have every right to assess the options in case something happens to Haddin.

Those injury concerns raise their ugly heads again with the news that Nathan Lyon will be out of action for a while because he's been carrying an injury through the Test series against India.

And why did he play through the series? Quite possibly because, having run through a string of spinners over the past couple of years under the old regime the new selection panel hadn't established an obvious alternative.

We need, in my very humble opinion, a first choice spinner in each of the sub-disciplines of the art, and at least one shadow for each of those, so let's do a bit of looking in the cricketing larder and see what's sitting on the shelves.

For a start, in the T20 and first bit of the ODI series squad we've got Doherty (left arm orthodox) and Brad Hogg (left arm wrist spin) as specialist bowlers, with part time leggies from Warner and offies from David Hussey.

Lyon was down to play for the Prime Minister's XI on Friday, and his replacement is Queensland leggie Cameron Boyce. That seems to deliver a first choice in each sphere, but there's still a way to go.

Which brings us to an interesting consideration.

Assume, changing focus slightly, that in the Test arena we've got a (fit) pace bowling battery of Pattinson, Cummins, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Harris, Starc, Copeland, Cutting and Johnson. That's eight contenders for a maximum of four spots in the twelve.

Then take a squiz at the all-rounder options, which would be a fit Watson as first choice with Mitchell Marsh and Christian as contenders as well.

There'll be a degree of rotation in all of this, but how do you work your way up the pecking order?

Simple. You do it by taking wickets in the Shield and Ryobi Cup games to push your name forward. Nothing new there, just say the selection panel has been talking to these dudes, as well as the guys who are looking to force themselves into contention (Clint McKay in the T20 squad, for example).

Say, in addition, you've got a clear directive of what the selection panel is looking for from each of them, and input from bowling coach McDermott as well.

Suddenly you've got a group of quicks going out to give the batsmen in the domestic comps a thorough going over, because that's what they need to do if they're going to get themselves moving up the pecking order. That brings every batsman in those competitions under close scrutiny, which isn't going to do the search for the next generation of bats any harm, is it?

There's no reason why the same thing can't happen in the spin department. At the moment we've got some combination of Lyon, Hauritz, Kreja in line for the offies' spot, Doherty and Beer as the left arm tweakers, and Boyce as the leggie.

There are others around the state squads, but they're going to need guidance and directives. Deliver those and suddenly we've got a wave of spinners looking to deliver the slow bowling equivalent of a thorough going over which isn't going to be doing the quest for bats who can handle conditions in the subcontinent any harm.

Behind all this there's a slight snag, which brings us back to Mr Haddin.

If competition for spots in an Australian team is going to be encouraged opportunities have to be provided at the top level, which means incumbents need to be rested so that the competition is there.

At the same time, treating the ODI series as a format where contenders for a spot in the squad for the West Indies can stake their claim means that the one-dayers suddenly become a bit more important than they might have been if we selected a squad drawn entirely from the established players, with the odd newcomer included when one of the regulars drops out through fatigue or injury.

Imagine, if you will, a situation where Messrs Ponting and Hussey have been rested from the West Indian tour, and their replacements (let's call them Forrest and Khawaja but the names aren't that important) have fired in the Caribbean.

Add to that the pace bowling lineup listed above looking to secure one of four spots for the First Test, which will presumably be at the Gabba, so there's every possibility they'll be looking for an all-rounder as well.

Ponting and Hussey with points to prove taking on the Shield bowlers. Forrest and Khawaja the same, with Ferguson miffed at not being considered good enough to go to the Caribbean. That's a serious contender for a spot in the middle order from five different states, with Watson, Christian and Mitch Marsh looking to stake a claim in there as well, remembering that it is the Gabba and a fourth quick would be a handy option.

Now, wouldn't that make for an interesting start to the Shield Season?

And speaking of Shield seasons, Hughesy's New Year's resolution involves keeping a much closer eye on the Shield comp, so readers can look forward to some sort of summary at the end of each Shield game with a headline of ShieldWatch: Whoever v Whoever…

All part of the service, folks.

Also as part of the service and for my own reference, here are the squads for the next bit of the international season.

Australia T20 squad
George Bailey*, David Warner, Travis Birt, Daniel Christian, Xavier Doherty, James Faulkner, Aaron Finch, Brad Hogg, David Hussey, Brett Lee, Clint McKay, Mitchell Marsh, Shaun Marsh, Matthew Wade†

Australia ODI squad
Michael Clarke*, David Warner, Ricky Ponting, Peter Forrest, Daniel Christian, David Hussey, Michael Hussey, Matthew Wade†, Brett Lee, Ryan Harris, Mitchell Starc, Xavier Doherty, Clint McKay, Mitchell Marsh

Prime Minister's XI squad (as announced)
Brad Haddin *†, Peter Forrest, Wes Robinson, Mitchell Marsh, Adam Voges, Kurtis Patterson, Dean Solway, Nathan Coulter-Nile, Ben Cutting, Michael Nesser, Nathan Lyon, Aaron Ayre (12th man)

India squad
MS Dhoni*†, R Ashwin, G Gambhir, RA Jadeja, Z Khan, V Kohli, P Kumar, PA Patel†, IK Pathan, SK Raina, V Sehwag, R Sharma, RG Sharma, SR Tendulkar, MK Tiwary, R Vinay Kumar, U Yadav

Sri Lanka ODI squad
Mahela Jayawardene (capt), Angelo Mathews (vice-capt), Upul Tharanga, Tillakaratne Dilshan, Kumar Sangakkara (wk), Dinesh Chandimal (wk), Lahiru Thirimanne, Thisara Perera, Farveez Maharoof, Rangana Herath, Sachithra Senanayake, Lasith Malinga, Nuwan Kulasekera, Chanaka Welegedara, Dhammika Prasad
Stand by: Thilan Samaraweera

I've never been one to pay too much attention to what happens when some elite sports star gets to sit in front of the sponsors' logos and make sage pronouncements about the talking points of the moment, in much the same way tas I disregard hard-hated politicians doing something or other in front of the TV cameras to ensure they've got their face towards the top of the prime time news bulletins.

We know why the politicians are doing it, and you don't need to be Einstein to figure out why those elite sports personalities are there, sandwiched between the corporate logos and the media scrum.

The media scrum wants content, the sponsors want their pound of flesh and if you don't give the journos something relatively straightforward to cover they might have to start looking. If they were to do that they might well look elsewhere or start sniffing around areas you'd prefer they didn't.

At least, if you've corralled them into the media conference you can exert some control of what's going to come out in the news bulletins and potential fish and chips wrapping, which is also why so many of those events end up as statements of the bleeding obvious.

There's the occasional headline that comes out of such events that's worthy of comment, such as Australia aim for 3-0 in Perth, leave talk of 4-0 for later.

Click on the link and you'll find the predictable cliches rolling out one after the other. The late and definitely unlamented in these parts Joh Bjelke Petersen used to refer to it as feeding the chooks.

At the same time Mr Hussey, who copped the short straw to front the media this time around has certain topics he'd prefer not to discuss, which is tricky given the fact that their cousin-brothers are rearing their ugly heads on the subcontinent as people start questioning the future of India's aging batting order.

For all the cliches Hussey's right. Leading two-nil in the four Test series you look at what's in front of you at the WACA, see how events unfold and then turn your thoughts to Adelaide. One step at a time and all that…

While you're doing that, of course, you're conveniently not looking too far into the future and raising tricky questions about retirement and rotation policies, are you?

Because rotation policies are back on the agenda with headlines like Cricket Australia outlines rotation policy, though one notes general manager of high performance Pat Howard's still talking bowlers at this stage.

Much of the problem facing India lies in the fact that their batting line up has, at various stages, been highly successful, with the corollary that success encourages continuity and stability to the point where you're stuck with the incumbents because they might hit form and the horizon's light on for replacements.

That's sort of like suggesting while Brad Haddin's not going that well at the moment Tim Paine's injured and the other candidates have yet to prove themselves so we'd better stick with Haddin, hadn't we?

In any case, even if we manage to get to the 4-0 whitewash against India we're probably going to have a few question marks heading off to the West Indies and points beyond, so let's return to a well-worn path for a moment.

A clean sweep in a Test series tends to minimise the number of areas that will be needing scrutiny, and at the moment it looks like we'll be right in the bowling department.

Assuming the current twelve get through Perth and Adelaide unscathed, then get themselves through the rest of the summer without anything going wrong, you'd expect the twelve that emerge from Adelaide to supply the basis for the Test squad for the West Indies. The extras will depend on the size of the squad they want to move around the Caribbean and the playing roster we end up using for the five ODIs and two T20s before three Tests in Barbados, Trinidad and Guyana.

The first factor that needs to be pencilled in here is the travel time involved if you need to fly in replacements. You need to have most eventualities covered in the actual squad as an injury late in one Test may mean the next game starts before the replacement arrives, so you'd be inclined to think one of your reserve bats might need to cover the 'keeper's role as well.

So, pause for as moment, and assume a Test squad of sixteen, which might seem excessive for a three Test series, but you're going to have some cover for injury along the track and there are those logistical issues with replacements.

That means, with the twelve from Adelaide providing the nucleus, you've got space for two bats and two bowlers. The bowlers would be Pattinson and Cummins, assuming both are fit, one bat would be a fit Watson and the other the reserve 'keeper, whoever that might be. If he was fit you'd go for Tim Paine, but with long term injury issues….

That, in turn brings us back to the existing batting order, doesn't it?

If he's fit, you'd expect Watson to slot right in somewhere, and by the end of Adelaide we'll hopefully have a better handle on Messrs Warner, Cowan and Marsh at One, Two and Three. That, in turn means we're going to be looking at Ponting and Hussey agian, aren't we?

Small wonder that media conference appearance from Mr Cricket had him talking about just trying to enjoy each Test match and then closing the door on that one and starting afresh for the next.

In the wake of the Boxing Day Test and the failure of the anticipated Niggle to arrive on the field I've found my thoughts turning towards the avenues through which cricketers attempt to distract their opponents, thus giving themselves an edge in the battle between bat and ball.

There will be many, of course, who still persevere under the illusion that cricket was once, and could be again, a gentleman's game, and this sort of thing is, well, just not cricket.

Sharp practice has been part of the game since the year dot, and an examination of cricketing cultures around the globe will reveal local variations on the same theme, so there's no one out there (or no country, at least) who are definitely pure as the driven snow.

We tend to look back to Victorian and Edwardian England as some sort of halcyon era, but it was, remember, the era of W.G. Grace, the man who was known to replace the bails and remark on the strength of the wind after being bowled.

Yes, Mr Grace, was the alleged reply. Make sure it doesn't blow your hat off on the way back to the pavilion.

Having been bowled in a charity game he allegedly refused to leave the crease on the grounds that the spectators had paid to see him bat, and with ball in hand was apparently frequently able to spot flights of interesting birds flying across a portion of the sky that happened to have the Sun in it, and directing the batsman’s attention in the appropriate direction.

We get all het up about sledging and so on, but those who raise the strongest objections usually have their own version of gamesmanship, which is usually excused on the grounds that it's part of the way they play the game.

All this sort of thing is part of the way we play the game, because a game of cricket is a number of individual battles between bat and ball with enough of a break between episodes to allow for all sorts of interaction and byplay.

Sledging might degenerate into an obscenity-riddled diatribe from time to time, but the verbal jousting will continue to be part of the game until someone actually manages to persuade the players the game should be played in absolute silence.

Good luck with that if you're silly enough to try.

Sledging might be the most obvious expression of gamesmanship and/or intimidation and you'll run across the occasional practitioner who'll deliver a sledge or a send-off from the fine leg boundary or some similar position in the outfield. In most cases it's carried on at much closer quarters.

Sledging may turn ugly, but delivers regular gems from time to time, and not necessarily in the direction you'd expect.

A suggestion from Mark Waugh that a particular English player wasn't up to Test standard was met with a maybe not, but at least I'm the best cricketer in my family.

Touche, and all that…

The Niggle, on the other hand, is a much more discreet exercise.

Here the intention is to find something you can use too distract the opposition or, more subtly, break up their preferred rhythm. There was a story a few years back about an English player whose initials may or may not have been K.P. inquiring about the make of car certain Indian batsmen drove, for example.

That was, at the time, described as a Sledge and a pretty asinine one, whereas in Hughesy's classification of these things it was actually a Niggle.

The batsman was, presumably, going through his preparations to face the next ball as the question was delivered, and the possibility that the bat might pull away at the last minute on the grounds that someone was talking would be likely to have some impact on the incoming bowler's equanimity, which could actually also be part of the desired outcome.

And the Niggle works very well when it involves something that would be anathema in the opponent's cricket culture, something Mr Ganguly was particularly adept at exploiting.

Indian supporters might take offence at Hughesy's characterisation of subcontinental players as Niggle Merchants rather than Sledgers, but that has more to do with a lack of verbal resources rather than a lack of desire.

After all, you can curse an Australian player all you like in Hindi or Urdu and he won't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. Engage your colleagues in a hilarious discussion where his name pops up from time to time and generally results in fits of giggles, on the other hand, and…

From where I was sitting the question of the DRS in this series looked like a classic attempt to start up the Niggle, although to date things haven't got close enough in the right areas for it to be effective.

The other matter that doesn't seem to have been an issue to date has been the old one about over rates, and here we're talking about the intersection of the Niggle and the deliberate manipulation of the pace of the game.

It’s what my colleagues in NQ Primary Cricket circles would have been inclined to call the Razzle Dazzle or the Hustle.

There were specific playing conditions involved with Primary School cricket around fifteen years ago that don't apply in the world of international cricket, but attempts to alter the pace of the game to your own advantage have been with us for years.

Razzle Dazzle was code, in NQPS circles for the need to get the fielding side through as many overs as possible in a two hour session, particularly when fielding first. Under the carnival conditions back in those days while you played fifty overs, the game was divided into three notionally two-hour sessions.

The side batting first, in other words, had two hours until lunch, then completed the innings in the middle session before a ten-minute change of innings.

The other factor that came into play here was the fact that coaching from the sideline was strictly verboten. Everybody did it but you had to find a way not to make it obvious.

So, with two hours to play until lunch the objective was to get as close as you could to forty. Forty was usually a bridge too far, but sides occasionally managed it, often through the use of notional finger spinners bowling darts off about three paces.

If a reader wants to suggest this sort of thing wouldn't happen at international level I'd direct his or her attention to Lance Gibbs in the 1975-76 West Indies tour of Australia where he regularly got through his overs in about two minutes and several Australian batsmen remarked that something like Oh dear (expletive modified rather than deleted) here he comes again were often followed by a departure from the crease.

The Primary School as close as you can get to forty bit was because the only ways a coach could deliver modified instructions to the pair batting in the middle was to send them out with the twelfth man at the drinks break, by deciding a change of batting gloves was needed and sending them out with the twelfthy, or delivering them through the incoming batsman when one of the incumbents were dismissed or retired out.

Get to lunch with forty bowled and he only has another ten to implement whatever strategy he's going to use to lift the run rate, even if he's got eight, nine or ten wickets in hand.

All of this meant you spent much of your team preparation sorting out things that would facilitate quick changes between overs, and the standard benchmark was to have the field in place before the umpires were in position. In those circumstances, with the umpy there, there's nothing to stop the bowler from starting the over, is there?

The batsman might not be totally ready, but if he wasn't, that was a slight advantage to the fielding side.

As a result, you'd take a chunk of your team prep time to sort out steps the batsmen could take to avoid being hurried.

This mightn't be obvious to the spectator or parent on the sidelines, but the sight of the wicketkeeper and company jogging into position with plenty of verbal encouragement along the way would have been impressive enough, even if the reasons behind it weren't obvious.

It may seem that I'm a little oversensitive to the Niggle, but when I've finished this little chunk of Razzle Dazzle it'll be obvious (at least I hope it'll be obvious) I was on the receiving end of what may have been an unintentional Niggle, but was definitely successful.

I have my doubts about the unintentional, and include the story here as an example of the way things can work under the surface.

As I indicated before, during your team preparation you wanted to get your kids up for the Razzle Dazzle and the pursuit of forty overs in the first session, and you'd want to clue your batsmen into the ways they can avoid being Hustled.

That involved centre wicket practices where you had bowlers bowling overs from alternate ends and the field jogging through between overs, stressing the importance of the quick change while prompting the batsmen to take their time, meet in the middle, discuss what they're having for lunch if there's nothing else to talk about…

So you're aiming to cover most anticipated situations, aren't you? When you're heading into this sort of territory the stakes are relatively substantial. There are places in State sides up for grabs for a start.

In 1996 the Carnival was held on the Sunshine Coast and timing factors meant a format where twelve teams played in four pools of three, and after the pool games things proceeded through quarter and semifinals to a final, with the eliminated teams playing along on a who haven't we played yet? basis.

With three teams in your pool, the first priority was to win a game. We managed that reasonably comfortably, since we'd drawn the weaker of the other two sides first up. That might sound arrogant or unfair, but one of the other two was a Brisbane/Metropolitan side and the other wasn't.

Since we were on the Sunshine Coast, four teams had a bye and kids needed to be supervised while billets were at work and so on, the organisers had set up an excursion day to a theme park which might have looked like a good idea on paper, but wasn't the most enjoyable experience I've ever had, particularly when the opening bowler decided to play up repeatedly.

He seemed to have recognized the error of his ways and suggested with a suitably penitent expression, he might be better off as twelfth man the next day, when he managed to play up even more, providing a major distraction in a game that turned out to be crucial to our prospects for further advancement.

The Met side rolled us on Day Three, and the coach went as far to commiserate since second spot in our pool meant we were up against the traditional masters of the Razzle Dazzle. We'd drummed the need to be ready to Hustle them when the encounter came, and had enumerated appropriate means to avoid being Hustled ourselves.

And we were coming off two less than ideal days with a coach (that's me, folks) in a position where he was a prime candidate for the mental equivalent of the grain of sand inside the sock.

They on the toss and batted, and within five overs the whole Razzle Dazzle/Hustle preparation was in tatters, and Hughesy was on the receiving end of a major niggle. Fifteen years later it still gets me hot under the collar.

And how did it work? What little swifty did their kids pull to bring our kids undone?

Nothing.

The kids did nothing, but in a situation where there was a badged (and paid) umpire looking after the bowler's end, the batting team provided the square leg umpire and in this case it was their Manager, who stood around thirty metres from the bat and proceeded from square leg to square leg between overs, crossing the pitch at about the same time the field had changed over.

So we had our kids jogging through, chirping away as they went, bowler handing his cap to the umpire and standing at the end of his run up with the square leg umpire half way through his snail-like progress. By the time he arrived, the fielding side was all out of chirp. By about the tenth over they weren't even jogging into position any more.

When I complained, asking why he couldn't move from square leg to point without crossing the pitch, a distance of around eighteen metres when you take the creases into consideration I was told there was nothing that could be done, and the bloke was notorious for these things.

I'd been going to Carnivals for well over a decade without sighting this guy in a managerial role, but it seemed his tardiness was generally acknowledged in the south-east of the state and no further correspondence was going to be entered into.

We managed thirty overs before lunch, the opposition posted around 200 in a situation where anything over 150 was probably going to be difficult to beat and I got a lot of parents offside as I reshuffled the batting order to try to get up around the desired run rate early. Otherwise we had no chance.

We finished twenty-odd short, spent the next two days playing in the Eliminated Pool, and I was still ropeable when we got to the closing ceremony, learned that the favourites had taken out the final and had their coach inform me that we'd been the toughest opposition they'd encountered along the way.

Well, we must have had something, because we ended the Carnival with a single win from five games but two kids out of thirteen in the Queensland squad.

The strategic considerations that emanate from those schoolboy playing conditions don't apply mightn't quite apply at other levels of the game, but manipulation of the pace of the game is definitely an issue when it comes to Test cricket.

A decade of West Indian dominance was based on a stellar batting lineup (Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Kallicharan, Lloyd, Gomes, Dujon or some variation thereon) along with four quicks who could bowl fifty overs in three and a half hours in an ODI but struggled to get much above seventy five in a six hour Test day.

Mind you. if the batting side were on the ropes it could be a different story.

I was at the MCG to watch the Windies roll Australia for 156 on 29 December 1981. Took them 56.3 overs to do it, and when Greenidge and Haynes took twelve off Lillee's first over and sixteen off Hogg's it looked like they'd have the first innings lead by stumps on Day One.

Time wasting and slow over rates continue to be an issue, and there was the notorious instance in Nagpur in November 2008 where Ponting bowled Hussey and Clarke in an attempt to lift the over rate and avoid suspension rather than attack an try to win the Test (see here for an example of the press coverage).

India were, at one stage in the second dig, 6-166 with Dhoni and the tail to bat, an effective lead of less than 230. We ended up chasing 382, and were bundled out for 209.

We were in Adelaide while this was going on, so I wasn't watching the whole time, but I saw the session in question. Ponting, from what I could gather, has always been a prime candidate for the Niggle, and I would love to be able to go back over the footage from that series to see whether there were multiple incidents of seemingly insignificant time wasting along the way into that session. It would be very interesting.

Which brings me back, after numerous lengthy asides, to the present and the immediate future.

I still think India are here to win the series (well, d'oh) and they'll have to level in Sydney if they're going to be any chance of doing that. In the press we've got headlines like Aussies brace for Indian backlash at Sydney Test and you're suggesting there won't be plenty of niggle this time around?

Get outta here!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which, of course brings us to the batting group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And isn't that last spot a doozy?

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

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

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

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

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

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