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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the pieces of the selectorial jigsaw finally in place and the first phone hookup for the selection panel apparently scheduled for tonight, we'll presumably see a few answers to questions about the makeup of the Australian side over the next couple of days and, hopefully, it'll be a matter of later rather than sooner.

I'd be extremely disappointed if tonight's discussions are followed by an announcement tomorrow. If it is it'll be a fair indication that the panel is looking to a continuation of business as usual rather than a conscious rebuilding process.

The point of the preceding couple of blog entries was an attempt to put together an Australian side using the same thought processes that would have been used to select a Primary School representative side back in the days when I was involved, and while there's no guarantee the national panel will follow the same process and come up with a similar result I'm hoping we won't be seeing Michael Clarke getting things right when he said " I have a selection meeting on Thursday, a phone hookup with the other selectors, and I'll imagine the team will be announced shortly after that conversation." (Source here)

If it turns out that way you'd have to suspect a case of tweaking the side from the last game rather than starting a rebuild from the ground up.

Somehow, I don't think that a result out of a Thursday night conversation is a good look for the future.

For a start it means anything that happens on day two, three or four of the Australia A game doesn't come into the calculations, and we've got all the state sides involved over the next couple of days. With the Test starting Thursday you'd suspect there's no need for an announcement before Saturday night. Allow Sunday for the players to get to Brisbane (if they're not already there) and three days' preparation and they should be right to go on Thursday.

Any announcement before that is going to suggest a lack of detailed contingency planning, which is something that you'd expect would almost be mandatory in a case where the only element of continuity from the old regime is the identity of the captain. Presumably there have been discussions between Inverarity and the outgoing panel, but how many and who else was involved isn't something we're likely to be hearing about.

If tonight's phone hookup is the first time the full selection panel has been sitting around the same virtual table they'll have a few items on the agenda beyond selecting the squad for the Gabba next Thursday. That's going to be a major concern, but there'll need to be a fair bit of sorting out when it comes to who does what?

Clarke, one assumes, will be looking towards retaining players he has a close relationship with, and shouldn't be asked to deliver the bad news where an incumbent is concerned.

That role, of course, should go to the National Selector, who'll be fairly busy over summer, and there'll be issues as to who gets to see what along the way.

With four selectors apart from Clarke, and Pat Howard as team performance manager there'll be a number of housekeeping issues to be sorted out somewhere along the line (if they haven't already).

You'd assume the coach will be watching Australia A take on New Zealand at Alan Border Field today, and you'd suspect the captain may be there as well (if he isn't at the SCG for the NSW v WA game that starts tomorrow. You'd expect one of the other selectors would be at that game, with someone else in Adelaide to watch the Redbacks take on the Bulls and somebody'll need to find their way to the MCG on Sunday for the Victoria-Tasmania game.

Among the first things you'd expect to be discussed on tonight's hookup would be what transpired at Alan Border Field during the day, and then, with those issues dealt with it'll be time to start sorting out a team for next Thursday.

Assuming they're going to follow something like the thought processes detailed in my lat couple of posts they're either going to have a very large phone bill for tonight's conversation or will need to be getting back in touch with each other on Saturday, which is the way I'd be inclined to go.

There'll also be ongoing matters that need to be sorted out, and the chief one of those will be the rotation of bowlers through the summer and the steps they take to ensure Cummins isn't overworked. Now, some of those matters may already have been addressed, but you'd expect they'd be issues to raise, discuss, go away to ponder and return to the table to make a decision about.

We mightn't be privy to the actual processes, but you'll be able to get a feel for how things are going in the timing and content of announcements that follow that initial phone hookup

You might, given a current projection of:
Hughes, Warner, Khawaja, Ponting, Clarke, Watson/Batting all-rounder, Haddin/Wade, Bowling all-rounder, Harris/Hilfenhaus/Siddle, Cummins, Hilfenhaus/Cutting/Pattinson/Starc, Lyon (12th)

be inclined to think we're stepping around the issues, but with seven out of twelve spots more or less definite, or at least definite as far as Hughesy's concerned (Hughes, Warner, Khawaja, Ponting, Clarke, Cummins, Lyon) and a straightforward either/or for the 'keeper's spot the final consideration involves the question mark over Watson, the general issue of the all-rounder's place in the side and the makeup of the bowling attack.

So we start with the two all-rounder spots.

Now, the first point that needs to be made here is that the all-rounder needs to be good enough to go close to selection in the side as a bat or a bowler, with the extra string to the bow coming in as a bonus.

Back in the Gilchrist era you could see him as a 'keeping all-rounder, since his glove work mightn't have been the best in the country (but it wasn't that far short of technically-superior rivals) his batting wasn't that far off justifying his inclusion as a specialist.

With Watson we're looking at a batting all-rounder, and if he's not fit to play at the Gabba, the cover for him is a bat who bowls. This means he's someone who'll bat six and contribute some useful overs, either covering for the lack of a specialist spinner or adding a fifth seamer to an all-pace attack.

Number Eight's a slightly different kettle of fish, and if Mitchell Johnson was firing he'd be a natural fit, a front line bowler who can contribute with the bat. There will be those who'll argue that his 40* at The Wanderers has saved his bacon, but there's no question about the bowling side of the equation.

No, send Mitch off to play for the Warriors, giving him a potential path back (if form justifies it) against India in Perth, or alternatively, with the Big Bash on the horizon and the ODIs against India to follow, Mitch's all-round ability makes him an obvious candidate for the shorter forms of the game.

A quick glance at the Shield results from the season to date throws up a number of candidates which can be grouped as Christian/Henriques/Smith for the spot at Six, and Hopes/Mitchell Marsh/McDonald at Eight.

Given Smith's inclusion in the squad for the Australia A game, you'd pick him as the obvious favourite, though the other two have strong claims as well.

At the Gabba, if you reckon four quicks are enough Smith's the obvious choice, and he's obviously got potential despite being pretty thoroughly done over against England last summer. If I was sitting at the selection table, however, I'd be leaning towards Henriques since we're looking to manage Cummins' workload. Under other circumstances four quicks might be enough, but let's not overload the youngster.

With those factors in mind, let's throw Copeland into the Harris/Hilfenhaus/Siddle bracket, since Harris is unlikely, Hilfenhaus may emerge from the #11 bowl-off and he'd slipped my mind up to this point.

So:

Hughes, Warner, Khawaja, Ponting, Clarke, Watson/Henriques, Haddin/Wade, Hopes/Mitchell Marsh/McDonald, Copeland/Harris/Hilfenhaus/Siddle, Cummins, Hilfenhaus/Cutting/Pattinson/Starc, Lyon (12th)

From there, things fall into place pretty quickly.

At Eight the logical choice is Hopes, though Mitchell Marsh is obviously on the way up. It's a relatively inexperienced attack, so the first class and international experience will be helpful.

Assuming we've ruled out Harris on fitness grounds, with Hopes in there already, it becomes a toss up between Copeland, Siddle and Hilfenhaus, and given the emerging shape of the lineup, Copeland.

Anything can, and probably will, happen at Bellerive, but I'd be looking for a lefty to round out the attack, so a couple of days out from the announcement with the Australia A game due to start tomorrow I'd be pencilling in:

Hughes, Warner, Khawaja, Ponting, Clarke, Watson/Henriques, Haddin/Wade, Hopes, Copeland, Cummins, Starc, Lyon (12th)

Assuming Watson is unfit, a relatively inexperienced side might be enough to save Haddin's bacon, but I'd be leaning towards Wade who will probably, given the way these things invariably seem to run, break a finger in the Australia A game...

So let's leave it at that until Saturday and turn our thoughts elsewhere for a bit….

We left you yesterday, in the middle of this on-going attempt to sort out a new Australian side using the methodology we used to use to select Primary School representative sides with a lineup of:

Hughes, Warner, Three, Watson, Clarke, Six, Haddin/Wade, Eight, Harris/Hilfenhaus/Siddle, Cummins, Hilfenhaus/Cutting/Pattinson/Starc, Lyon

and a promise to return to ponder how we fit two out of Ponting, Marsh, Khawaja and Hussey into Three and Six, which is where we are now.

In the meantime, over at The Wanderers we've got a major injury cloud over Watson, and Ponting sitting on 54 not, with Clarke just arrived at the crease following Khawaja's dismissal for 65.

 Surely that becomes part of the equation?

Well, actually, it doesn't. We got ourselves into this position because the gradual transition that should have happened over the past few seasons has been thrown out of whack because of short term priorities that affected long term strategic planning.

The first of those short term considerations was, of course, getting The Ashes back after the loss in 2005, and while you can understand a captain's desire to continue on to England to defend the urn, then stick around in the attempt to get it back, you're not realistically going to be looking at Ponting as a prospect for the 2013 Ashes series.

Now you might think that Hughesy's long-standing opinion that it was a Ponting bungle at the toss in the Second Test back in 2005 that ended up causing the whole chamozzle has some bearing on this, and maybe it does, but there's absolutely no doubt Ponting is running out of time.

Mike Hussey, the other '05 survivor is more or less in the same boat, and in both cases it's a matter of when rather than if, of press conference announcements or selectorial statements, falling on the sword or getting the bullet.

There seems to be a body of opinion suggesting the injury cloud over Watson has some bearing on these matters. It may well have some influence, but when you look at it in the cold hard light of generational change it shouldn't.

With Watson's place in doubt, and the possibility that there'll be similar issues in the future we should be looking at a like for like replacement, a batting all-rounder, though that doesn't necessarily mean he needs to bowl fast medium.

There's no suggestion that either Ponting or Hussey are going to be bowling somewhere between fifteen and twenty overs as a third or fourth seamer. There are two spots in there that can go to Watson and an all-rounder, so let's pencil in Smith, Macdonald, Henriques and Mitchell Marsh as possibilities for those two spots.

No, it's two out of Ponting, Khawaja, Hussey and S. Marsh, as far as Three and Six are concerned. There'll be a slight reshuffle in the middle as far as the actual order is concerned, but we've got two incumbents and two likely replacements, so it all comes down to the timing.

With Marsh ruled out of consideration on fitness grounds, he may get a run around the paddock at the WACA with Mitch and may be back later.

So three names to fit into two spots. I suspect we're going to see at least one press conference after Wanderers, so it's obviously a case of Khawaja and whoever doesn't have the press conference, but if things don't pan out that way I'd go Ponting and Khawaja, working on the basis that we're quite possibly going to be losing an early wicket if we bat first at the Gabba, and the most obvious alternative at Three would have been directed towards the WACA.

Assuming Mr Cricket hasn't announced his retirement from all forms of the game in the meantime, I'd have him on a mission to sort out a few state-based bowling attacks, with a definite indication that the door isn't completely closed.

So, for the Gabba, with a bit of reshuffling in the light of things that have come to pass since I started the exercise:

Hughes, Warner, Khawaja, Ponting, Clarke, Watson/Batting all-rounder, Haddin/Wade, Bowling all-rounder, Harris/Hilfenhaus/Siddle, Cummins, Hilfenhaus/Cutting/Pattinson/Starc, Lyon (12th).

Next up, Watson and the all-rounder issue.

This crystal ball gazing is a bit tricky, but with young Cummins getting a guernsey at The Wanderers, picking up a couple of wickets, and apparently looking the pick of the bowlers when it comes to taking more, slot him in there there at Eleven.

That leaves one more spot in a four man pace battery. We have Cummins as the tearaway, Harris/Hilfenhaus/Siddle to do the donkey work, Watson to pitch it up assuming he's fit and a slot to fill. Until he broke down in the Shield game at the Gabba I was inclined towards Bollinger, but with him out injured, that last spot goes to who bowls the best out of the pace battery named for the Australia A game against the Kiwis. I've already got Hilfenhaus in the other bracket, and with Harris unlikely, there could well be room for him and Siddle in the same side, a factor I'd been veering away from previously, so another bracket of Hilfenhaus, Cutting, Pattinson and Starc.

I'd probably like the fourth bloke to be a lefty for the different angle, so that'd leave Starc as the favourite going into the bowl-off, where anything could happen and probably will.

On the lefty front, with Western Australia down to play South Australia at the WACA in early December I'd be sending Johnson over there, with an instruction to get a swag of wickets before a possible horses for courses return in the Third Test against India (if not earlier). If he's as confidence influenced as has been suggested, you probably need to do things like that.

Which moves us here, with a bit of reshuffling at the bottom.

Hughes, Warner, Three, Watson, Clarke, Six, Keeper, Eight, Harris/Hilfenhaus/Siddle, Cummins, Hilfenhaus/Cutting/Pattinson/Starc, Lyon

The keeper's spot is obviously going to depend on how Haddin goes at The Wanderers, with Wade as the likely replacement. Leave them as a bracket selection for the moment.

So:

Hughes, Warner, Three, Watson, Clarke, Six, Haddin/Wade, Eight, Harris/Hilfenhaus/Siddle, Cummins, Hilfenhaus/Cutting/Pattinson/Starc, Lyon

Next question. Do we need a spinner in Brisbane? Maybe you need one in the squad, and we've got Lyon there already but let's assume he's going to be the twelfth man.

So, Eight could be a fifth quick, which would cover for Harris and Watson, since both have to be question marks at the moment as far as lasting the game and bowling the requisite number of overs. Maybe another all-rounder. Macdonald? Henriques?

Alternatively, you could go for the leg spinning Smith at Seven and move the Keeper to eight.

But that's enough for now. We'll put that to one side for the moment and return tomorrow to ponder how we fit two out of Ponting, Marsh, Khawaja and Hussey into Three and Six.

But back to the top of the order…

There are, at least to my mind, only two players guaranteed a start in Brisbane, and they're the captain and vice-captain. Clarke and Watson should fill two spots out of numbers Four, Five and Six.

Assuming he's fit to bowl, on a pace friendly Gabba deck, Watson can expect his share of the workload, and it's obvious he can't do that, open the batting and chip in with the big hundreds you'd expect from a batsman of his class. Two out of those three, maybe, but he hasn't managed to do that full monty yet, and if something happens to one of the blokes who do open the batting, the fact he can open if necessary is a fall back.

You might put the case for leaving him to open while the niggles that stop him from bowling are sorted out, but if you're going to do that, you're effectively saying we'll move him down the order when he's right to bowl again, which means you'll be looking for another opener later rather than sooner.

Shane's ego is apparently a bit of an issue, but you'd reckon being labelled a vital cog in the attack, and a fallback opener if necessary shouldn't bruise it too much. If it does, I'd be suggesting a position in the middle order is going to deliver more of those big hundreds that a batsman of his calibre should be getting.

If that doesn't do the trick I'd be pointing out a perceived weakness against the swinging ball.

So if Watson doesn't open, who does?

Hughes is the other current incumbent, and should hold his place. There are big question marks over his technique, but he deserves a go, particularly after being dropped so Watto could offer another bowling option to cover for Misfiring Mitch.

Warner seems to be the next cab off the rank as far as opening is concerned, so pencil him in there as the other opener. I also note that he bowls a bit of leg spin, so there's an occasional bowler up Clarke's sleeve to go with his left arm tweakers.

The combination of Hughes and Warner looks like the best option at the moment, and if they can't get a start against New Zealand and India in Australia, then you'd reckon they're not going to trouble top sides with strong pace attacks.

So you give Hughes to the middle of the series against India, Warner a little longer, and with a West Indies tour next year that coincides with the IPL you'd guess there's room for further experimentation if necessary.

So, at the moment, we've got a lineup of:

Hughes, Warner, Three, Watson, Clarke, Six, Keeper, Eight, Nine, Harris/Hilfenhaus/Siddle, Eleven, Lyon (likely 12th for Brisbane)

My approach to these things is based on looking at what we've got at the moment, and then pencil in people to fill the gaps. It's the way we've gone about selecting most of the schools rep teams I've been involved with, and it underlines the fallacy of the we pick the best eleven players comment because the best eleven players in the country might not, for example, include a wicketkeeper.

One of the best eleven players in the country could well be a Jamie Siddons, Stuart Law or Brad Hodge, who's not going to push his way into a batting order that's fairly long on talent already.

And one of the reasons those blokes may have missed the bus lay in the need to find enough people to bowl the requisite number of overs in the game. There's no limit on the number of overs you're going to be asked to bowl in a Test match, so you need to be taking wickets as well, which complicated things a tad further. A limited overs game with an attack lacking penetration can be all about minimising scoring opportunities, but to win a Test you need to take twenty wickets.

You may, as the recently-departed selection panel did, find great difficulty in finding a spin bowler, should you decide you want one in the side. Apart from concepts like a balanced attack, there are also over rates and other considerations that work against an all-pace attack, and the bloke who's going to be asked to fill that role may be well outside the notional best twelve, twenty, or even, heaven forbid, the best forty or fifty.

There's a perfect example of the lengths selectors may go to when they're determined to play a spinner back in a Queensland Primary Schools Carnival back in 1985.

You may question what this has to do with the matter under consideration at the moment, but it's an excuse to bring out one of my all-time favourite strange the way things work out yarns in front of a new audience, so here it goes.

The trials to select that year's NQ Primary Schools team, were held in Mackay and  two of the four days were rained out.

It was a three team trial, which sounds odd until I point out each team brought a squad of fifteen with the four "leftovers" going into a composite side. Of the three teams, one was drawn from Townsville, Charters Towers and Ingham, one from the Burdekin, Bowen and Proserpine and the third from Mackay and the Pioneer Valley.

You'd expect the Townsville and Mackay-based teams to dominate both the composite team and the Whitsundays, but on the first day Whitsunday tied with Townsville, and Mackay had a reasonably comfortable win against the Composites.

The big upset came on the second day, when Whitsunday did a demolition job on Pioneer, and the other game went more or less the way you'd have expected it to go without too many standout performances.

With the other two days washed out we were left scratching our heads about the selection, and the best we could come up with was to have each of the three coaches write down their best twelve, slot in anyone we all agreed on and see where we went from there.

As it turned out, we agreed on four or five names, and from there the rest was plain sailing until it got down to the last spot. We were after  a middle order bat and had two kids in contention with almost identical scores in the two games they'd played.

There were already an unprecedented five Whitsunday boys in the side, so while one of the two was a Bowen kid I wasn't going to be pushing as desperately as I might otherwise have done. I could, for instance, have pointed out that my bloke had scored his runs against the top sides, while one of the other feller's fairly unimpressive scores had been against the also rans in the Composites.

The other kid came from Townsville, and wasn't being pushed too much either, except for a single comment added as an afterthought. Oh, yes, Ruff added, we don't have a spinner in the side at the moment, but he does bowl a bit of off spin. Hasn't done it down here, but I was going to give him a trundle yesterday.

Or words to that effect. The occasional offie got the guernsey.

So the side headed off in the last week of school, and I was heading off to join them as soon as the holidays started. We were well into the end of year festivities when the parents of the Bowen kid who'd ended up captaining the side found me in a local watering hole.

A couple of kids had picked up a stomach bug, and their son was so crook he wanted to come home. This was scary, since he'd been away earlier in the year as the half back in the NQ Rugby League side, and half backs, as a rule, tend not to be sooks. Fortunately, things settled down overnight, and by Sunday (no chance to get onto turf wickets on the Saturday) he was pretty right to play.

Unfortunately, the big bloke from Mackay we'd chosen to open the bowling wasn't. In fact, if I recall correctly, he mightn't have managed another game through the rest of a lengthy carnival.

With a bowler down and no way of getting a substitute from home, we rejigged the attack. It was back in the days before over limits for bowlers, and you could do that sort of rejigging by giving the rest of the attack extra work.

Unfortunately, extra work produces its own problems. A pair of boots that didn't quite fit started producing blisters on a left armer who'd looked pretty good in the early stages of the carnival. The other left armer pulled a muscle in his back throwing a ball in from the boundary. The kid who was spearheading the attack bowled his guts out every day, but we were starting to run out of options when we remembered the kid who bowls a bit of off spin.

He got a five or six over spell, and after the game we had the State coach over, asking us to bowl him some more. We did, and when they named the State team, there was one of our opening bats, who'd managed a ton along the way and Mr Bowls a Bit of Off Spin. The quickie who bowled his guts out missed out…

Given a different scenario a month or so earlier the kid wouldn't have been there at all, but the blokes who were picking the side wanted a spinner, even if he wasn't in the top twenty or thirty players at the carnival.

It's an extreme example, but it underlines the point that the eleven who take the field for Australia aren't necessarily the best eleven players in the country.

Given the perceived need for a spinner in the attack (and it's more than a perceived need when you're playing in India) you can see why they've tried so many over the past couple of years, though you'd have hoped that one of them might have been given a slightly longer run before seemingly being dismissed as not quite what we had in mind.

Lyon seems to be getting that extended run at the moment, so for all intents and purposes, barring injury or a total loss of form he should stay in the frame for the games against New Zealand, and, barring major disasters, hold his place into the series against India.

So at the bowling end of the spectrum we've got Lyon pencilled in as the spinner, a question mark over Watson with the ball, and a bracket of three to fill the work horse role (Harris, Hilfenhaus, Siddle) and come up with a notional way of looking at 'em to determine who might fill that role over the next few years.With Harris a game by game proposition, it's a chance to consider two logical alternatives.

Doesn't forty-eight hours make a power of difference when you're looking at these matters?

I signed off last time having figured what I thought was the best way of assessing three candidates for the workhorse role in the bowling attack, and within a day we had Harris flying back with a question mark over the long term prospects and Watson breaking down within four overs, both factors underlining the difficulties of doing anything too far out from the event, which is, of course, the Gabba test in just under a fortnight's time.

Now, with an impending birthday, associated celebrations, a brother on the premises and a subsequent decline in writing time, I find myself looking at South Africa at (effectively) 3 for 200 in the second dig, against a seemingly toothless attack. Watson hasn't bowled in the innings, Johnson's gone wicketless for thirty-something more than Cummins (who's snared two) and Siddle (who's the most economical of the three, but you want your workhorse to be taking wickets too, don't you?)

Under normal circumstances the selection of Australian teams and touring parties has been based around an established side with a bit of tweaking around the margins and throwing in a couple of players to cover injuries and form issues.

It has been a long time since we've been on the brink of substantial (if not wholesale) changes, so a big part of the process is assessing which of the current playing group still fit into the long term structure.

Having used Harris, Hilfenhaus and Siddle in that workhorse role in the past, with Mr McDermott's redefinition of a good length it's worth looking at some of the workhorses we've used in the past to see if they can still cut it under the new regime.

You'd figure that if they can't manage that on their home turf (and yes, I know Harris is a transplanted Croweater, but he's taken plenty of wickets at the Gabba) they won't do it anywhere else.

That was my thinking anyway.

So, assuming a man hears what he wants to hear, what messages should be being passed on?

Let's start with something simple. Cut it back to basics. After all, when you look at it international cricket isn't exactly rocket science, at least it isn't on the surface.

There are depths lurking under there, of course, and often the basic principles get lost when you start fiddling with the fine details.

And given the fact that no one in the five man selection panel except Michael Clarke (and maybe the coach, when appointed, but you'd expect another appointment from outside the old inner circle) has a link to the old selectorial regime, maybe it's a case of building from the ground up.

So, start by bringing it back to very basics.

How do you win Test matches? Simple. You score more runs than the opposition and you get them out twice.

How do you win limited overs matches? You score as many runs as you can and  restrict the opposition as much as you can.

It'll be a while before we're looking at the limited overs stuff, so let's concentrate on the Test matches for a while.

So, you score more runs than the opposition. That means you want a batting lineup that's capable of scoring at least five hundred in around five two-hour sessions.

Assuming you win the toss and elect to bat, that means you're either declaring or all out around tea time on Day Two, giving you most of the last session for a crack at them with fresh bowlers, a fairly fresh start on Day Three and a follow on target around the 300 mark.

If you're batting second, five hundred should go close to giving you a lead to bowl at in the second dig. If it doesn't you're probably not going to get a result anyway. With fifteen sessions in the game, and scoring around a hundred per session, two first innings scores over that 500 mark will have used up all of the first three days, probably going into Day Four, and leaves you with six sessions max to take twenty wickets. That's not what you'd label a result scenario.

But the key part there is the twenty wickets. A failure to take twenty wickets has been a consistent issue back through last year's Ashes series and beyond.

It's obvious that the current bowling group doesn't contain the right mix to take twenty wickets in most conditions, so there's an obvious need to go beyond talking about horses for courses and actually walking the walk after you've talked the talk.

In other words, you should be looking at the likely conditions and picking a balanced attack that'll work in those conditions on that wicket rather than maintaining the same basic group and expecting them to adjust.

Of course, if you're dealing with someone like Glenn McGrath you'd expect him to fire in most conditions and then adjust the rest of the attack around that factor.

But we don't have a McGrath at the moment. We may have one on the horizon, maybe we've already got one in the squad, but if we do he's not anywhere near that status yet.

And if he's there already, his surname isn't Johnson, who seems to have a deep-down belief that he's not the once in a lifetime bowler Dennis Lillee described. I suspect a lot of that mental fragility stems from the fact that he came to cricket relatively late, got a dream run through and has been very carefully cultivated on the way through because of what he might be rather than what he actually was at the various stages of an emerging career.

In that regard I suspect Brett Lee got a dream run, based on the fact that his big brother who played for Australia had this kid brother who bowled really quick. News of this fifteen or sixteen year-old tearaway had certainly reached my ears here in Bowen well before he made his first class debut.

Building an attack that'll take twenty wicket in a variety of conditions isn't going to happen overnight, and almost certainly won't come down to a key group of four or five bowlers. Sure, you'd base the attack around a couple of players, and in the absence of people who more or less pick themselves (a Warne or McGrath, for example) I'd be inclined to identify a couple of workhorses who are going to be bowling a lot of overs, and given the locations of the next three Tests (the Gabba, Bellerive and the MCG) I'd pencil in three different quicks for three venues before we start the mix and match bit.

Harris in Brisbane, Hilfenhaus in Hobart and Siddle in Melbourne.

That's enough for the moment. Back tomorrow for a closer look at assembling a side for the two tests against New Zealand while casting an eye towards the Boxing Day Test...

I must admit that my first reaction to the news that Australia had been bowled out for 47 in the second innings at Newlands was to clutch at the straw of vaguely remembered references to a ground in South Africa that was liable to tidal influence.

That's a suggestion that'll provoke a degree of scorn from anyone who hasn't been confronted with a seemingly placid surface that inexplicably starts doing something in a time frame that seems to coincide with high tide. We saw something like that at a schoolboys' carnival in Cairns back in 1982, and given the fact that recreation grounds are occasionally built over watercourses that may or may not be subject to tidal influences it mightn't be quite as silly as it sounds.

A quick Google around Capetown and high tide revealed times that may well have coincided with a late start and early wickets on day one and a flurry of nineteen wickets after lunch on day two.

Subsequent reading, however, suggests that we're talking ineptitude, poor shot selection and technical issues as much as a question mark over the tide, and reflection in the intervening period brought me back to a recurring theme when I look at Australian cricket, namely the interaction between elite players and the support personnel.

It seems to be, to borrow a phrase from a Paul Simon song, very much a case of A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Now, there have been any number of comments along the lines of Coach? Yeah, that's what the team uses to travel to the ground, but there's no doubt that when Bob Simpson was appointed to the role back in the mid-eighties there was a definite need for someone to sit over the top of the team in hard taskmaster mode.

In a situation where the Australian team needed to start winning, targetting the World Cup and the one day game was an obvious starting point, and World Cup success in 1987 morphed into a steady climb up the Test rankings that culminated in victory in the West Indies just under a decade later, and there was that memorable Ashes series in 1989 along the way.

There's no question that appointing Simpson to the role was a master stroke, but there were inherent risks in the concentration of power in one man's hands. Given the situation where the coach and technical advisor was also a selector you wouldn't be surprised to learn that batsmen with technical issues were wary of consulting too closely with the bloke who might decide they needed a spell from the team.

Coincidentally, along the way, Simpson's appointment coincided with the heyday of the National Coaching Accreditation Scheme, which provided an avenue for those of us with ambitions to coach with an avenue to gain formal qualifications.

Things may well have changed subsequently, but at that stage it was a case of four levels: Level 0, which equated to parent or teacher helping out at a local level; Level 1 theoretically qualified you to work up to State level; Level 2 was the minimum requirement for people looking after State teams, while Level 3 qualified you towork with national sides.

Initially, Levels 2 and 3 were largely the preserve of ex-players, usually players who'd gone close to the top level or had at least played A Grade cricket. It seemed to be a means to deliver a career path for guys whose playing days hadn't set them up with opportunities in later life or ex-players who wanted a continued involvement with the game.

As the accredited coaching fraternity proliferated new career paths opened, and we started to see people like John Buchanan and Bennett King being appointed as State coaches at Sheffield Shield level. Buchanan had a couple of Shield games for Queensland as a player, while King was a former A Grade Rugby League player.

I managed to pick up Level 1 accreditation, though it was soon obvious that (a) I wasn't going to be doing any coaching at senior levels (due to disinclination to offer advice to older blokes whose skills were far more developed than mine) and (b) I wasn't the best option available among my peers in the school cricket fraternity. Under those circumstances I was happy to go along helping out with School cricket up to NQ level, and to head away with the side as an extra member of the brains trust.

Those factors, however, meant that I was in contact with a number of people who had links to people a bit further up the pecking order, and the basis of this article lies in one of a number of conversations with the NQ-based Queensland Cricket Development Officer, who'd pass through town at least once a year, could generally be inveigled into coming down to cast an eye over my school cricket squad and was partial to a cool drink at the end of a hot day.

The particular conversation came shortly after the historic Sheffield Shield win in 1995, and with Queensland hosting the final for the first time it was a fairly obvious case of all hands on deck, so the coaching department had called in all the development officers. Hardly surprising under the circumstances.

What was slightly surprising was Bulls' coach Buchanan's decision to have the development officers conduct the final practice session before the big game, getting them to run the players through some of the drills they'd be using in their circuits around the schools and junior associations.

in itself it seemed like an interesting change of routine, though in Eric's account it seemed there was a general who the hell are these guys? attitude from the Bulls players, though they were apparently willing to show some respect for Bennett King based on his A Grade Rugby League days.

King, of course, went on to take over the Bulls when Buchanan got the national job, and went on to coach the West Indies, though there were issues with a team in decline and a cricket community that wasn't happy with an outsider as coach, particularly when he brought in Australian assistants.

A suggestion that elite athletes tend to be selective about who they listen to would hardly be described as earth-shattering news. In an environment where every Tom, Dick and Harry will be inclined to offer advice and/or opinions about form and technique that's understandable, but it does raise some interesting issues when we're talking about coaching and support staff.

After Bob Simpson was replaced as national coach Geoff Marsh was, as far as I can gather, a continuation of the same regime with some modification of the approach but a fair degree of continuity as one of the senior players moved into the coaching role.

The change to Buchanan, on the other hand, represented a significant departure from the way things had been done in the recent past, and there were interesting developments over the first part of the Buchanan era, particularly in the area of video analysis of the opposition and the appearance of specialist coaching assistants among the support staff.

The video analysis bit doesn't seem to be mentioned too much these days, but the specialist coaches are still there, and provide the basis for the man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest bit.

The first of them was Mike Young, the fielding specialist Buchanan hauled in from baseball. Coming from a non-cricketing background Young questioned traditional practices, and brought a new perspective that mightn't have totally revolutionized fielding but sharpened things significantly for a long while.

Inexplicably, on the verge of last year's Ashes debacle his involvement with the side was substantially diminished before he was eventually let go.

We've also had batting and bowling specialists, most recently Justin Langer in the batting department with Craig McDermott recently stepping into the bowling role, and it's there that the Man hears what he wants to hear bit really starts to kick in.

I'd been wondering what the hell was going on in the bowling department for a while now, and why Troy Cooley, the much vaunted mentor who allegedly shaped the England attack into an Ashes-winning outfit in 2005 didn't seem to be achieving the same results when he was back in the Australian fold.

Most particularly, our bowlers seemed totally unable to get the new ball to swing, largely because they didn't bowl the fuller length that would give the seam on the new ball time to do its thing. We didn't seem to be able to get it to reverse later on, either.

As far as I can see the art of fast bowling isn't exactly rocket science when it comes to rocketing them down with the new ball.

You want to get the batsman to play, particularly when there's shine and the possibility of swing. That means you need to be pitching the ball up around off stump or just outside it. There's a place for bowling a shorter length, sure, but it's largely a matter (at least in the early overs) of getting him to go back before you try to get him on the front foot edging to the slips, which in turn requires a line and length that invites him to drive if he's good enough.

McDermott's approach, as far as this article on Cricinfo suggests is based around a combination of the fittest attack in the world and a fuller length with swinging deliveries that will produce catches in the slips rather than the back-of-a-length approach that has been the vogue in recent years.

There's very little doubt that much of that back-of-a-length bit stems from the metronomic accuracy of Glenn McGrath, with a bit of hearkening back to the likes of Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh. It's an approach that works well as part of an attack, but it's hardly the basis of a balanced attack in the long term.

McDermott has apparently asked for a change in the team's video analysis parameters, with the good and full lengths on the bowling graphics moving about a metre closer to the bat.  That's a fairly substantial modification and a significant move away from bowling dry (looking for bounce rather than swing, and relying on the batsman's impetuosity rather than the bowler's deception as the path to a swag of wickets).

That's not to suggest there's no place in the game for blokes who can bowl dry but you wouldn't want to be taking an all-dry attack into an environment where the bats are willing to play a waiting game on an unresponsive deck, would you?

No, from where I'm looking there seems to have been a fair bit of this is the way we do things (bowl dry, Mitchell Johnson's a match-winner, yada yada), the judge's decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into, thank you very much.

There's probably a bit of something similar going on with the batting at the moment.

There's no doubt that Justin Langer has been a very successful batsman, but, seriously, you'd have to question his contribution to the batting based on a string of low totals in the past twelve months. One can't help thinking that he's been brought on board because he's familiar with the way we do things and a good bloke to have around the outfit who won't rock the boat by asking too many difficult questions.

More particularly, he's going to show a bit of respect to blokes he used to be pretty close to.

Langer's spells in the ABC commentary box the summer before last seemed to be extremely respectful towards the people he was supposed to be advising, even suggesting a degree of awe in the presence of the great Mr Ponting, and this article where he insists Ponting must be kept in the Australian side, admits the former captain is feeling the pressure, suspects there might be profound technical issues with the batting and suggests the side may not have hit rock bottom yet seems to be more of the same.

Now, there's no question that Ponting and the rest of the top order are working solidly on tightening things up, but if there are technical issues lurking in there it may be a case of needing a bit of outside advice.

One also notes reports that National talent manager and full time selector, Greg Chappell had been banned from the dressing room while the team was batting during the last Ashes series.

Interesting.

Surely he wasn't having the temerity to point out technical aspects that were contributing to dismissals, something along the lines of Well, if you're going to do such and such, what do you expect?

After Capetown there's no doubt that we've got a long way to go, and it's to be hoped that the recent appointments to the selection panel (John Inverarity as chairman, Rod Marsh and Andy Bichel as part time selectors, coach TBA) won't always be telling people what they want to hear.

What they want to hear, of course, is you're in the side for the next game rather than this is what you need to be doing if you want to keep your place in the side. That's a message that the player might prefer not to hear, but one that needs to be delivered.

Once it has been, it's a message the player disregards at his own risk.