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....