Amid the recriminations and rejoinders that'll be flying back and forth, more than likely for the rest of the summer and quite possibly continuing into the indefinite future, it's important to keep the old KISS principle in mind.

You know the one. Keep it simple, stupid.

I've felt for a long time that Australian teams, safe and secure in their ranking at the top of the tree, start to get extravagant and begin playing mind games with the opposition.

I suspect there's a degree of boredom sneaking in when you see something like Steve Waugh setting nine slips to Ganguly in India. At the time this supposedly had something to do with the old mental disintegration, but it might just have been a photo opportunity for a book cover along the way.

Now, given the fact that I'm going to be touting a role for Mr Waugh in the reconstruction, that might seem slightly contradictory, but you can also detect a bit of Buchanan in the thinking behind that field setting.

Because the first item that needs to be reassessed in the wake of Adelaide is the long term pecking order at the top of the Australian tree, in particular the interplay between captain, coach, support staff and the selection panel.

Now, invoking the KISS Principle test cricket is very straightforward. You win games by scoring more runs than the opposition and taking twenty wickets. Fielding is important in both departments.

You can supply slight variations on that theme for One Day Internationals and Twenty20. It should be obvious that those other forms of the game involve slightly different issues, and they need to be considered separately.

I've already referred to the possibility of separate coach/captain pairings for the three forms of the game, and I think it's important that we have three clearly different teams to address the different aspects of the three rather than one core side with slight variations.

But back to the Test side. Let's start at the top and who does what. Traditionally, the whole kit and caboodle revolves around the captain, and in an ideal world it still would, but we're not in an ideal world at the moment.

In the short to medium term there needs to be close collaboration between those responsible for selecting the team, those charged with getting them onto the paddock, and the bloke who makes the tactical decisions while they're out there.

I suspect there's been a bit of push and shove between the captain and the selectors over the years and the to-ing and fro-ing around Mitchell Johnson isn't anything new. So let's be clear about it.

The selectors' brief is to provide an ongoing assessment of performance on the paddock and adjust accordingly.

The captain's role is to get the job done on the field with the team he's been given. He might indicate who he'd like to see out there, but he's too close to the action to be able to consistently get things into the right perspective.

The ongoing Mitchell Johnson saga is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Through the last Ashes series Johnson was seen as such a vital cog in the Australian machine that the batting order needed to be adjusted to allow us to play an extra bowler, because Johnson was such a vital element in the team.

That transformed Watson into an opener, and relegated Philip Hughes to the sidelines. That might have been a short term solution, but there's no reason Watson has to stay at the top of the order. Much has been made of his failure to transform promising starts to big hundreds, and we need to build solid starts from the openers into big partnerships.

It is fairly obvious that Katich/Watson isn't the ideal opening combination and their running between the wickets has been called into question before the run out last Friday that started this latest debacle. There have been chances to try an alternative combination since then, but, no, a stopgap solution to an immediate problem was allowed to develop into a permanent arrangement.

There's no question that Watson's capable of opening the innings if necessary, but that doesn't mean it's the best long term arrangement. He's good enough to score big hundreds in the middle order, and a spot down the order would possibly allow him to bowl more, which would be helpful in the twenty wickets department.

So it's a matter of having the selection panel set the long term agenda, pick the side that's going to work towards it and hand things on to the captain and coach to get the short term job done.

That brings the coach-captain relationship into the question, and there's also the not-inconsiderable consideration of what the coach of the side (and the rest of the support personnel, for that matter) actually does.

It was fairly obvious that someone like Bob Simpson was needed back in the dark days of the late eighties. The mistake, that time around, was to place too much power in one set of hands so that, for example, batsmen who were worried about technical issues felt insecure raising those matters with the coach because of his influence on the makeup of the side.

At the same time, Simpson was able to insist on rigorous practice sessions, and I suspect we need a return to that sort of regime as the reconstruction process kicks into gear.

As far as the coaching side of things goes, Geoff Marsh seemed like a continuation of the Simpson approach without the concentration of power, and then we moved into the interesting stage of the professional coach who may not have played the game at the highest level for an extended period, and there are aspects of the Buchanan and Neilsen years that have, arguably, contributed to the current situation and need to be addressed.

There's now a fairly clear career path for retired players who set out to acquire coaching accreditation, and this is fine up to a point. First up, there's no guarantee someone who holds a Level Three accreditation can coach successfully at any level of the game. I've known a few Level Threes through the Primary Schools setup, and they haven't all been successful in that arena.

I have a strong suspicion that Buchanan, Neilsen and anyone else who hasn't acquired the top level player street cred is only going to be listened to as long as it suits the elite player. I suspect there was a bit of that in operation in 2005, and the need to get the urn back in 2006-7 meant that disagreements between Buchanan and senior players were papered over rather than addressed.

Neilsen may have done a great job at the Centre of Excellence/Cricket Academy and with Australia A, but that sort of player development role doesn't necessarily translate into success with the national side, particularly when it comes to setting training and practice routines.

If I was running things I'd hand Neilsen the responsibility for the limited overs sides with someone like Steve Waugh or Alan Border looking after the Test side and included in the selection panel to add a bit of do this or else along with a licence to make a blunt assessment of things that are deemed not good enough.

I note with interest the fact that the upswing in English fortunes comes under the supervision of Andy Flower, who’s not just an ex-Test player, but an ex-captain and one who has stood up to the Mugabe regime. Arguably, we need someone who can assert the same authority, and they’re fairly thin on the ground.

The rest of the support staff could continue in their present roles but their success rates need to be assessed, since there are, after all, serious issues in all departments of the Australian on-field performance and there are probably a number of off-field matters that need close scrutiny.

Going in to Adelaide I'd reckoned that the first thing to address was the matter of taking twenty wickets. While not enough wickets for over five hundred runs might suggest that's still cause for concern if the batsmen had fulfilled their part of the contract that comes with winning the toss and choosing to bat by scoring the 450-plus that looked like the par score for the conditions on offer we may well have been looking at our bowlers and making a more favourable comparison with the English attack.

That's not to suggest things in the bowling department are sorted out, but there are some signs of progress, largely in the form of another workhorse in Ryan Harris who's been the pick of the bowlers. Unfortunately I'm inclined to allocate him the workhorse duties that could also be a fairly accurate descriptor for Siddle's role in the side. Long term I don't think we need two of them in the same team. In the squad, yes, but not necessarily in the same eleven.

But, assuming they both pull up OK both should play in Perth.

Bollinger wasn't as good as he has been in the past, but may still be underdone and is probably worth sticking with. You'd assume that Watson can expect to be doing his share of the workload as well, so there needs to be a reassessment of his spot in the batting order.

The one issue that still needs to be tackled is the spin department, and it's obvious that Xavier Doherty's not the answer to the question. North may not be either, but for mine the question will be settled in Perth. Bluntly, if he is picked for Perth and Doherty can't operate tidily into the Fremantle Doctor he has to go.

Although I was impressed by his attitude on Day One at the Gabba he's too fast through the air and too flat to be much other than a tie up one end option, and he hasn't bowled consistently enough to succeed in that department either.

So either he plays in Perth, or if he doesn't one option is to drop Marcus North into that slot on his home turf and one of Watson, Smith, Khawaja or Ferguson in at Number Six. As suggested above Watson into that slot would work for me, and I'd be inclined to try a new opening combination.

Given their previous Test experience, I'd be inclined to go for a brace of Phils in the shape of Jaques and Hughes this time around, or, if that's a bridge too far, keep Watson up the order, add Hughes for Katich and reassess the situation after Perth.

Looking at the series to date, the other thing that's obvious is that we've definitely been out-prepared, which means that there are any number of off-field matters that will need to be examined, and there are probably a number of current practices that need to be changed.

Now, not being among the coterie, I'm not sure exactly what practices are in place, but I'd suggest that what worked with a relatively settled side full of senior players four years ago mightn't be the way to go as we look at a side that's going to be going through a substantial transition.

One example is the Wives and Girlfriends issue, which allegedly had some impact on the 2005 series, and may have prompted other changes to practices that weren't WAG-friendly. It's been a while, for instance, since I've heard or read a reference to the old team dinner two nights out from the start of a Test.

The way I understand it, the practice used to be that a senior player found a good eatery with a private room or something similar, Cricket Australia picked up the tab and after dinner the boys sat down and planned the approach they'd be adopting after a careful analysis of the opposition lineup.

If that doesn't happen any more, it may be something that needs to be reintroduced, and I suspect that if it's not happening at present you've found an explanation for some aspects of the on-field performance, particularly as far as field settings are concerned.

There's been the odd reference to the WAG issue along the way, and I noted Watson's partner, who has a significant media role in the scheme of things remarking that the English decision to leave the girls at home until Christmas was OK for them, but things were different on our side. Yes, Leigh, and we may be seeing some of those differences coming out on the field.

Bringing the girls with us might be helpful when it comes to off field relaxation (and get your mind out of the gutter, I'm not talking about that sort of relaxation) but it also contributes three potentially disruptive elements.

One is the possibility of relationship issues between partners can translate into distractions on the field. At least, if you've got problems at home you have the chance to leave them behind when you go on tour. That's not necessarily the best thing for the relationship, of course, but it does remove a potential trigger for one of the other potentially disruptive elements, which is the potential for disagreements among the WAG group, the sort of thing that allegedly occurred behind the scenes in 2005.

The third one is the potential for the presence of the partners to get in the way of the team preparation, the sort of issue that might have consigned the pre-match dinner to the realm of history.

And at a time when w need to be looking for a way forward, I hope that these and other team preparation issues are being presented to the players and their partners with an explanation along the lines of this is the way we’re looking to go, and we need to know if you have any problems with it.

Of course, that statement should be followed with if you do have an issue with some of this, let us know and we’ll see if we can fix it, which in turn should carry the rider of course, you may not like the way we fix it.

Now, anyone reading this may be wondering why I'm banging on about the future when there's a week to go before the next Test in Perth. Surely, you may think, he'd be better off looking at the next game?

Well, maybe I would, but given the fact that the preceding material is the result of three days worth of the hour and a quarter's typing that I manage to sneak in between the end of the morning walk and the 8:30 radio local news that's the signal for Hughesy's departure to attend to yard duties, I'm disinclined to spend too much time speculating about that side of things.

We've been comprehensively outplayed on eight of the last ten days and there's an array of semi-conflicting news stories emerging overnight that don't make the crystal ball gazing any easier in the short term.

Consider this. Nathan Hauritz follows a handy performance with the ball with a century with the bat. Yes, it was a case of going in as a night watchman, sure, but it was a ton, and was, in fact the highest score ever made by a night watchman for New South Wales.

Add to that fact the failure of any of the prospects for a berth in the batting order to stick up their hands in that New South Wales v South Australia Shield game, the news that Johnson won't be taking the field for the Warriors against the Bulls, reports that Harris has a problem with a chest muscle and that Doherty was in the side because Ponting wanted him there and...

No, events over the rest of the series will unfold how they will. After the Tests there's a One Day series, and after that there's a World Cup.

And after that there'll be the need to reconstruct the Test side, because regardless of the next three results, there are still serious issues that will need to be addressed.

For a start, I doubt that a series win in the Ashes series will be enough to get us back into the Top Four Test rankings, and even if it did we'd be pushing it to hold that spot.

No, to regain a spot in the Top Four, we need to win every series at home and win at least one series away in England, India, South Africa or Sri Lanka (and that's alphabetical rather than numerical order or a suggestion about priorities).

We won't win at home unless we can take twenty wickets, for a start. In fact, that won't happen unless we can consistently take twenty wickets at each of the Test venues, including those where the most likely result is a draw.

Then we'll need to find an attack that'll be able to take twenty wickets in England, India, Sri Lanka and South Africa.

When you add those up, we need attacks capable of taking twenty wickets in Bisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and Perth, as well as doing the job in the conditions in England, India, South Africa and Sri Lanka, bearing in mind the probability that there’ll be significant variation in the tracks on offer in a particular country.

Then we need a batting order that'll be able to consistently score five hundred and fifty batting first on a wicket with early life.

And we need to establish an obvious succession for the captaincy, bearing the fact that Michael Clarke might not even be a short term prospect, and not just because of that long term back issue and the next long term prospect may not be in the team yet.

And if that next long term prospect is Marcus North, he’s going to have to deliver something beyond the prospect that he might be the next cab off the rank after Clarke.

What happen between now and the end of this series will happen, but the interesting bit is going to be what happens from there. Winning two out of the next three would answer some of those questions, but would also allow Ponting to suggest things weren't as bad as they looked, and all we needed was a few things to go our way, and chirpily raise the prospect of leading the side to defend the urn in 2013.

Now that's a scary thought. Particularly since that English summer is also when the Top Four will apparently be playing off for a World Championship of Test Cricket, we may not be in that Top Four, and the side would be led by the captain who supervised our plummet from One to Five.

Not, of course, that he's the only one to blame....