Looking at events on the cricket field over the past month you'd have to be scratching your head and wondering how India managed to rise as far up the Test pecking order as #1, wouldn't they?

Well, actually, you know the how and the why, resting as it does on a stellar batting lineup and mastery of their home conditions but the frequently remarked on fragility away from home is the factor that brings the head scratching.

In the end, despite all suggestions that they were here to win a series in Australia I've come to the conclusion that, deep down, they don't care or are convinced the attempt is futile. There seems to be a sense of being here because they have to be for a series that they're not going to win in conditions they don't like.

Maybe it's not just the administrators who are thinking the fans back at home will be disappointed for a bit, but then they'll go through the IPL bit and host a few Tests at home, which they'll duly win, and everything will be right in the applecart again.

I never thought I'd be looking towards a series of ODIs to get a sense of commitment from the opposition.

That's not to suggest India didn't have their chances on Day One in Adelaide. At 3-84 you'd have conceded the first session to them, but Tests aren't necessarily won in a session. They're often lost in one, but that's almost invariably because the momentum has been handed to the opposition and they're not going to hand it back in a hurry.

It certainly looked like acting captain Sehwag was doing his best to wrest the initiative when he brought Ashwin into the attack, obviously looking to undo Warner by taking the pace off the ball and denying him the chance to establish a rhythm. One wonders how often the opposition will try the same thing in the future, because it certainly seemed to work.

Admittedly it was Zaheer rather than Ashwin who got him LBW, and the decision certainly could've gone the other way, looking to be high and possibly going down the leg side. It was the sort of decision that probably would have been referred under the DRS, and could have gone either way. It certainly wasn't one of the howlers the DRS is meant to avoid.

While Warner hadn't looked settled, Marsh was unsteady from the time he walked to the crease, and an early departure came as no surprise. Bowled through the gate, playing for non-existent turn, that probably marked the end of this incarnation of his Test career.

It certainly seems to have cleared up the identity of the player who'll be making way for Watson when he eventually makes his way back into the side, but it'd be handy to have a few extra cards up the sleeve. I missed the Mark Nicholas chat with National Selector John Inverarity during the tea break, but suspect Invers would have been keeping the cards close to the chest.

Seriously, though, it's a situation where you'd like to have at least two alternatives to a non-performing Marsh with an injured Watson in the wings.

If Marsh is this uncertain with no one breathing down his neck, having obviously been given the card as next cab off the rank while he got over the back problem one doesn't like his chances come crunch time against a committed opposition. Sure, Warner going early wasn't the way things were supposed to go, but when you bat Three you have to be ready to go in to face the second ball of the innings.

Considering evidence to hand, Marsh may not be a Three, could be an opener, but the confidence bit kicks in there as well, and probably doesn't fit in further down the order.

Given the suspicion that Ponting won't be holding that press conference any time soon in the interim I'd be inclined to move him up to Three, shuffle Clarke into Four if Watson's still out injured, and throw the new face in at Five with a chance to establish himself. Otherwise, with Watto fit, bat him Four.

Despite Warner's early departure this time around, given the fact you can always expect to lose an opener early in the piece, the Warner-Cowan combo looks good in the short term, despite the soft dismissal that caused Cowan's demise in the run in to the lunch break.

I suspect the original rationale behind Marsh at Three was the third opener option rather than we think he's a genuine Three, so with a more stable opening combination we can possibly go looking elsewhere in the order as the avenue to introduce new blood.

Despite the 250 run partnership between Ponting and Clarke, there's a definite need to establish options, so the next month or so will be interesting (to say the least).

Again, despite that fourth wicket partnership that'll hopefully cruise past three fifty in the morning session Australia's dominant position at the end of Day One has as much to do with India's lack of drive as the skills of two top class bats.

In that department, Geoff Lawson was particularly interesting in the radio commentary, repeatedly stressing that on this type of wicket the runs are going to come, there's not a lot you can do to stop them, and you need to set fields that'll be likely to grab whatever chances they're given and then bowl to them according to a predetermined plan.

Whether Ashwin to Warner was a predetermined plan is, of course, something we'll never know for sure, but wandering slips and ineffective dives in the field aren't going to give your bowlers much heart while they're getting carted, are they?

No, better to go with three slips and a gully and delegate outfield duties to a couple of committed fielders with a degree of pride in their work.

So, from here? Bat all day. On that basis a total around 750 looks doable. Bat on into the third morning and declare around the 800 mark, setting 600 to avoid the follow on with a deck that may be starting to come through at two heights and see how young Mr Lyon goes with the ball.

We'll be needing someone of his ilk in India in two years' time...