While the reader might suspect that I've got it in for the Australian captain (noting that Michael Clarke in post-Sydney media coverage was careful to underline his status as vice-captain) Ponting's far from the only one who's been guilty, as far as Hughesy can see, of wishful thinking.

Given the fact that there doesn't seem to be much chance of a thorough investigation of what went wrong happening any time soon, the least I can do is to save someone else the time and effort (he sad with his tongue wedged firmly in cheek).

It's not as if any of the major figures at the top level are showing signs of close self-scrutiny, as an article by Malcolm Conn in today's Australian suggests.

No, as far as acting captain Clarke's concerned, the talent is there, it only needs to perform and, he asserts, we've hit rock bottom and are back on the ascent.

Don't bet on it, Pup.

Andrew Hilditch doesn't see an issue with the selection panel, and is looking forward to supervising our return to Number One status.

According to Tim Nielsen it seems that everything would have been fine if the players had followed the game plan. No wonder they're calling him Teflon Tim.

James Sutherland seems to be promising a review some time when other matters, which presumably are headed by the preparation for the revamped KFC Big Bash, have been attended to. After all, everything's fine and only needs a bit of tweaking around the edges.

And to think I was accusing Ponting of wishful thinking.

You might be inclined to ascribe some of the things I think of as examples of wishful thinking (in Ponting's case, an overstated belief in his own abilities as tactician, leader and communicator along with an illusion of infallibility) to some other form of mental delusion, but the issue of the captaincy is only the tip of the iceberg.

Seriously, as far as this particular disaster is concerned it's the culmination of processes that have been in motion for a while and when you're looking at things and asking what could have been done differently from the start of November the answer is, unfortunately, not a whole lot apart from including Hauritz in the squad from the start.

When Katich went with the achilles injury there weren't too many options being suggested to fill the vacant opening spot apart from Philip Hughes.

Seriously, you have to ask, where was the backup?

Weren't there contingency plans in place?

Well, regardless of whether there were, clearly there weren't a lot of obvious options, and I'm again inclined to see this as another example of wishful thinking.

Now, it should come as no surprise to learn that most members of the Australian squad would prefer to play for their country as often as possible, but that's going to be tricky given a crowded schedule in three forms of the game.

Then, apart from wanting to maximise on-field involvement they seem to want to also maximise quality time with spouses, partners and offspring.

Unfortunately you can't have it both ways, and while the suggestion might make some players spew green, you have to recognize that you can't play every game in every series.

Ah, yes, Mike Hussey might say. I take a spell and this young kid comes through and takes my place and I can't get back in.

That's a valid point, but it also means that if you're playing all the time in the Test and ODI sides a form slump that runs through a minor series might have people questioning your place in the side for a series that really matters, as was the case as we headed into this Ashes series.

Admittedly Hussey wasn't the only one with a question mark beside his name, and he's relatively safe for the next little while, but really the current stick with the same batting group policy needs to be called into serious question.

As we head into a rebuilding phase, our next three Test opponents are going to mean that anyone thrown into the side between now and the end of the year is going to receive a thorough going over.

That, presumably, will be the justification for sticking with the existing group, and we're not going to have much room to experiment in the ODI format with a World Cup coming up.

But from here on we need to accept that players need to be rested (well, they want time with the family, so if they're going to get it they can't be playing all the time) and it's clear that a Test series against anyone outside the current Top Four is going to provide an opportunity for that to happen.

More significantly, any of the numerous close to meaningless ODI series should be a means to blood players who are seen as having some potential at the top level, and while the Twenty20 games are a bit more than hit and giggle affairs, they're only important in the lead up to the T20 World Cup if they're important (in the big scheme of things) at all.

Then there's the question of the depth (or lack thereof) of talent on the domestic scene. For years we've been assured that we've got a healthy and very competitive domestic competition, and there's a wealth of talent playing there that's just itching to get a chance to play at international level, and at the same time, when we're asking why Johnson isn't sent off to play for the Warriors while he's on the outer from the Test side we're told that the gap between Shield cricket and Test cricket is too great.

Seriously, you can't have it both ways.

When you're looking at the depth of talent issue, you start to question the procedures that are in place as far as the selection panel are concerned.

Now, I may be wrong, but the reason for a four man (rather than three or five) is to allow someone to attend three domestic games and an international game simultaneously, so presumably every major game in the country is watched by at least one national selector.

What happens from there?

Given a notional squad of twenty-five in each of the six states including the international players that amounts to a pool of around a hundred and fifty players. Throw in the fringe players who may bob up along the way and you're still probably going to get change out of two hundred players, which is a number that might need a bit of effort to monitor, but would, one assumes, be manageable.

If we're going to persist with the belief that we don't need a full time selection panel, or a full time chair you can understand that short cuts might be taken, but you'd think that it would be quite possible to set things up so that there's a bit of co-ordination between the state sides and the national selection panel (for instance).

Does the selector on duty at a domestic game sit down and talk to the two state coaches, for example? Is it possible for a state player to approach a national selector to find out where he stands in the pecking order, and get an indication of where they might see him fitting into the big picture? The Hauritz affair suggests that doesn't happen at the moment, but you'd think it should.

Seriously, it shouldn't be that difficult to identify like for like backups for most players in the various international configurations, and where that isn't possible you'd expect there'd be a fall back option in place.

That sort of thing, however, becomes difficult while you have a panel full of part timers, so if you want a professional selection and development process things may have to change.

There's also a fair bit of wishful thinking involved in our view of the way Australian teams are perceived overseas. Now, there seems to be a belief in some quarters that given a bit of assistance along the way, everyone, wherever we play will love Australian cricket and Australian cricketers.

So that we can arrive at that happy destination, of course, certain aspects that are part of Australian cricket culture have to be played down, and, as a result, Australian cricketers shouldn't sledge.

At the same time, with things that are part of the opposition's cricket culture, that's something that should be encouraged.

So, while Australian players are expected to be nice on the field, it's OK to let the Barmy Army into the ground and indulge in an orgy of full on high volume sledging of whatever aspect of the host country's culture that happens to be currently attracting their attention.

So they can rubbish the hell out of Australia with regular references to convicts and fervent singing of God Save Your Queen, but if I counter with the suggestion that they'd be well advised to take a bath, or refer to the heir to the throne as a jug-eared pervert I'd be told in the former case that the line was getting a bit old, and, in the latter, to show some respect.

When it comes to the on-field sledge, of course, there's definitely a delineation between what we do and what everyone else is allowed to get away with. If an Australian does it, it's sledging, and should therefore be frowned on, but when it's someone else doing the talking it's merely banter, or chuntering.

Now, don't get me wrong. If your on field banter is a string of four letter words with nothing resembling humour or wit, you need to do something about it, but you also need the option of delivering a blunt assessment when one is required.

No, if there's an issue with sledging, it needs to be addressed by raising the humour level.

Hughesy's solution would tackle the problem two ways. First, have a system of fines for anything that resembles a dummy spit. Nothing substantial, but enough to create a bit of a kitty to fund the other side of things. Say twenty, fifty or a hundred dollars.

Anything that's judged to be good enough would be rewarded with an appropriate amount from the dummy spit kitty, or, if that runs out (which, hopefully, it would) from some other slush fund.

That, of course, is part of the whole team culture, and there's definitely room for plenty of development in other aspects of that side of things.

Another aspect of wishful thinking, apart from everyone loves us and we don't need to sledge comes with the actual team preparation procedures. I can't help thinking that there's a fair bit of We can do this interesting new stuff rather than sticking with these tired old practice routines lurking under the surface, and if there is, how about looking at it this way.

If it's boring, you can avoid boredom by doing it right the first time and going on to something else.

I suspect there's also a bit of We can work harder by working smarter, but you really need to put a rider on that in the form of some means of assessing success.

That, in any case, is probably more than enough to be going on with for the moment.

From here on, hopefully, the entries on this part of the site will become much more sporadic. For the record, I'm expecting a minor bounce back in the limited overs series against England, with a couple of disasters quite likely given the nature of both beast and opposition.

Heading to the World Cup, I expect that we'll be competitive, but may well miss the semi-finals given the likelihood that South Africa, England, India and Sri Lanka will all be extremely competitive and Pakistan might decide to turn up and play.

From there I'll be looking forward to seeing how much of the bullet has been bitten when it comes to the serious stuff....

There are enough issues emerging from the recent cricket debacle to keep Hughesy tapping away at a thousand to fifteen hundred words per hour from now (7:26 a.m. if you want to be precise) till midnight, but in the interest of maintaining focus I'll try to keep it brief.

Bluntly, we've been conned by a number of factors, and not all of them come bearing an identifying cross of St George.

Many of those factors are, of course, beyond Australian control, and can therefore be pushed to one side, but before you look at the performance of a team that has displayed deep seated inadequacies, I'd point out one 'non-Australian" issue that needs to be addressed.

I've seen countless references over the years to Australian bullying, boorishness, bragging and sledging. We're frequently told by everyone else that these things have to stop.

If, however, we were to point out that all of those descriptors could be applied to the Barmy Army, we'd be accused of complaining, and advised that this is part of English cricket culture, and that the activities of this mob add to the spectacle of the game.

My response to those suggestions?

Retire to perform a physiologically impossible act of self impregnation.

Or, alternatively, be ejected from the ground and directed towards the bath tub. Preferably both.

In terms of what happens on the field rather than over the boundary rope, on the other hand, there's no aspect of the Australian performance that should be safe from deep, sustained and detailed questioning.

Those matters can't all be attended to straight away, of course. Somewhere in the morass there might just be something that's working the way it should, but it's going to take some time to identify what does work, as well as to tweak the bits that aren't quite where you'd like them, but are headed in the right direction.

So, let's start with the team. There, at least, things are fairly clear cut.

They don't score enough runs and are seriously challenged with the task of taking ten, let alone twenty, wickets.

Looking at the personnel used through the series, it's hard to see anyone who's relatively safe from criticism except Khawaja, and you'd expect, given the scrutiny his temperament and technique is going to come under between now and 2013 that he may not be part of the touring party for the next campaign.

He's a genuine prospect for the long term, but Steve Waugh, Matthew Hayden, Justin Langer and Damien Martyn all got dropped early in their careers and I have a nasty feeling that by 2013 there'll be questions about Khawaja's form that may well have him out of the party.

While you'd hope that isn't the case, I'd rather see him sitting at home in 2013 rather than being included in a touring squad because he's Usman Khawaja.

No, he's a genuine prospect, and probably the only genuine light on a rather bleak horizon.

Running through the rest of the contenders for the next test series, it's fairly easy to come up with very blunt assessments.

Simon Katich may have a short term future as an opener, particularly if we're looking with someone n the gritty opener mould.

Philip Hughes would probably go a bit better if he didn't have a partner who runs him out. Persist with him until this time next year and see how he shapes up after exposure to Sri Lanka, South Africa and India.

Shane Watson is a top order bat who can bowl, and opening with him limits the amount of work he can get through with the ball. Down the order, please, in the hope that his running between wickets won't have us one for stuff all.

Khawaja looks the goods. He'd be better served coming in at one for plenty rather than one for not much.

Ponting must not be allowed back as captain. Seriously, he's gone to England with the Ashes and come home without them twice and his suggestion that he'd like to be in charge while we set about the rebuilding process is laughable. Seriously, Ricky, you built this lot, and if that's the best you can do...

Alternatively, if it isn't the best you could do, why did you allow it to happen?

Michael Clarke is probably only a medium term prospect for the captaincy, but someone has to do it, and it's him for the time being.

Mike Hussey has to stay, but you'd have to question whether he's going to last into the medium term. May need to be moved into the opening slot if Katich isn't brought back.

Steve Smith is definitely a prospect, but one that needs a lot of work.

Marcus North may be back, but will need to have scored several squillion runs in the meantime, have taken a healthy swag of wickets and even then will need to deliver big time from the get go.

Brad Haddin definitely needs to be kept on, though there are big question marks as to whether he's the best glove man going around. Possibly pushed ahead of the pack in the quest for another Gilchrist. Seriously, we need to be picking the best man with the gloves, and if it isn't him there may still be room for him as a specialist bat.

Mitchell Johnson has to go. That's it. Full stop. Potential isn't enough, you have to deliver, and do it consistently.

If Doug Bollinger isn't fit, why pick him, and if he knows he isn't fit why doesn't he do something about it?

Peter Siddle fills the workhorse role, though there may not be room for him, Harris and Hilfenhaus in the same side.


Hilfenhaus is supposed to swing the ball. That means he has to pitch it up and give it room to move through the air.

Harris looks the goods if fit.

Lastly, the spinner. Whoever it is needs to be persisted with until around this time next year. Beer may come on in that time, and, in any case he has displayed a pretty good temperament this time around. With Sri Lanka coming up there may be room for him and Hauritz in the side.

And, having chipped in with a thousand words in an hour I have an appointment with the yard that’s a more pressing matter than watching the last rites.

In the week since Boxing Day we've had the predictable acres of newsprint and miles of column inches as the media pundits ponder the imponderables and most of it has been rather predictable.

England, we're told, are on a mission to crush Australia.

Colour me substantially less than amazed, given the amount they've copped over the years, the chance to even the ledger, and the fact that having possibly destroyed Ponting's captaincy they can inflict significant pain on the likely contenders for 2013.

Given the circumstances the question of the captaincy got the sort of attention you'd have expected. Ponting plans to be back asap, Clarke is only too aware of his caretaker status, and everything else is more or less as you'd expect.

Reading those comments, on the other hand, I suspected a certain amount of back-covering if Ponting does make it back to the leader's role. He's not, by all accounts, a man to get offside.

The selection of Khawaja as his replacement got the attention you'd expect it to attract along the lines you'd expect it to follow. Nothing surprising in the selection or the reaction. The same thing applies to Michael Clarke.

With Ponting injured, the vice captain's the obvious successor, and the Mr 15 Percent headlines are hardly surprising given a man out of form with the bat, with a long term back injury that may or may not be the result of overexertion in the old horizontal mambo, and enjoys a celebrity lifestyle in substantial contrast to his suburban roots. Very few of the comment out there in the non-cricket specific media seem to have noted that the celebrity lifestyle came out of the cricket rather than the other way around.

So, nothing too surprising, and, in any case it's now a matter of seeing how all the theory and prognostication shakes out in practice.

In many ways the result of this Test is less important than the way the said result is achieved.

A loss wouldn't necessarily be a total disaster, given the way the series has unfolded, provided it's not an innings defeat.

A win wouldn't necessarily signal the dawning of a new era, and a draw, provided it's not weather induced would be a rather handy result, given the fact that it would be a fairly high scoring affair where England would presumably have failed to bowl us out twice.

Most of the interest that comes out of the result will concern the way things go from here, and you can probably look at the implications for the future in three categories.

There are the old stagers, long established players including Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Haddin and Katich.

Then there are the blokes who've been around for a while (Watson, Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Harris, North and Hauritz) and the tyros (Hughes, Khawaja, Smith and Beer).

With Ponting it's a question of when he gets back and what happens when he does. If he's not back for the World Cup, you'd expect him to be looking to get back for Sri Lanka, but that's something that'll be shaped by events behind the scenes, so it's pointless speculating. If he's back for the World Cup, it's a matter of what happens over there.

In any case, if he's back I doubt he'll be back for long as far as the captaincy's concerned.

The biggest issue with the old stagers, apart from how long they're staying, will be how they fit into the new picture, so while Clarke, Hussey and Haddin all look safe is the medium term, their roles may well change.

Clarke's move to Four hasn't been a success, and concerns with youngsters coming through could prompt an attempt to convert Hussey into an opener if Ponting decided to stick around and could be persuaded to bat down the order. Haddin, given concerns over injuries and glove work, could arguably play as a specialist bat with Tim Paine taking the gloves.

When you come to the next bracket of players, Watson's the only one who looks safe in the medium to long term, though I'd like to see him at Three or Four.

Johnson may be on the verge of his use by date, and his fate will, I suspect, be intertwined with Ponting's captaincy and how much influence Ponting exercises at the selection table. Siddle and Hilfenhaus look reasonable medium term prospects, though possibly not in the same side.

Siddle looks the more adaptable workhorse, though Hilfenhaus might be a better prospect when swing comes into the equation. Harris is another in the same mould, but there's always going to be a question mark over his fitness.

Hauritz and North may not be out of the picture yet, but with Hauritz it's a case of whether Ponting stays as skipper, and if North can transmute potential and undoubted ability into form through weight of runs he may well be back in some shape or form. But most interest will, predictably, centre around the youngsters.

The jury is still out on Hughes and Smith, though you'd expect both to have a role to play in the long term (not necessarily in the Test side in both cases) and with Khawaja and Beer it's a case of wait and see.

In any case you’d hope that the four of them will benefit from the experience and the three New South Welshmen are long term prospects, so a return to the Shield to work on issues that have been identified under the arc lights will work out the way they did for Steve Waugh, Matthew Hayden, Damien Martyn and Justin Langer.

There's nothing earth shatteringly new in those remarks, of course, but tapping them out on the iPad has filled in an hour or so while I wait for the power to come back on after a significant outage across Bowen.

Regardless of the remarkable turnaround in Perth it didn’t take much more than a session on Boxing Day to underline the awful reality of Australia's current slot in the pecking order of world cricket.

Blind Freddie would be well and truly aware we're poised on the cusp of a new era of Australian cricket, and when it comes to the if and when of the transition, it's very much a question of how soon and which way from here?

Perth might have delayed the how soon? but it hasn't delayed it by much. The on-field performance towards the end of Boxing Day suggests that we're going to be in for some major upheavals.

Be ready for an extremely rocky ride in you're an Australian supporter and a lengthy spell of vengeful glee if you're not.

The question of future directions is going to take a while to sort out, and along the way it might be helpful to figure out what went wrong towards the end of the Ponting era (not that it takes much figuring in the literal sense) and I've spent a number of mornings pondering whether the current situation is the product of:

(a) wishful thinking;

(b) delusions of grandeur;

(c) misguided optimism;

(d) an unwillingness to recognize that mistakes have been made; or

(e) all of the above.

Personally, I'd be going for Option (e) but if pushed to pick a single cause I'd be inclined to ascribe the current situation to wishful thinking, suggesting that the others follow on from that, as inevitably as the blood follows a punch on the nose.

The wishbone will never, as the saying goes, replace the backbone. Theory does not always translate into practice.

Those ponderings developed into a rather lengthy and increasingly unfocussed rant that has diverted Hughesy's attention from other things that we need to be getting on with, so it's time to call a halt to that little exercise and see what I can come up with by way of a summary.

Anyone reading this who wishes to discuss these matters further only needs to click the Email me button.

So, let's look at those factors one by one. Predictably, there's a fair bit of overlap, particularly between wishful thinking and delusions of grandeur, but I've come up with a number of contributing elements, presented in summary as a series of dot points under the relevant heading.

Wishful thinking:

• Ricky Ponting's delusion that he has tactical nous, strategic vision, man management skills that match his undoubted brilliance with the bat and in the field.
  • Additional delusions that his skills are as good as they were and that opponents won't exploit personal foibles by winding him up (a la the Pratt affair in 2005 and the recent umpiring referral imbroglio).
  • The further misguided expectation that he'll still be on the scene to lead the Ashes campaign in 2013.
  • We can get by without a full time chairman of selectors, and there's no need to maintain close links with state and national coaching staff and support personnel or to discuss selection matters with key stake-holders.
  • Deep down, all our opponents really love us, and are willing to lie down and accept being beaten by a side they know and recognize are innately superior.
  • We don't need to sledge (actually, we do, but we call it something else like mental disintegration) and the opposition won't dish it up back to us because they think we're so wonderful.
  • The opposition will accept that we're totally honest as far as disputed catches and things like that are concerned, and at the same time will accept our right to question their honesty in that regard.
  • Coming up with a document full of motherhood statements about the spirit of the game will transfer automatically into on field practice and will be accepted by everyone else of our bona fides and proof that the Ugly Australian is a thing of the past.
  

Delusions of grandeur:

• Number One on the pecking order is our rightful spot, and can be maintained without the need for long term strategic planning.
  • The Australian setup is so good that it will automatically deliver results, but is so peculiarly Australian that opponents can't replicate it and tweak the copy to make it better.
  • Our domestic competition is played at a level that delivers a stream of players who are in form and ready to fit straight in at the highest level.
  • We have enough depth in the squad’s batting order to allow us to carry an extra bowler into the game in case Mitchell Johnson doesn’t fire.
  

Misguided optimism:

• Mitchell Johnson
  • The only thing we need to do is continue with current practice and preparation routines and things will fall neatly into place after a temporary setback.
  • With a bit of luck (which usually involves a coin falling the right way) everything will be fine.
  • There's an endless stream of up and coming kids who are ready willing and able to fit into the side at the top level.
  • Michael Clarke has the temperament, man management skills and fitness level that makes him the natural long term successor to Ponting, who still has the belief he'll be leading the side in 2013.
  

Unwillingness to admit that mistakes have been made:

• The failure to come up with serious contenders (apart from Nathan Hauritz, who obviously isn't generally regarded as good enough to be a long term prospect) for the spin bowler's slot in the scheme of things.
  • Ponting's my way or the highway because everything's really just hunky dory and if we work hard enough we'll be fine approach, which brings us to the big question regarding the captaincy.
  

Ponting has to go, and there are four reasons why he has to go after next year's World Cup, if he lasts that long.

First, my way or the highway means we don't have the flexibility we need when we're looking at options. Part of the problem is his refusal to bat anywhere other than Three.

Second, he's nowhere near the tactical genius that he thinks he is. That's not to suggest that there's anyone better in the side, but when you combine it with the first point it's a dangerous combination.

Third, there's that degree of petulance that certain opposition sides have worked out how to exploit. It's not just that judgement flies out the window when the red mist comes down, there's also the fact that the old rally 'round the leader, boys routine is a distraction for the rest of the side, particularly when it seems you need to be rather careful to ensure that Ricky's on your side. If in doubt about that point you might want to have a yarn to Nathan Hauritz.

That's going to be an important consideration when you consider that our next three Test series are against Sri Lanka, South Africa and India.

Now, you'd suggest that an away series in Sri Lanka would probably be the best option if you wanted to look at another candidate for the captaincy anyway, and it's probably the best opportunity to try out a few options before the more challenging prospect of dealing with South Africa at home.

When we get to South Africa we're going to be facing an opposition with scores to settle, and home crowds with an established record of aggro. Ponting as captain will be pushed, taunted, niggled and on form you'd expect fireworks as a result.

Then we have to deal with India who will be bringing baggage from last time they were here, and there'll be plenty of niggle from the likes of Harbajan and Sreesanth.

Finally, there's the question of whether he's the best candidate to bat at Three. Recent form, taken on top of those other factors, suggests he isn't.

Unfortunately, if he's unwilling to consider batting anywhere else, he's going to have to go.

In the wake of a rather remarkable result in Perth it's time to trundle out the old raised more questions than it answered because, despite an upbeat assessment from Mr Ponting in this morning's Australian the answers were largely confirmations of what we already knew.

Mitchell Johnson is, potentially, a match winner with the ball, and is rather handy wielding the willow. Hardly news, one would have suspected.

We've unearthed a handy workhorse in Harris. Well, we knew that out of Adelaide, didn't we? Hilfenhaus worked well into the breeze. Well he should, shouldn't he. And Siddle? Well, he had to play if Mitch fails to deliver, didn't he?

With the bat Watson, Hussey and Haddin continued to provide the backbone with questions over Messrs Hughes, Ponting and Clarke.

Now, there's no such thing as a bad win, and this one was a fair bit better than most, coming as it did in the wake of an innings defeat. There's every chance that, with three down and two to play, we can get the urn back with a win and a draw. England can hold them with a win and a loss or two draws.

On one hand, you could be reasonably upbeat about the home ground advantage, but then again it only needs one or two things to go seriously wrong and we'll be back with the wheels separating from the axle.

A series win would be rather pleasing, of course, and having the Ashes back where they belong will place the universe a little closer to its correct orientation, but we're not going to be getting ourselves back into the top four until we can take out a series or two away from home in India, South Africa or Sri Lanka.

Worse, you can see signs of well, it's back to business as usual innit? in Ponting's remarks.

Actually, Punter, I don't think it is.

We still need to establish a bowling lineup that'll take twenty wickets when Johnson isn't firing. That's one issue. The reemergence of something like the old Fast Bowlers Cartel is an encouraging development, but there are still a few things that need to be sorted.

Greg Chappell was in the ABC commentary box as things were rolled up yesterday, and was suggesting that the four quicks decision was determined by the wicket, which is fine in this case, though one can't help thinking that there was a bit of covering if Mitch fails to deliver in there as well.

There's still no sign that we've resolved the spin bowling question, though I notice that Mr Hauritz is getting among the runs in the Qld-NSW Shield match at Blacktown Oval. He's picked up a wicket as well, but the Bulls aren't the most fearsome of opponents these days (much as it grieves me to say that).

Still, he could be rather handy at eight or nine with the bat in hand, though he'll need sympathetic captaincy when he's bowling. Don't hold your breath, folks.

For the rest of it, Hughes is still a definite question mark, Ponting and Clarke still look rather out of touch and Smith, while he definitely brings something into the mix, is definitely a work in progress rather than the finished article.

On the other side of the fence, the English batting isn't quite as strong as it looked before, though you'd still be inclined to have more out of
Strauss-Cook-Trott-Pietersen-Collingwood-Cook-Prior
in your Fantasy team than you'd be picking from
Watson-Hughes-Ponting-Clarke-Hussey-Smith-Haddin.

The biggest issue for them, though, is the loss of Stuart Broad with the ball, though Tremlett looked rather handy as a replacement and you'd expect to be seeing a lot more of Swann in Melbourne and Sydney.

So we've got an interesting couple of matches to come, particularly when the issue of Ricky's broken little finger comes into play. If he's anywhere near fit he'll play (of course), though one wonders what'll happen for Sydney if (a) he does something to the existing injury in the course of the Boxing Day test or (b) England win in Melbourne.