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.

‘Er Indoors isn't convinced, but Hughesy's officially over the possibility that England have, more than likely, retained The Ashes, and that there's every likelihood that we won't be seeing the cricketing universe returned to the correct orientation any time soon.

On revealed form you’d be disinclined to believe we'd be getting the urn back with two wins and a draw in the next three games, and given recent performances you wouldn't be holding your breath in anticipation of a series win in 2013.

No, rail as you might against on-field performances the truly interesting side of things comes when you look at the steps being taken to turn things around. The other matter of interest will come as frustration and disillusion breaks down the what happens in the dressing room stays in the dressing room mentality.

That side of things has already been questioned here and we can expect further material along the same lines as frustration loosens tongues.

That's going to mean a significant departure from the party line, perhaps not quite as significant as the possibility Ponting might elect to bowl first should he win the toss in Perth.

The above was going to be the introduction to another, longer, piece assessing the current situation, but the impending start of the Perth Test means I want to get something finished before the game starts.

This series is actually starting to resemble one of those books you can't put down because you want to see what happens next, though given the changes that have been made to the Australian side already you wouldn't be wanting to make too many more over the rest of the series unless they're injury-related, in which case, of course, the selectors' hands are forced.

Those changes to the side deserve, no, require, a fair amount of closer scrutiny with a rather intense scrute.

At the top of the order Hughes in for the injured Katich was the obvious move. It's to be hoped that he'll be kept in the side for the rest of the series given the likelihood that we're going to be looking at a greentop in Perth, the toss is a 50-50 prospect and he's a 50-50 chance of facing the first ball.

Given the inevitable possibility of a golden duck from the first ball of the innings of course, you can also question why Watson's still up there. Personally I'd much rather see him down the order where he'd have the chance to knock up big hundreds rather than being hung out to dry facing the new ball. We know why he's there, of course, but there's no reason why he has to stay there.

Hopefully, Hughes will be in for the longish term and will be given a fair run to see how he handles things and, equally important, how the opposition handles him. You'd expect that he'll be found lacking in some department over the next few games, since, like any batsman, he'll have his weaknesses. Stick with him and give him a chance to respond to the searching examination he'll be in for.

Substituting Stephen Smith for North is one solution to an issue that could have been tackled differently at the start of the series. As I suggested at the time I would have gone with Smith rather than Doherty in Brisbane on the grounds that the extra batsman would be handy and the spin bowling duties could be shared among Smith, Clarke and Katich.

With Katich out of the picture, of course, that's no longer a possibility, but you'd assume Smith at Six is an indication that he's seen as a batsman who bowls a bit rather than a spinner who can bat. Fine. So, like Hughes, I'd be hoping that he's going to be part of the picture for the rest of the series (at the very least),

Now there have been all sorts of issues raised with regard to Michael Beer, not least the suggestion that we may be going in to Perth with four quicks. Actually, we can already have four quicks with Watson in the side.

Really, given the theory that a left arm tweaker is an important part of the approach to a right hand predominant English batting order you'd hope they're going to stick with it, and that like the other inclusions he'll be given a couple of games to see what he can do.

In any case we'll need someone to bowl into the Fremantle Doctor off a short run, since the over rate is already a problem.

Bringing back Mitchell Johnson was always going to be on the agenda, and the big question is going to be what comes next if he fails to fire on all cylinders.

I've already expressed my own theory that Johnson's problem is that deep down he doesn't believe the once in a generation wrap, and that when he fails to fire there's a subconscious see? I told you so. Peter Roebuck had a slightly different but rather similar take on things here.

If he fails to deliver over the rest of the series it'll be time to reassess the way he's handled in the team setup. Cooley's already come out saying that his action is very complicated, and that there are other factors that are just as significant as the way he uses his front arm, but the issue he identified (the back leg collapsing as he hits his delivery stride) raises its own issues, as does the news that Bollinger hit the wall during the Adelaide Test.

If these two blokes were underdone going into the series, one has to question the approach to player fitness in the coaching and support departments.

In any case, the next few days and the aftermath are going to make for some very interesting times.

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....

Just when I thought I was going to have to start barracking for the Poms and sign up for the Barmy Army it seems like the Australian selectors have come to the rescue.

On the other hand I'm not holding my breath because there's no guarantee that the hard questions are finally going to be asked, so I haven't quite reached the point where I'm tearing up that enlistment/application form, but it definitely seems we're in for an interesting test match, and an intriguing couple of months.

Over the nest five days we'll see how close the revamped bowling attack can get to taking twenty wickets, and we'll have further indications about strengths and weaknesses of the respective batting orders.

What will be in that department will be, and it's a matter of wait and see.

More interesting, at least in the long run were the reports I sighted just before ominous rolls of thunder swept over Bowen earlyish on Friday morning, forcing me to sever connections to the internet. It seems, from at least one media report that what amounts to a civil war has broken out between at least some members of the national selection panel and the (question mark) brains trust that sits on top of the Australian team.

Apparently, had Ponting been given his 'druthers Mitchell Johnson would be taking the field in Adelaide later this morning. As it is, the out of sorts bowler apparently won't, however, be sent off to hurl down some thunderbolts for W.A. even though there's a one-dayer against the Bulls at the WACA later today and a return match and a Shield game in the week between the end of the Adelaide test and the start of the third test in Perth.

You might have thought those games would have provided a couple of opportunities for Mitch to just wang it down and possibly do a little work on his batting (as suggested in my previous effort).

As I type up the notes I scrawled earlier in the morning the news is that Ponting won the toss and will, predictably, bat.

No, rather than being sent off to work things out in something approaching the heat of battle with the Warriors Johnson will be remaining with the team in Adelaide so he can work out his complicated technical issues with bowling coach Troy Cooley, who has presumably been on board while those issues were emerging.

Strange. One would have thought that if the bowling coach was there those issues would have been nipped in the bud as they emerged or, failing that, headed off at the pass before they'd had the chance to go too far.

This raises some interesting questions about the way the support structures surrounding the Australian team are set up. Apart from the actual team coach (Tim Neilsen) we apparently have specialist coaches to cover the batting (Justin Langer), bowling (Troy Cooley) and fielding (Mike Young, though he's off for a three week consultancy with India for the next three weeks or so).

One would have thought that the four job descriptions associated with those positions would include the supervision of practice drills, the monitoring of in-game performances and the identification and analysis of technical issues. One would also have expected that Neilsen and Cooley would have some input into the much vaunted bowling plans.

Now, for a while it has definitely been a case of an Australian bowling attack that isn't consistently operating at maximum potency, and one recalls the questions about who was setting the fields when Nathan Hauritz was bowling on the recent tour to India.

As a result I've often wondered who sets these plans, how many possible plans have been identified and who makes the assessment of the plans' effectiveness.

An uninformed observer might, for instance, be thinking that you'd have a plan in place for each of the English openers while the ball is new, and a contingency plan should either or both of them survive the new ball.

That idea isn't exactly rocket science.

You'd also expect something similar for each player going down the order with a diminution in detail in the contingency plans as you approach #11.

There's every chance that the early dismissal of Strauss in the first dig at the Gabba was the result of a plan to try and get him to cut early in the innings and cramp him for room with one that jags into him, thereby inducing a catch behind the wicket or perhaps a bottom edge into the stumps.

It's difficult to avoid the suspicion that the players in the Australian side are extremely selective about who they'll accept advice from (understandable, you'd expect that the volume of incoming data of an advisory nature would require filtering) and how much of that advice gets taken on board.

Looking back, I'm reminded of a story from Eric Adams, who used to be the Queensland Cricket development officer in these parts back in the mid-nineties when Queensland first won the longtime elusive Sheffield Shield. Eric recounted that in the days before the final all of the Development Officers from around the state were brought into Brisbane and that they'd been roped in to conduct the final practice session the day before the game started.

That makes sense when you think about it. Do something different, make it a lightish workout. You'd think it would be a logical tapering to wind up the pre-match preparation.

Significantly, the Queensland coach at the time was John Buchanan, and it seems quite consistent with later practice when he was looking after the Australian team. The Bulls' players, on the other hand, according to Eric, were rather disdainful, and the only one of the blokes who put them through the Kanga cricket drills these guys do on their way around the primary school circuit who got any attention at all was Bennett King, who had some credibility after an A Grade rugby League career with Valleys in the Brisbane competition, and a NRL career that was cut short by injury.

I can't help suspecting that contributions from Buchanan, Neilsen and Cooley are regularly downplayed because they don't, regardless of any paper qualifications, have the international career credentials that would make their advice worth heeding.

In that regard, the increasing influence of newly-appointed national selector greg Chappell can only be seen as encouraging.

Maybe we also need to see someone like Alan Border or Steve Waugh catapulted into the frame with a licence to deliver blunt, language advisory heavy, assessments of performance and practices.