Well, it should have been a cakewalk, and yesterday's result shows how close this two Test series could have been had the Black Caps held heir chances in Brisbane.

Ironically, the injury to Vettori that gave Boult his first Test cap may well have been the difference between the sides this time around. Without the spinner to clean up the tail the four man pace attack did the job for the Kiwis and out-bowled a developing attack that's not quite there yet.

You could also go around pointing out that any team that can lose 8/74 deserves to lose, but in the meantime it's back to the drawing board while we wait for the two Chairman's XI games against India to sort out a team for Melbourne.

We have, however, answered a couple of questions.

There's no doubt that Warner has done enough to hold his spot, and there's no way that Hughes can hold his. Clarke has done a good enough job as captain, but needs runs, and Pattinson, Siddle and Lyon are the basis of a decent bowling attack. So, injury permitting, we've got an eleven comprising:

Warner, Two, Three, Four, Clarke, Six, Keeper, Eight, Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon.

I noted, on my flick through the websites this morning, a predictable call from Bob Simpson for Simon Katich to be recalled and installed as captain. Presumably that also would involve dropping Clarke, given the apparent notion that you can't have both of them sharing a dressing room, despite the fact that they both play for New South Wales.

I filed the Simmo comment under Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? Simmo has, after all, been working with Katich fairly closely.

I was, however, more taken by his comment that the policy when he took over as coach was to decide who were the best seventeen players in Australia and then give them as many chances you could possibly get.

That mirrors my thoughts as I made my way back down Kennedy Street at lunchtime yesterday, and, arguably, immediately rules out Ponting and Hussey. Probably rules out Katich as well, when you look at it closely, but it's an idea with definite merit.

My thoughts yesterday were along the lines of an eleven for Melbourne, with shadow players to round out a squad of twenty and further shadows to cover any withdrawals due to injury, loss of form or retirement.

That retirement bit, by the way, is only there as an at some point in a relatively distant future consideration.

No, eleven for Melbourne, plus a backup keeper and all-rounder, three bats and four bowlers. We've acknowledged that the bowlers need to be managed carefully, so there's the justification for a four/three split between ball and bat.

Hopefully, out of that group of twenty you'd have enough talent to mould into a long term proposition, and if it was given some degree of official confirmation it could form the basis of communication between the selection panel and the players on the fringe of national selection.

While we're looking at these things we need to ensure that decisions are based on cricket factors and long term strategic planning rather than short term issues, sentiment and player preferences.

In terms of the big picture clearly none of the three aforementioned elder statesmen have much to offer beyond this summer, and if you're going to start planning for the future, with Katich gone you can't see much point in holding on to Ponting and Hussey beyond yesterday.

Actually, there's not much point in holding onto Ponting or Hussey, though Punter may get a short term reprieve. If he does it has to be on the understanding that he'll be holding that press conference before a specified point in the future. If he can't agree to do that, he should go now, and if he does agree and fails to follow through that should be the end of him.

Yes, he'd like to play on through the summer, and Mr Cricket would like to hang around at least as far as Perth, but it's fairly clear bowing to player and captaincy preferences has been a major factor in creating the pickle we find ourselves in.

Mitchell Johnson was a match-winner, an essential member of the attack, and an all-rounder in the making and had to be persisted with, which meant that Watson had to open, which in turn helped push Katich onto the sidelines when someone decided Hughes had done enough to merit a recall, because we always had Watto at the other end, which meant that Khawaja…

Speaking of Khawaja, where does he fit in all this? He's no good thing to hold his spot at Three, but when you look at it much of his run of low scores comes from arriving at the crease early after the departure of a certain opener caught Guptill, bowled Martin.

It will be very interesting to see how he goes for the Chairman's XI at Manuka, and since what transpires in the nation's capital is going to have a significant influence on the team selected for Boxing Day it's probably a matter of wait and see and try to figure out the jigsaw once we've got some form to go on and a better appreciation of where Messrs Watson, Marsh and Cummins are as far as fitness goes.

Back some time over the weekend....

In the absence of solid rain I guess you'd be looking at a cakewalk.

Taking 7/87 in the two and a half hours before lunch, of course, set things up nicely, starting with Ponting's second sljp snare that removed Kane Williamson from the equation. At four for with Brownlie in early on a day that looked like the ball was going to continue to do things you'd have been fairly upbeat, but I find it difficult come up with any description other than threw it away after watching the Black Caps' tail fold.

In a situation that literally sreamed for occupying the crease, grabbing any runs that were there and turning the runs required/remaining time quotient as much in your favour as you can manage, the batting from the lower order after Pattinson removed Taylor and Brownlie suggested that we were somewhere around lunch time on Day Four rather than Day Three, another hundred runs to the good and the key factor was getting Australia back at the batting crease ASAP.

Overall, I thought Australia bowled well in a situation that involved drying up of the run rate and picking up chances as and when they arrived.

Under the old regime this would have involved working back of a length and waiting for a mistake, but the keep it pitched up and look for the nicks policy came good, Starc's bouncer unsettled Brownlie and Lyon rolled up the tail as the Kiwis did their best to co-operate by seeking out Hussey at deep long on.

This Australianattack is still a work in progress, but at least it's a work that's progressing towards a target. Siddle is actually getting the ball to swing, Pattinson will hopefully be around for a long time, Lyon looks the best finger spin option we've had in a long time, Starc looks a viable option to Johnson and Bollinger and we've got a number of contenders on the sidelines waiting for their go.

So we're looking good in that department.

When it comes to the batting, it's a matter of looking at the way we pad out the bowling order, and where we go from there.

There's an obvious need for a batting all-rounder, and Watson's the walk-up starter in that role, with Daniel Christian as the fallback and Mitchell Marsh as an emerging possibility for the same role.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to see the three of them in the same side on the subcontinent, with Pattinson or Cummins as the specialist quick and two specialist spinners and part time tweaking from Clarke and Warner. In that sort of line up you'd have Marsh or Christian at Eight, the keeper at Seven and t'other one at Six.

But that's getting a bit ahead of things.

First up it's a matter of sorting out what happens with Watto, where he fits into the batting order, how much he bowls and whether he needs cover.

Hughes has looked better second time around, but he's no good thing for Melbourne, regardless of how many he scores this time around.

On a game by game basis a hundred to Hughes might save his spot, but the same questions are going to be asked, and somewhere down the track they're going to be asked by an attack that's a bit more penetrative than the tradesman-like Kiwis. At that point we'll be playing someone in the upper echelons of the Test rankings and it's going to count.

So there's the message to Messrs Ponting and Hussey. We're heading for Number Three in the Test rankings. That's going to involve beating at least one out of England, India and South Africa, and we need to do that both at home and away.

Seriously, gents, how long do you see yourself fitting into that long-term picture? Time for a press conference in Hobart and another somewhere around Perth at the very latest.

It will be interesting to see how the national selection panel go about things in the wake of yesterday's remarkable first session.

Unlike Day One, which didn't produce much that needed in-depth reflection as far as Australia was concerned, there are a couple of major decisions that will need to be taken in the wake of a morning session where we lost 6/69.

It's already obvious that Hughes will be replaced for Melbourne, but in a situation where you'd have been looking for someone to put his hand up the way Dean Brownlie did for the Black Caps. His knock on the opening day was the difference between the two teams, and if you're a Kiwi supporter you'd be looking forward to a lengthy spell with D. Brownlie firmly entrenched in the middle order.

Kiwi supporters would also be upbeat about Boult and Bracewell as long term prospects, and while Vettori would be an automatic selection if fit, you'd think he'd be regaining his place at the expense of Southee or Martin rather than either of the two newcomers.

Williamson and Taylor have a chance to nail things down this morning, with Brownlie still to come, a deck that seems to have flattened out and the prospect of bowling to defend a total that will be closer to 400 than 200.

The question of whether that four man pace attack will be able to do the job on a wearing surface without the spin option will make for fascinating viewing on Monday and Tuesday but as a bowling group I thought they looked a better, more balanced unit than our three quicks and a spinner, though Lyon will be a key player on Day Three.

That second innings, however, is going to raise a number of issues, and hopefully deliver at least one answer. Unlike the first dig, when the bowlers were able to ask constant questions,

One assumes that Day Four will offer the best conditions fore batting, with Day Five presumably throwing a wearing pitch into the equation.

With Hughes' fate seemingly sealed, he will, of course, more than likely come up with a big hundred, but I suspect that a double century would only delay the inevitable. The opener's role is to display a bit of stickability on Day One in bowler-friendly conditions, and it seems Hughes hasn't sorted out his technique to the point where can consistently answer the questions the opposing attack will be posing.

Warner, one assumes, will have the series against India to cement his spot at the top of the order, but a score here would help his cause immeasurably. The big question will concern his opening partner in Melbourne.

Runs to Khawaja in the second innings here will cement his spot, and he could, if necessary move up one spot if the panel wanted to see Watson batting higher than Six.

Ponting, to all intents and purposes, will be batting for his place in the side for Melbourne, though I suspect he'd be best advised to hold the press conference and make the announcement before the Indians take on the Cricket Australia Chairman’s XI at Manuka Oval next Thursday.

If Ponting holds his place it will only be because the panel wants his experience at Four while they sort out One, Two, Three and Six. Clarke is safe at Five, but that's the only certainty apart from Warner's spot at the top of the order.

Much of that reshuffle will come down to the question of how much bowling Watson can expect to do. If the answer is none, you could make a case for putting him back to open, but that raises the question of where he bats when he's fit to bowl again.

No, Watson at Four or Six.

Khawaja and a fit Marsh look like filling Two and Three, though which of them goes where is still an issue.

The final spot in the batting order will depend on that Watson bowling issue. Given the need for a fourth seamer, if Watto's not going to bowl you'll want Christian at six. If you've got a question about Watto breaking down you probably still want Christian at Six, which means the only spot for Watson is Four, in which case it's Bye Bye Punter.

But that's the long term issue. More immediately, we have Starc and Siddle looking to cement their place in the attack and the question of how many we're going to be chasing and when the chase is going to start. That's the sort of issue that'll make for fascinating viewing and underlines the fact that there's nothing quite like Test Cricket in the sporting universe.

Rain interruptions at Bellerive yesterday and evaporation problems associated with last night's bottle of red mean I'm pushing it if I'm going to get this tapped out and published, hurl myself at the shower, rock up to the butcher on the corner and get back before what I assume will be a nine o'clock Queensland time resumption to make up for lost time.

Fortunately yesterday's play didn't produce much that needs in-depth reflection.

Another Pattinson five-for confirmed the impression from The Gabba and underlines my comment that he mightn't match his second innings figures from there too often but while he's working that line and length the possibility will always be there.

Lyon, once again, was tidy under conditions that didn't suit, Siddle was reasonably impressive in the work horse role and Starc didn't deliver enough to cement his place in the side when Cummins comes back into calculations.

The Black Caps batting was more or less what you'd expect in the conditions and could well have gone from five for to all out in a hurry without Brownlie's sterling effort with the bat. He's a definite find, and had Vettori been able to take his place in the line up we'd have been chasing a fair bit more than 150.

Five for sixty was about what you'd expect from that line up against this attack in those conditions, and ninety from the bottom half of the order was a reasonably sound effort under the circumstances.

Hughes' dismissal and the problems Warner and Khawaja experienced against the new ball in general and Martin in particular suggests things wouldn't have been all that different had Clarke lost the toss or elected to bat in the morning.

Left arm debutant Boult looked handy through his two overs and if rain hadn't intervened when it did Australia could well have been three, four or five for by the time the scheduled stumps rolled around.

As far as Hughes is concerned, regardless of what he manages in the second dig, it's probably a matter of who rather than whether or when, and you'd suspect that Mr Cricket's days are numbered as well. I'm still inclined towards Marsh for Hughes and Watson for Hussey, though if the selectors go for Watto at the top of the order they may well decide they need the extra bowler in Christian at six.

Time will, as always, tell.

In the quest for an attack that'll take twenty wickets James Pattinson definitely looks the goods, provided he can maintain the same line and length he bowled yesterday. He might be pushing to match the figures he had in the middle of that spell but as long as he's bowling that line and length the possibility will be there.

Remember that most of the radio commentators were bullish about Day Four as the best batting day on that particular Gabba deck…

And that spell put a big tick beside McDermott's fuller length, give the ball a chance to swing philosophy that had the technical staff moving the pitch parameters a metre towards the batsman when they're defining the length.

Actually, this little issue possibly confirms some long-held suspicions about the bowling coach's role in the pecking order. When Troy Cooley was brought back into the fold after his sterling effort with the English attack in 2005 I found myself scratching my head and wondering why our bowlers were't able to swing the new ball or reverse it later in the innings.

After all, the Cooley co-ordinated Poms did it in 2005 and the non-Cooley co-ordinated version did it out here last year.

From where I'm sitting it starts to look like Cooley's role as far as the blokes he was working with were concerned was to provide technical support while the bowlers sorted out the strategy. That's the same issue I raised in an earlier post (A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest) and it definitely means we need a clear channel of communication between selectors, bowling coach and players.

The selectors define what they want to see out of the attack, the coach provides the support and the bowlers deliver what they're asked to deliver rather than what they choose to define as desirable.

Pattinson with a fit Cummins looks like a sharp attack, Starc may or may not have Hobart to demonstrate what he's capable of, Copeland is lurking on the fringes and naming Christian as cover for Cutting also suggests we've got a shadow for a bowling Watson pencilled in.

Comments on ABC Radio News this morning suggest Cummins will be back for Bellerive on Friday, but I'd be inclined to stick with the same attack and see what we reckon as far as Starc and Siddle are concerned.

But we're looking good in the bowling department.

The only major question mark beside the batting group, apart from the Ponting/Hussey retirement issue (and it's clear where I'm sitting on that one) concerns Hughes at the top of the order.

When you look at that question he's only hanging on by the skin of his teeth while Watson and Marsh are on the injured list.

Personally, as far as the side for Melbourne is concerned I'd be seeing how we get through Hobart, giving the side a couple of days off and reconvening the current twelve (with Christian in for Cutting) along with Watson, Marsh and Cummins and taking a couple of days to ponder the possibilities.

Assuming Hughes' days are numbered, and Marsh and a bowling Watson are both fit, my choice, three weeks out from Boxing Day, would be Marsh for Hughes, Watson for Hussey and Cummins for Starc.

Injuries between now and then, or a non-bowling Watson would complicate matters slightly, but in the event of Watson not being right to bowl or Marsh not being fit Watson for Hughes, Christian for Hussey.

Sorry, Mr Cricket, but we need a bowling option in the middle order and if Shane persists with the belief that he can open the batting and bowl his share we still need a bowling option in the middle since his share as an opener will probably be less than his share as a middle order bat.

So, at one-up in the two Test series we can leave things for a bit. I'll be back Friday morning for a preview and, in the meantime, I've got another couple of fish to fry.

Well, for a start, never discount the impact of luck.

The Pup should never have got that ton, Starc shouldn't have got off the mark and under other circumstances we'd have been struggling to get to 295. But you ride your luck, look to accept (or take advantage of) every chance you're given, and see how far the ride takes you.

So 70 to Ponting, 139 to Clarke, 80 to Haddin, a 32 run cameo from Starc and 132 runs to the good with McCullum back in the sheds seven overs into the second innings and you'd be looking at a fairly comfortable victory, wouldn't you?

Well, you would, but there are a couple of issues regarding the steady renovation of the Australian side.

For a start, a glance at the Black Caps' bowling figures indicates the difficulty you're going to have with a four man attack where there's only really one bowler of genuine class.

This four man Australian attack has no established bowlers of genuine class, though there's the opportunity for someone to stick his hand up and claim that mantle. It doesn't mean that's going to happen today, but the opportunity's there if someone's good enough to grab it.

The ten overs from Guptill, Brownlie and Williamson only cost twenty-nine and delivered the wicket of Haddin, but the fact that four bowlers weren't enough on a good batting track underlines the importance of Watson's overs when he's there and fit to bowl and underlines the importance of someone who's good enough to count as a front line bowler in the top six.

At the moment we're still looking for an attack that'll take twenty wickets, and Watson (or someone along the same lines) is going to be a vital part of that picture.

Which inevitably brings us back to Messrs Ponting and Hussey and the timing of their departure.

Assume Watson is fit and ready to bowl at Bellerive. He must come back, so who goes out?

Now, please don't say Hughes, Warner or Khawaja.

We're looking at a long term gig at the top of the batting order, and it seems fairly obvious that if Watson's going to do his share of the bowling he can't (or rather he shouldn't) open the batting.

Personally, given the fact that he's probably the best bat in the side after Clarke and Ponting (we're talking technique and potential here, folks) it seems a waste to put him in the position where he's liable to receive a first day new ball Jaffa.

Watson's long term batting position should be at Four, Five or Six. The judge's decision should be final, and no correspondence should be entered into.

That means if he's fit for Hobart it will have to be a case of Sorry Mr Cricket unless somebody has the sense to give a press conference and announce their retirement.

One suspects that if somebody does, the somebody won't be Ricky Ponting. He seems to be labouring under the delusion that a couple of decent scores will be enough to cement his place in the side into the medium term future, which presumably, in his own mind, stretches through the series against India and the West Indies and beyond.

There's one thing we should have learned from the spin bowler shuffle debacle and that is when you've identified a bloke to fill a long term role he deserves a chance to show what he's capable of.

Hughes, Warner and Khawaja should, injury permitting, be right for Bellerive, Boxing Day and the WACA. Midway through the seres against India if the three of them haven't delivered it'll be time to be looking for replacements, and if there's one or more new faces in the mix then, they deserve a couple of games to show whether they've got what it takes.

Maybe if Khawaja doesn't look like the answer at Three you might consider keeping Ponting at Four while the new bloke finds his feet, but there would also be a case for Khawaja, who is obviously seen as a talented player with long term potential, to have a chance to cement his place in the side at Six, then work his way back up the order.

More particularly, however, recent dismissals suggest that the bowlers have established a chink in Ponting's armour, and as someone pointed out recently, umpiring referrals have closed off something he used to be getting away with as he falls away across the line.

Given the fact that it's Ricky Ponting you'd probably want to refer a close not out decision. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. We are, after all, looking at getting one of the world's greatest batsmen out, and more than likely doing it fairly early before he has a chance to do too much damage.

We've also got the case where one of the world's greatest batsmen is determined to prolong his own career, so if he's given out under the same circumstances he's going to refer the decision.

Those two factors coincide with his dismissal yesterday. Regardless of the result of the appeal there wasn't enough ball hitting the stumps to reverse the umpire's decision.

I don't know how much TV umpires watch, and how closely they look at referrals in games where they're not officiating. I don't, for that matter, know how much attention they pay to the referrals in games where they are officiating.

One suspects, however, an umpire looking at these things might come to the conclusion that when Ponting falls across the line and gets hit on the pads you can probably rule out any benefit of the doubt as far as hitting the stumps is concerned, and if Ricky refers you're not going to be left looking like a goose.

So there's an increased possibility that close calls that would have been given the benefit of the doubt back in pre-referral days will be given out. If you're talking a series where the opposition don't want the referral system that'll probably still be the case.

On that basis, if you're the opposition, you know that targetting Ponting's pads is likely to be productive. You get the decision, Ricky'll refer, and Australia loses one of the two. You don't get the decision, you refer and, while you might get it overturned, you might also be creating the possibility that next time you go up for LBW the decision may come down in your favour.

We're talking the man who lost The Ashes twice and did a lot to create the circumstances we find ourselves in, so he's overstayed his welcome as far as I'm concerned. If you reckon that's a bit harsh, the LBW issue provides a cogent argument against his continued place in the side.

It is to be hoped that he'll have the sense to see where things are headed and call that press conference.

Looking into Day Four, the big question is going to be how well the new look attack performs.

Pattinson's spell yesterday afternoon was a significant improvement on anything he did in the first dig, though I thought he was still a tad too short. Siddle's three overs suggest we need to be looking elsewhere when it comes to new ball duties.

Starc has shown he can contribute useful runs with the bat, which is something we used to say about Mitchell Johnson when he was firing, and now it's a matter of seeing whether he can deliver with the ball.

Lyon will get plenty of work, and I'm expecting him to further cement his place in the attack.

And I'll be watching Haddin's glove work (not that I'm an expert in that department) and Khawaja under the lid at short leg….

Well, there is one.

Nathan Lyon definitely looks like the best off-spinning prospect since before Tim May, which does, in turn, raise the question of what happened to the very promising Dan Cullen, but let's not get ourselves distracted by side issues except to say that the issues that may have raised their ugly heads with the quest for an offie may turn up again when we go looking for a bracket of leggies and left arm tweakers who'll fill out the spin bowling resources.

As far as the spinning department is concerned, we're still feeling the aftermath of the Warne era, and it's to be hoped that we don't see the emergence of a spin bowler who dominates the way Warne did in his heyday any time soon.

In a way, it'd be nice if we could, but it took a long time to turn up the original Warne, so you wouldn't be holding your breath in the quest for Warne Clones.

No, what we want is a bracket of players jostling each other for a spot in the national side with no one being guaranteed their place on a long term basis.

Lyon looks like a medium to long term prospect on the right arm finger spin department. He's given Hauritz and Kreja something to beat and any aspiring youngster on the way through something to emulate.

Now we need a similar situation in the other two major subsets of spin bowling, and spotting a Chinaman bowler or two would be handy as well. Once we've done that there'll be a battery of bowlers to choose from when we're heading into spin-friendly territory.

The pace attack, on the other hand, looks much the same as it did yesterday morning, though you might be inclined to give them a let off based on the chances dropped off Brownlie and the fact that Vettori is a competitive scraper who's been around for long enough to build an impressive record as a lower order bat.

On the other hand, if you can't break through, or even look like breaking through in yesterday morning's circumstances you're going to have problems with a strong batting line up aren't you?

No, as far as the quicks go, we're a long way from where we'd like to be. From Pat Howard's comments about Harris, and the need for him to demonstrate his fitness over five days you wouldn't be looking towards him in the short term. The fact that Cutting bowled only nine overs against Victoria before back soreness after lengthy spells in the nets at the Gabba trying to win a Test spot would appear to rule him out of immediate contention as well.

Actually, the Cutting injury raises the rather ugly question of what might have happened if he'd got the nod ahead of Pattinson.

As far as alternative candidates are concerned, you'd assume Cummins would fit into the frame if fit.

If not the next NSW cabs off the rank would have to be Josh Hazlewood (31.4-4-111-4) and Copeland (32-14-62-2) based on those performances against WA. That assessment might seem a little Blues-friendly as far as assessments are concerned, but without Cutting and Harris Queensland don't appear to have asked too many questions of the Vics, there doesn't appear to be much on offer from Sandgroper territory and the leading non-Blues alternatives would appear to be SA's Peter George and Mr Hilfenhaus.

Plenty of question marks and not many answers in that lot...

We're also light on for answers when it comes to the top order batting.

I was looking for a big partnership between Hughes and Warner in four innings against the Black Caps, and fully expected we'd find ourselves two for not many with both openers back in the sheds somewhere along the line. That, after all, is in the nature of the beast when it comes to opening the batting.

In this case, however, it's a matter of old questions unanswered rather than new issues raised. There's a technical issue with Warner that might have been exacerbated by a short spell before lunch and an over from Vettori, but anyone who sways back is always going to have problems if the ball follows him.

After yesterday's remarks about ten good balls Warner went to one of them and Hughes copped another, so while you wouldn't be happy at 2 for 25 it's always a likely scenario. Unanswered questions rather than new issues raised.

Khawaja's run out was something that happens, though you'd suspect that there was a degree of not quite turned on in there as well. One wonders whether there are still running between the wickets drills in the team preparation. If there ain't, there should be.

Which brings us, of course, to the two other major issues that came out of the day's play. I haven't been privy to the comments in the Trans-Tasman press, but would offer these comments on the enforcement of the front foot no ball rule.

First, we're supposed to be looking at ninety overs in a day, and the situation that arose with the light meters yesterday wasn't desirable, but rules are rules and if they've been told to work this way where light meter readings are concerned, this is the way you work.

One suspects ninety overs in a day also comes into play where the front foot no ball is concerned.

You know he quicks are going to be right up there on the line, so how much leeway do they get?

Assuming you're an umpire do you call the bowler every time you reckon he's stepped over?

Umpiring kids, I tried to give a warning when they were getting close, suggest they move the mark back about that much, and then call every one from then on.

In most of those cases we were looking at kids in line for rep. selection, so if I didn't call them someone else probably would further down the line.

If you're trying to get through ninety overs in a Test day, that approach will be problematic.

Seriously, if the umpires called every front foot no ball you'd end up with a two-front furore concerning over rates as well as the was it/wasn't it forensic replay on the TV coverage.

Faced with that alternative, the current situation where it seems the policy is call it when it's blatant, and refer it upstairs if you've got a question mark and a wicket falls off the delivery seems fair enough from where I'm sitting.

There is a solution that would solve over rates and go close to taking front foot no balls out of the question. All you'd need would be a formula that allowed specified reductions from the ninety for specific interruptions on the field, calculate the number of overs that are missing and impose a bonus runs to the batting side penalty based on the highest scoring overs from the day's play.

However, if you think that idea has any chance of getting through the ICC I really need to talk you about this collection of the world's finest bridges I happen to have for sale….

Well, to be Perfectly Francis (Thank you Fred Dagg), not a great deal that we didn't already suspect.

We already knew McCullum could whack the ball around, that Vettori could stick around (the man has a couple of Test match hundreds, after all) and that this probably wasn't a batting order that was going to be demolishing too many attacks on the way to forcing the Black Caps into the top half-dozen Test playing nations.

As far as the bating goes, I think we can refer to a number of soft dismissals and leave it at that. After all, I'm totally unfamiliar with the alternatives on the New Zealand cricket scene, and all I can go on is what I've seen.

In any case, I'm more concerned with the evolution of the Australian side and the way back into the Number Three spot on the Test rankings, which means rolling one out of England, India and South Africa out of that spot.

The most likely means of doing that in the short term is a series win against India, which will mean taking twenty wickets against a strong batting line-up.

On the strength of what we saw yesterday, this attack isn't going to be able to do that.

It's often remarked that when it comes to bowling, all you need to do is to send down ten good wicket-taking deliveries. Allowing for the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, the reality is that when you take ten wickets some will come from certified Jaffas, some from soft dismissals and some from crap balls that didn't deserve a wicket.

I think it's fair enough to describe most of yesterdays five-for as soft dismissals, and Jaffas were few and far between. They're usually few and far between, but the numbers were down and the intervening distances greater.

But there are a few things that are obvious.

First, as a spinner Lyon is coming along rather nicely. He's now looking good to hold down his place in the side, which means Messrs Hauritz and Kreja have something to top if they're looking for a recall.

Now we need to be looking for a leggie and a left arm orthodox to fill out the spin contenders' ranks.

Next, it's obvious that Peter Siddle isn't the man to lead the attack much beyond this game. That's not to suggest he can't hold down a place in the side, but he's a twenty-five to thirty overs in a day mostly up the hill into the breeze back of a length workhorse rather than a man who's going to come out and lead the attack. Mind you, in this attack, he's the leader by default on the strength of seniority, but that's not a situation that's going to last.

As far as the rest of the attack is concerned, what we saw yesterday underlines how much we need Watson in the side, and the importance of the overs he bowls.

Take out the nerves on debut factor, and Pattinson's later spells were a significant improvement on the first, so there's potential there. Subtract the 13 that came off his first over from the analysis and 10/1/37/1 is a bit more expensive than you'd like, but it's early days yet,

Starc was, I thought, the better of the debutants, got a bit of shape back into the bat to go with the left arm jagging across staple, and has clearly shown that there are alternatives to Bollinger when you're looking for a non-Johnson left armer. With Johnson out for most of the summer, we'd seem to have that side of things covered.

Siddle, who probably wouldn't have been taking the new ball under other circumstances, was tidy, but tended to be a bit short, underlining what should be his actual role in the attack rather than his present leader by default status.

As an aside, in a four man bowling attack sending down ninety overs in a day you're going to be looking at someone to send down twenty-five to thirty, two to look after twenty to twenty-five and one to chip in somewhere between ten and twenty.

Under normal circumstances, with Watson fit, he'd be looking at the ten to twenty role and you'd be scaling things back with an extra specialist bowler, so that you'd have three blokes who could send down fifteen to twenty-five and the workhorse responsible for twenty-five plus. Lyon would be one of the blokes in the middle, Siddle would be a prime contender for the workhorse role and you'd have the means to limit the workload on the likes of young Cummins.

Then, of course, we come to the fielding, where we need to start by questioning the absence of the fielding coach. I don't know what happened with Mike Young and Steve Rixon, but it's obvious we need someone sharpening things up. Yesterday was tidy at best, with several notable lapses.

Let's just say there's no way Michael Clarke should be at first slip and leave it at that, shall we? Watson will be back in that role, but there's a definite need to work out a viable and reliable slip cordon.

The other situation that needs close examination is Khawaja at bat pad. He may well be the best option for the position out of the current eleven, but he's going to need a lot of work if he's going to be a long term in close man. I thought he tended to move his weight backwards by instinct and tended to come up too early. I don't know a whole lot about the technical side of coaching wicketkeepers and bat pads, but I do know that once you've started to go up or back it's hard to deliver a split second change forward or downwards.

So there's a bit to work on, some promising signs and the interesting prospect of seeing how quickly we can grab these last five wickets. That, as far as I can see, equates to keeping Vettori quiet and working over the bloke at the other end. Should be interesting.

Then we'll see Hughes, Warner and Khawaja against their attack at that will be interesting, taking note of suggestions that young Bracewell is the new Richard Hadlee.