That does not, of course, mean that the rest of the series won't be tightly fought and/or confrontational, but the niggle, unlike the sledge (which can be delivered from a distance) only works when you're close enough to really get under the opposition's skin.

That's on the playing field, anyway. Off the paddock there are all sorts of ways of getting the niggle in.

One of the best exponents was, Sourav Ganguly, whose patrician demeanour, apparent disdain for matters Australians would regard as key elements in team bonding (staying at the same hotel, for instance) and stubborn refusal to deliver himself to the toss on time were guaranteed to irritate Steve Waugh and company.

Ironically, the DRS, which I saw as a significant distractive issue turned out to be one of the key elements in the outcome, since the majority of umpiring mistakes that might have been overruled under the DRS went in Australia's favour when we were batting on Day Three.

Michael Hussey was bound to go eventually, but India needed to get him on Day Three, didn't they? And if they had, Clarke mightn't have been able to use Lyon as a nightwatchman to protect Pattinson, who was supposed to bat at Nine.

You could sense the anti-DRS case was running out of team when the criticism of the technology went from unreliability to the suggestion that grounds in, say Chittagong or Georgetown, Guyana mightn't have access to replays of the same high quality that are available here.

When you get into that sort of hair splitting the case is, effectively, lost, because you're conceding that the accuracy isn't such a great issue.

But the DRS was only one of the factors that could have brought things closer.

India's inability to remove the lower order in both innings was a significant factor in building that just under three hundred lead, as we went from 7-286 (Haddin gone) and 8-291 (Siddle) to 333 in the first dig and 6-148 (Haddin) to 240 in the second.

Much of that second innings recovery was, IMHO, down to the use of Lyon ahead of Pattinson with the bat, and suggests Clarke has a bit more tactical nous than his predecessor. Lyon might only have lasted eleven deliveries, but that was almost two overs Pattinson didn't have to face on Day Three,

Starting with a 230 runs lead and two wickets in hand, once Hussey was gone that final partnership should never have got us another fifty runs on, and the Zaheer Khan drop off Pattinson was another decisive factor. Pattinson was on 15 at the time and went on to make 37 not.

The other decisive factor was, of course, the Australian attack, and you'd almost be inclined to suspect Clarke wouldn't mind if, say, Pattinson were suspended for a game because you might well be reluctant to break up this combination to bring back Cummins or Harris.

It was interesting to hear the radio commentators invoking the old Dennis Lillee adage about retaliating first, and Clarke's gesture towards the cap badge just before the bouncer that brought Zaheer Khan's dismissal suggests there's a bit more old fashioned hard-nosed captaincy under that latte-sipping metrosexual exterior. Interesting.

It also suggests that when the niggle does arrive we won't be taking too many backward steps.

Had things been closer, we may well have seen something along the limes of the Gambhir-Pattinson incident from the first innings, many more instances of batsmen pulling away at the last minute because of talk behind the back or movement in the line of sight.

Had things got really tight towards the end with the Indian tail exposed I'm sure we would have heard much more about intimidatory bowling.

But regardless of an outstanding performance with bat and ball from the Australian lower order that's not to suggest that everything is rosy in the garden. The batting is still a major problem and the fielding, while on the way up, isn't as sharp as it should be.

And it's the batting that's going to continue to be an issue over the next twelve months.

You might, on the basis of a 60 to Ponting and 89 to Hussey be saying their places in the side have been cemented, but that's only for this series while there's no Watson on the horizon and no one making big scores in the Sheffield Shield because they're all playing Big Bash T20.

Pause for a moment, if you will, to consider Australia's schedule over the next twelve months. We've got a tour to the West Indies for five ODIs, two T20s and three Tests, five ODIs against England and one against Ireland, then the World Twenty20 in Sri Lanka before home series against South Africa and Sri Lanka.

How many of those intervening series are likely to feature Ponting and Hussey?

They're out of the T20 picture for a start, and while you might want one or both for the ODIs in England, it's a series that doesn't appear to have any real significance apart from fulfilling TV broadcast rights obligations.

You might, admittedly, think about including them in the side for the Tests in the Caribbean, but with the Windies not travelling that well at the moment and a series that's going to clash with next year's IPL, if that isn't an opportunity to have a good look at the other batting option before the series against South Africa I don't know what is.

There should be at least one full round of Shield cricket before South Africa arrives, so you'd be hoping the selection panel would be suggesting Messrs Ponting and Hussey enjoy the off season and come back refreshed for South Africa, when the side will be selected on current revealed form.

Alternatively, of course, they can hold a press conference.

Actually, a press conference might be a very good idea, even if it's just to say that they're looking forward to the break and a fresh start against the Proteas.

While we're busily handing out gold stars and placing red ticks beside bowlers' names, one inevitably comes back to wondering what the hell went on in the much vaunted batting camp.

Actually, we can probably guess what went on in the batting camp, based on what we've already been told, but that begs the question of whether the actual problems have been identified.

Yesterday's effort with the ball through the first session was as good a performance as you're going to get from an emerging attack in conditions that weren't totally bowler-friendly. One notes comments from both sides about never really being in on this pitch, accepts that there's some validity in them, and then goes on to applaud the manner in which the quicks stuck to the new bowling plan and had persistence pay off big time.

When we're looking at that, there are two things that have to be noted. The first is Craig McDermott's directive to pitch it up and give the ball a chance to swing. With that fuller length all the bowlers look much more dangerous by doing things that we weren't quite managing to do under the old regime.

Like swinging the ball when it's new and getting it to reverse later on.

One also notes little things like the revisions in Hilfenhaus' action that combined with the change in definition of a good length to deliver his first Test five-for.

So, I hear you ask in your relentless quest for knowledge, why can't we do the same thing with the batting?

Well, in a way you could, but it's going to take a lot more work than a direction to the technical staff to change the good length parameters by moving them a metre towards the bat.

What follows may be a little on the technical side, may not be an accurate depiction of current thinking at the top level and is definitely the sort of thing a cricket purist could spend a lot of time debating with a glass of amber fluid in one hand while the other performs the regulation hand gestures required when discussing batting technique.

The first thing that should be noted is that orthodox notions of technique have evolved over time, and represent a gradual tweaking of technical issues that date back well into the nineteenth century and the days of uncovered pitches in English conditions. As the game has evolved some of those issues have been taken out of the equation (i.e. uncovered pitches) and conditions in countries outside England have taken some of the English factors out of play. You also have techniques developed on consistent, artificial surfaces that don't quite demand the same precision associated with playing on turf.

But if I had to identify the two key elements in the orthodox batting technique, they're the issues associated with the movement of the front foot and the subsequent positioning of the head.

A picture, they say, is worth a thousand words, so, in the interests of brevity, let's have a picture.




So, what have we got here?

First the lines.

The most important of them are the horizontal one that designates a good length and the vertical one that represents the batsman's eye line" as defined by his stance.

The good length decides whether you play forward or back, the eye line determines whether you're playing to the off side or the leg side.

Of the two other vertical lines the front foot leg side line defines the limit of where you can get to and actually hit the ball on the leg side. Anything on the other side of it is basically unhittable, which is why they're so strict on Wides in limited overs cricket.

The second line, designating the danger zone represents a line that's not quite wide enough to cut, but possibly not close enough to hook or pull. If you're a fast bowler who's aiming to bowl short, this is where you want the ball because a cross bat shot will be difficult to control, and there's the possibility of physical harm if the batsman can't avoid or hit the ball.

From there, it's a matter of moving your feet into a position where your head is over the line of the ball. The only shots where this doesn't apply are the cuts, which is why the coaching manuals I read as a kid suggested avoiding the shot until September (i.e. the very end of the English season).

You can see roughly where the front foot needs to go for the front foot shots , and one notes that moving the front foot to the leg side is a key component of the hook and pull shot.

I could go on at much greater length about all this, but let's leave it at that for the moment and consider what happens when you don't get your head over the ball, which is a difficulty in picking up the line of the ball and a subsequent vulnerability when the ball moves through the air or off the deck.

With the number of played ons in this game, does that last bit sound sort of familiar.

Now, it's quite possible to throw the bat at a ball pitched outside off stump without getting your front foot across to the line. It's even possible to take your foot forward and hoick the ball over onto the leg side. It's something limited overs cricket encourages, but it leaves the bat susceptible to the ball that does something.

And this is where the difficulty lies. It's easy enough to change the parameters when you're looking at the bowling, and once you have you're down to tweaking and refining.

With the bat you're looking at breaking down long standing habits, even if you have managed to correctly identify the technical issues, and we're talking something that's going to take more than a couple of days of what some of the radio commentators were labelling naughty boy nets.

That's about enough on the subject for now, though I'm always up for a lengthy discussion of such matters…

So, what about today?

Well, to state the bleeding obvious, it's all down to how long we bat. A 230 run lead may already be enough, but 250 would be better. 300 is possibly beyond reach, but you never know. Maybe if Hussey and Pattinson can make it through the first hour it might be gettable. The highest successful chase in an MCG Test is in the 330s, so you'd guess anything beyond that would be ungettable.

Or it should be, if you're talking an ordinary Test side.

This Indian side, of course, isn't an ordinary batting order. If you had to pick an order most likely in world cricket at the moment I suspect this is the one you might go for.

Regardless of the target set, today is the day that will decide the game, and batting through to lunch would leave two sessions for the four man attack to operate in, with the possibility of overnight rest if the game goes into Day Five.

On that basis it's going to be up to Pattinson, Siddle and Hilfenhaus to stick to the established bowling plan and see where it takes us.

Above all, the whole Australian side must ignore the niggle that will come as sure as the blood follows a punch on the nose.

If I had to identify a possible source for that, it'll be the suggestion of movement around the sight screen as the bowler is running in. There'll be others, of course. Catches will be disputed, we'll have some argy bargy about bowlers' follow throughs, and I expect there'll be something very close to an ugly incident some time between lunch and tea, with another between tea and stumps.

But those, incidents when they come, and I'm sure they will, must be recognized for the gamesmanship they almost certainly will be. India are here to win the series, and you wouldn't be expecting them to remove any weapons from the arsenal, would you?

Oh, and if I was in charge of the MCG I'd be barricading off the seats twenty metres on either side of the sight screens and ensuring absolutely no one can get in there.

And I'd have had those barriers in place before the Indian side arrived at the ground.

Or not. As the case may be.

Last time we were talking advice, and adding the and disregards the rest bit from the Paul Simon song, but this time we're talking snicks, aren't we?

Fielders and bowlers are very good at hearing snicks, even where there might not be a snick at all, a factor that results in regular high volume demands for an independent adjudication.

Batsmen (and, yes, I know I could be using batters, but I'm inclined to the view that batter is something you put on fish, and I prefer my fish without the slightest hint of violence, but, as I frequently do, digress)….

Batsmen, on the other hand, tend towards deafness, and are disinclined to notice associated tremors on the willow, which explains the frequency of discussions about walking, doesn't it?

Amid the controversy, sometimes the independent adjudication delivers an assessment that's at odds with the strongly held view of one of the interested parties.

Which is why we have this DRS, isn't it?

There is, of course, another reason why the beast exists, namely the propensity of television networks to conduct repeated forensic examination of the accuracy of the aforementioned independent adjudication.

Of course, when they were making those forensic examinations in the pre-DRS era they'd rabbit on endlessly about how wonderful it would be if the umpires were able to have access to all this marvellous technology while they proudly put their latest little toy through its paces.

And, yes, I know this is old territory, but I think it's important.

Having come up with a system that works pretty well from where I'm sitting, one wonders why it isn't universally accepted, and the only reason I can see for an argument about the accuracy of the technology is a perception that its use or non-use is going to be advantageous to the side in question.

Two referrals should be enough to eliminate obvious howlers, and a prudent captain won't waste his first one on a vague possibility that you might get Tendulkar cheaply. You might, after all, need that one when he's on a hundred and ninety, putting the attack to the sword and they're eight-for.

Trying it on for Sehwag early in the piece and losing one with Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Dhoni to come isn't exactly smart thinking either.

It's a bit different when your side is batting, of course, but if you've got a top order bat who repeatedly asks for unsuccessful referrals he'd want to be scoring a swag of runs, wouldn't he?

Given the fact that Sachin Tendulkar is a vocal critic of the DRS (strange, he's been on the wrong end of more dodgy decisions than some nations' entire Test XIs) I'm inclined to scratch my head and wonder what on earth is going on.

That mystification was significantly underscored by Harsha Bhogle's remarks on the matter on ABC radio yesterday morning.

From his point of view the technology is inadequate since the hot spot failed to detect the snick that was actually there.

As a rule, the absence of forensic evidence tends to eliminate possibilities, but there you go. A man hears what he wants to hear…

Even when there's no forensic evidence to support the allegation.

But all this does is underline the fact that we've got an Indian side that's here to win a series, and, arguably, are lining up as many factors as they cam on their side of the fence, while simultaneously removing as many as possible from the other side.

Fair enough. Under similar circumstances we'd be doing exactly the same, wouldn't we?

All of which underlines the fact that we've got a close contest on our hands at the moment, and, hopefully, a tense struggle through four Tests.

Based on what happened on the field yesterday we've got a beauty on our hands.

Given the presence of Sehwag, Dravid and Tendulkar at the crease the emerging Australian attack went about their business remarkably well.

Pattinson continues to impress as one spearhead, and there's the prospect of Cummins as the counterfoil. Siddle is showing the benefits of the change in bowling approach, Hilfenhaus looks much better than he did this time last year. Against this batting order I thought they've gone rather well, though I note with some alarm seven-sixty-fifths of the overs bowler coming from Messrs Hussey and Warner.

And Lyon, against a batting lineup that probably eats several finger spinners before breakfast, acquitted himself rather well. He's still a work in progress, but at least he's making progress.

And then, of course, there was the batting. That first ball after the tea break, for example.

But it's only one example.

At three-for, with Laxman, Kohli and Dhoni to come and a tail that'll probably wag itself you'd probably regard something around four hundred and fifty as par, so the first hour or so this morning will, in the currently popular parlance, be key.

But, as usual, we knew that, didn't we.

Actually, all of this merely underlines long-standing knowledge, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, given form over the years you have to suspect as things go down to the wire we'll have the increased possibility of fireworks. The niggle has started already with the DRS bit, and the Pattinson-Sehwag disagreement over the appropriate path for a bowler's follow through suggests we're in for increasing confrontation over the next few days.

Regardless of the outcome of this match, you can confidently expect more of the same when hostilities resume in Sydney, Perth and Adelaide.

From where I'm sitting it's effectively a game of chicken, and it'll be interesting to see who takes the backward step I don't think it's going to be India….

Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

That, a quick Google reveals, comes from the pen of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, though you'll find remarkably similar sentiments expressed by Lycurgus, Sophocles, Euripides, Seneca and John Dryden.

And that quote makes a handy counterpoint to headlines like Poor decisions mar Test series opener and opening statements like Three dubious umpiring decisions and the lack of a video review system.

After Day One it's obvious that we're in for a very hard fought and intensely contested series, but then we already knew that, didn't we?

Reviewing yesterday's play, with two less wickets you'd have awarded the day to Australia, with those two factored in you'd possibly call it evenly poised, but when you consider the manner of those two removals you'd probably give India the nod.

It's obvious that they're here to win, and if they can wrap up the Australian innings before lunch you'd reckon they'd be well on the way to One-Nil.

Looking back on the six dismissals I'm inclined to ascribe Warner and Marsh to the rain delay, Ponting and Clarke to good bowling and Hussey and Cowan to the niggle factor I'll be coming back to further on.

Any serious cricket follower would probably like a dollar for every time a wicket has fallen just after an interruption, but yesterday's rain break was, I reckon, definitely something different.

We get regularly find wickets falling just after a resumption, and that's usually in circumstances where batsmen have time to prepare themselves to resume hostilities. I wandered out of the office when they wandered off the paddock, had a brief chat to 'Er Indoors and was surprised to find them back on so soon.

Usually, when there's a rain break you find a designated resumption time, which gives players time to reset themselves. This time around you'd reckon Warner and Cowan would no sooner have got the batting gloves off when they were being told to get 'em back on again.

Batting first on Day One, most top order batsmen are likely to be vulnerable, and, even if you discount the effect of the interruption Marsh's dismissal is the sort of thing that's always likely early in the innings.

Ponting looked shaky early, and caught second slip suggests the Indians reckon they've got him worked out. It'll be interesting to see what happens when he's dismissed LBW falling across his stumps (which you can probably back into favouritism for the second dig, see below),

Clarke was set up nicely by Zaheer, chopping on a delivery he expected to go away, leaving room for that cut. Smart bowling and a sign that while Zaheer and Ishant Sharma might be slightly underdone they're not that far off, and are going to be a genuine handful if they can maintain their fitness.

Yadav looks like a handy third seamer, and Ashwin got a couple to grip and turn, so you might be inclined towards the four specialist bowlers is enough school of thought.

Well, you might, but I'd counter with Day One, our batting and those dodgy decisions I've been trying to steer away from. Let's see how our four are going late on Day Three, shall we?

Make no bones about it, India regard a series win here the same way as Steve Waugh and company viewed an away win in subcontinental conditions and they're out to maximise their chances.

I might be a cynic, but you can see an underlying theme coming through when people start talking about accepting the umpires decision, things evening themselves out in the long run and continuing the ways things have been played for over a century.

Gamesmanship has been part of the game since J.C. was taking the new ball for the Bethlehem Under 10s, and while the intention of the DRS is to avoid the obvious howlers, the possibilities of niggle offered by a refusal to accept the technology are, as far as I can see, part of a conscious ploy.

One wonders how far down the track it'll be when we start hearing references to foul mouthed racist Australians, for instance.

When we do, we'll more than likely be hearing how everything is all sweetness and light among players who appear for the same IPL franchise, won't we?

And, of course, it won't be the IPL team mate who'll be doing the niggling.

No, India have set themselves not to expect second chances, everybody else is used to the escape valve, and when the howler arrives we'll get the shrug and the That's cricket, won't we?

If you want to beat an Australian side that includes Mr Ponting you'd expect someone like Duncan Fletcher would have a few creative ideas, and this no DRS thing definitely fits a pattern.

Or maybe I should make that a Prattern...

I don't know which of the whoever bats second will probably score a squillion runs scenarios I find more depressing.

Given a Cricinfo report suggesting that this year's drop in pitch will offer early life and is unlikely to break up once that early life departs, you'd expect a side with a strong batting order to be inclined to insert the opposition, bat for about two days and then see if they can be winkled out on Days Four and Five to win without needing to bat again.

Which will, of course, make the toss and subsequent decisions rather interesting.

You'd hope that whoever bats first would last well into the second day, and preferably lasts until some time through the middle session, giving the bowlers a short spell with the new rock before Tea and two and (probably) a half hours in the final session before a bib bowl on Days Three and Four.

You definitely wouldn't be looking to a repeat of last year's opening day even if it is India batting first, because rocketed out on Day One would reduce opportunities to enjoy Sehwag, Gambhir, Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman and Dhoni at the crease.

I could watch those guys bat all day, and there's every chance I probably will.

Repeatedly.

Having them at the crease all day, and given there's a fifty-fifty chance India will be batting second it could well stretch to two - not that I'm objecting to the prospect provided we've managed something over three hundred batting first - means there's going to be an awful lot of work for the bowlers.

Having had the series in Sri Lanka and South Africa to cement his place in the side it'll be interesting to see how Lyon goes against a batting order that has been known to destroy spin bowlers.

And given the lengthy spell at the crease you'd have to assume there'll be something go amiss with one of the bowlers. Ten days of Test cricket over the next fortnight and all that…

Murphy's Law would suggest that we'll lose one of the quicks and/or have something go amiss with Lyon, and given the whatever can go wrong will go wrong and when it does it'll go wrong at the worst possible time factor means that if we lose a quick it'll probably be Pattinson.

That would make two potential spearheads of an emerging attack gone in the space of three Tests.…

So there's my reason for not looking forward to two days of Sachin and Company at the crease.

I am looking forward to it, actually, but in a way I'm not.

We could, on the other hand, find ourselves batting second against an attack where you'd have to place question marks over the fitness of Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma, and surely, I hear you ask, Hughesy's looking forward to watching Australia amass something in the vicinity of six hundred.

This is where the I don't know the worse scenario bit really kicks in, since a score around the six hundred mark is probably going to mean a big hundred or two, and there's every possibility that or two might mean both of Ponting and Hussey, and a belief that both can stick around into the indefinite future.

Under those circumstances, given the fact that we went for Hussey over Christian at Six, where does Watson slot in, given the assumption he's an automatic selection if fit?

And with that, I rest my case for the moment. Reflections on Day One to follow tomorrow morning.