One swallow, as the saying goes, does not make a summer and, certainly, one sub-par performance doesn't necessarily mean there's no chance of Australia regaining the Ashes this season. What transpired at The Gabba over the past few days, however, was definitely not part of the preferred scenario as far as Australia is concerned.

We need (not to put too fine a point on it) to win both of the next two games and hold England out from winning any more than one game out of the remaining two.

Alternatively, a draw in Adelaide would advance that win the next two over to Perth, and another draw there would require a two-nil result after Boxing Day in Melbourne.

There are, of course, all sorts of factors that can produce a draw, but the winning of test matches comes down to two basic factors. You need to score more runs than your opponents, and you have to bowl them out twice. Bowling them out twice also helps with the score more runs side of things, and it's here where bullets need to be bitten.

Now, frankly, I don't take a great deal of comfort from Mr Ponting's remarks as reported in this morning's Australian:
There are a few areas that we need to improve on and we are very aware of what they are and we have to make sure we put in the work over the next couple of days to make sure we are as good as we possibly can be.

This is the same sort of upbeat mindset that has seen us fail to address serious shortcomings as we've slipped from Number One to Number Five in the pecking order. It's arguably the sort of mindset that is suited to meetings, to talking things over, to drawing some positives.

More particularly, it's the sort of mindset that ensures that team lineups don't change, and there are at least two vitally important changes that need to be made.

First up, Mitchell Johnson has to go, but he has to be sent on his way with a clear mission and a defined pathway back into the side. Personally I'd be happier if that pathway involved terrorizing the opposition wearing a Queensland shirt, but if he can do it as a Warrior and comes back in as a bowling all-rounder, that'll do.

So, for Johnson, it's a case of bowling fast (just wang it down was, apparently, Haddin's helpful suggestion) and working on his batting to the extent that he becomes a candidate for a slot as the bowling all-rounder in a side that also includes a batting all-rounder in Shane Watson.

I also sighted an article from the Herald Sun, suggesting Mitchell Johnson needs .... an urgent appointment with the team psychologist. This could well be so, but I'd suggest that there's the possibility such an appointment would be pointless unless the exact problem can be identified.

I can't help thinking that deep down there's a lack of self-belief in a bloke who's had the albatross of a once in a generation bowler hanging round his neck since Dennis Lillee spotted him as a teenager.

Now, I may be missing the mark completely, but I can't help thinking of a kid I spotted as I sorted out the candidates for my District Cricket squad a bit over fifteen years ago. In the nets he looked a million dollars, and I was quite upbeat about the prospect that I'd unearthed a kid who could well go on to (at least) Zone standard, and NQ wasn't out of the question either.

Shifting him out of the nets, however, the footwork disappeared and he failed to get the ball off the square (or, more accurately, as far as the extremely short cover boundary batting at the northern end of the Bowen State School oval).

The kid eventually sneaked in as the twelfth selection in a Whitsunday Squad that was rather desperately short of depth. We had a bloke turn up for a Pupil Free Day later, one of those consultant dudes who’ll show you how to be a better person through the power of positive thinking. He described something along the lack of self belief lines (the I’m not that good syndrome) and I was able to confirm that, yes, the kid did think like that when Hughesy was standing behind the nets speculating about someone who might bat number three towards NQ selection.

Now, if this theory is right, Johnson needs to be dropped (in this scenario, deep down he expects to be dropped) but that needs to go with a clearly defined path back in.

Having referred to at least two vitally important changes that need to be made, the eager reader might be wondering what the other ones are.

For a start, there needs to be a clearly thought out strategy designed to deliver twenty wickets in Adelaide, Perth, Melbourne and Sydney, along with the realization that this may well involve four different bowling attacks.

Siddle, for my money, can stay. I'll take his attribution of the six-fer and the hat trick to an understanding that he needed to bowl a fuller length at The Gabba as an indication that he can tailor his approach to the conditions, which is handy when you're looking at the likely workhorse in the attack. Bollinger in for Johnson delivers a left arm new ball option, and Harris in for Hilfenhaus is a possibility, especially given the fact that the ex-South Australian would know the conditions in Adelaide rather well.

There are fitness queries with both of those candidates, so you would expect Watson to be called up to the bowling crease a bit more frequently. He possibly needs to be batting down the order, something that could be managed by a direct swap with Mike Hussey, who has, if I recall correctly, done his share of opening earlier in his career, though not at this level.

Alternatively, given Michael Clarke's dodgy back, there's a possible slot there, though that would mean finding a substitute opener. That's probably not such a good idea at the moment unless there's an obvious candidate in form with runs under the belt.

An equally important accompaniment to a clearly thought out strategy designed to deliver twenty wickets and the realization that this may well involve four different bowling attacks is to accept that if we can't take twenty wickets at home you wouldn't be too optimistic about doing that in England, so there's the very real prospect that we may not be getting the urn back for another four years.

That's not to suggest I'm writing things off, but it's a possibility that needs to be kept in the back of the mind, and it means I'd be disinclined to bring too many new faces into the top part of the batting order at the moment. Personally, I'd be sticking with the incumbents for the rest of the series and deciding how many of them will be staying.

There are any number of other questions and issues that need to be addressed, but let's keep it simple and straightforward. We've gone with Doherty in the spin department, so let's see whether he can cut it through the rest of the series. If he can't do it in Adelaide, think about added bowling responsibilities for North and a choice between the return of Hauritz or the inclusion of Smith as a specialist bat who can bowl some spin at number eight.

From here the rest of the series is going to depend on how the Australian team and the national selectors respond to the challenges posed by an English side with no fear of Australia who've done their homework rather well. That's another reason to stick with the current batting order rather than rolling heads for the sake of change.

If the Poms have really done their homework, let’s see if we can turn that to long term advantage by seeing how the top order batting adjusts. It may well be that the only survivors from this test's top six when Gabba time rolls around next year will be Katich and Watson at numbers one and four...

But that's the future. Let's start the short term scenario by looking at getting those twenty wickets that may win us the match in Adelaide.

Two days out from the 2010-11 Ashes series Hughesy's a bit more upbeat than he was a week ago, to the point where I can express the hope that we end up with a series that's the cracker that 2005 could and should have been.

Now, I know that I'm running directly against the current of conventional wisdom that considers that series the best in decades, and possibly (yeah, I know I'm exaggerating) the greatest thing since they came up with sliced bread, but that's not how I saw things.

After the First Test that year, I recall labelling the game as a case of the Poms sticking their heads up while we banged them back down again. I was sure the heads were going to be protruding again, so it was a matter of seeing whether the hammer was in operation again.

History, however, will document the fact that Glenn McGrath stepped on a cricket ball that shouldn't have been where it was, Ponting won the toss and elected to bowl, Brett Lee delivered a performance that should have had him lined up against a wall and shot and the Poms suddenly had the momentum, that allowed them to play at around 120% while we were managing somewhere between 75 and 85.

And yet the series still went right down to the wire.

The 2006-07 whitewash was a suitable return of the universe to its correct orientation, but I've frequently remarked that the actual standard of Australian cricket is nowhere near as high as we think it is. There are a few promising signs on the horizon, but more of that later.

2009 saw another close series skewed towards England after we consistently failed to score enough runs batting first and regularly failed to take twenty wickets.

At this point I ought to differentiate between what I'd like to see and the sort of result that would attract significant interest in the general public, since those two things are pretty much discrete sets.

I've frequently stated that the only truly satisfactory result is 100% success, because that's the only environment where you won't be tagging aspects of the performance as could have been better.

At the moment I have a real dread that anything like that score line this time around would prevent some serious issues being tackled, and had been expressing the opinion that a 5-0 score line in England's favour might be necessary to ensure that those matters are addressed.

A few recent developments suggest that there's a hint of light on the horizon.

As far as the general public is concerned, I suspect that they want a series that goes down to the wire with fortunes fluctuating through each of the five games.

And possibly that 5-0 score line, but not quite the same dominance that was on display last time they were out here.

Now, the first exciting prospect that's being touted around the traps is the possibility that the curators have been instructed to deliver playing surfaces with significant local variation. Good.

That means we have the prospect of having the two teams' skill sets tested under conditions that won't be consistent through the series, which also means that there'll be the horses for courses question, and issues with reading the pitch that's been served up for each game.

More of that later as well.

The second factor that has me a tad more upbeat is the fact that the selectors have bitten the bullet and dropped Nathan Hauritz. You can, and should, feel for Hauritz, but he has arguably benefited from a lack of serious alternatives for the spin bowling spot.

Now, I should point out that I first saw Hauritz in action as an eleven-year-old middle order bat who bowled little right arm darts. At least that was the way it looked at the time. He wasn't able to bowl Wide Bay into the winners' spot against my NQ side in 1992, and he didn't do it the following year either in a game where a kid named Shane Watson made big runs for the side one of my colleagues tagged West Mortein (actually, Metropolitan West).

He did, however, make a State Primary Schools’ side, largely, from what I can recall, as someone who’d send down ten overs that it’d be difficult to score off.

Hauritz, however, was rated as a prospect and through Mark I of his career seemed to maintain that minimal risk darts approach, without much in the way of flight, turn and variation.

I suspect that he had been very badly advised, and seem to recall that the move to Sydney was prompted by the desire to add a few of the missing ingredients by working with the likes of Greg Matthews. To an extent, that seems to have worked.

At least it worked well enough to get him back into the side and delivered reasonable results. But, seriously, is he a bowler in the same bracket as, say Tim May? To me he’s always been a container who delivers the occasional healthy return rather than a real and regular threat on turning tracks.

Selecting Xavier Doherty ahead of him is seemingly prompted by the fact that an orthodox left armer is a better prospect against a right-hand dominant English middle order. In cricketing terms that makes sense, and suggests the possibility of an actual horses for courses policy rather than statements of intent that fail to morph into reality.

There's also the question of Michael Clarke's fitness and I've put a big tick beside the news that they've flown Usman Khawaja in to cover for him. I'll be happier when I hear that Clarke's on the plane back to Sydney and we've made the hard-nosed decision not to risk playing a bloke who is an obvious candidate for further injury.

Possibly they'll go as far as really biting the bullet and making the right selection in the Number Eight slot in the batting order. On revealed form, you'd expect it to go to Xavier Doherty. Hughesy's preference would be to move Haddin down from seven, and include Smith in that spot.

A batting order with someone of Haddin’s (or Smith’s for that matter) class at eight with Johnson at nine is a fairly awesome prospect.

Now, if the Gabba wicket lives up to the advance publicity there's not going to be a whole lot of spin bowling in the First Test. Maybe later on, but not in Brisbane.

On a surface likely to be pace bowler-friendly there should be no problem taking twenty wickets. If there is, serious questions will need to be asked and heads should roll.

On that basis, I'd like to see a bolstered batting order, with any spin bowling being shared around between Smith, North and Katich behind a pace attack of Johnson, Hilfenhaus, whoever gets the nod between Siddle and Bollinger with Watson being expected to chip in with his share of the load.

Adelaide will be a different kettle of fish, and Doherty may well be back in the picture then.