Wow! Some action from the ICC

Common sense has prevailed

Perhaps they can get their act together and do something about allowing Zimbabwe to play international cricket?

On fatuous comparisons and foolish rules

Tiger Woods' latest major tournament victory has led some headline-challenged commentators to declare he is the best sportsman ever. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to say an athlete is the best ever in their sport is unfortunate, to say they are the best anywhere of all time seems like carelessness. It seems a relative easy call to make - yet narrow down the test and see how difficult it becomes. For Woods to be America's best athlete alone would rule out Carl Lewis, Mark Spitz, Michael Johnson, Michael Jordan, Pete Sampras and Jimmy Connors alone. Not to mention women of the calibre of Martina Navaratilova and Chris Evert.

To even compare across the same sport, one needs to take into account four criteria: quality of performance, consistency, opposition and technology. In golf, Woods has the benefit of incredibly enhanced distance and accuracy due to a revolution in club design. It is impossible to know what Jack Nicklaus, Ben Hogan or Norman Von Nida for instance might have achieved with the same equipment. There is an argument that Woods' level of achievement has come at a time of great depth on a highly professional tour, but balancing these factors requires a chat around the bar rather than mathematical precision.

It is hard enough trying to compare Sampras and Federer, and they almost overlap with only the interregnum of Hewitt between the two masters. They have near identical records in terms of tournaments won, but whereas Sampras had several titanic tussles with Agassi, some won, some lost, Federer's battles with Nadal appear almost dictated by the surface they compete on. Federer is a great frontrunner, but can he win from behind? All of these factors make comparing one champion, seemingly a prototype of another, highly problematic.

However one thing cannot be in dispute. One athlete stands above all in terms of his uniqueness, if not all-round achievement. That man is Sir Donald Bradman, whose incredible personal average not only made him the greatest batsman ever but carried his entire team, and at times the morale of his nation, along with him. While the quality of his opposition is debatable, his consistency is beyond comparison. Perhaps the closest in icon status is Babe Ruth, whose defection led to the 'curse of the Bambino', which was blamed for the Boston Red Sox failure to win the world series for eighty two years.

Other players have averaged a hundred for a couple of series, but no one has gone near that for longer, despite questionable bowling and batsman-friendly conditions. Yet Bradman could not simply be the best cricketer - cricket has bowlers in it too. So we are left with players who cannot be compared across the same sport, even at the same time, as they have different roles in the team. Everyone can have their own personal favourites, but comparisons of the greatest ever really belong as arguments to be had at the pub, and not in serious journalism.

An argument that should be had in public is the ridiculous outcome in last night's match between England and New Zealand. Sixteen thousand people waited through some of the most depressing weather Birmingham could dish up only to have the game end one over before it could be a full match due to rain. Of course, despite the match being reduced to a 29 over game and not starting til 3pm, the dinner break was left at 30 minutes. This kind of nonsense makes cricket, particularly one day cricket, an international laughing stock. It has not been adequately explained why 10 minutes is sufficient to adjourn a match after twenty overs in 40 degree heat, yet an extra 20 minutes is required when the match lasts twenty four overs in 15 degree drizzle. The ICC should axe this regulation pronto, and allow the interval to be a minimum of 10 minutes with the consent of both captains. Oddly this happens in a test match, but once players set themselves for a fifty over pyjama battle, it appears they will wilt without 30 minutes break.

Throwing the baby faced out with the bathwater

Ricky Ponting's appalling series with the bat has culminated with a 2-0 defeat in the CUB final series and the punters are tearing into Punter faster than a Brett Lee yorker. One of their key complaints is that Lee was preferred in the closing stages of India's batting innings in Brisbane than almost-match winner James Hopes. The argument being pushed is that Ponting himself should hand in his captain's arm band before he is pushed.

This course is a little knee-jerk in its nature. Peregrine called for Ponting to be rested early in the series and Michael Clarke to be given a run. There are two main styles of leadership among cricket captains: performance-based and tactic-based. Ponting is a performance based skipper par excellence, relying on dominating the game with his broad bat and imposing his character on his team and their efforts in the field. The one failing that performance-based skippers have is when their performance drops, so does this captaincy. Ponting has gradually developed some tactical nous, mainly through having to handle the formerly freewheeling Shaun Tait, and latterly through utilising Nathan Bracken. However he does have a tendency to rely on Lee to take wickets, even when Lee's form does not suggest this is a likely outcome.

Clarke demonstrated great tactical skill in his demolition of New Zealand and India in the 20/20 fixtures. He is the obvious choice to lead the next World Cup campaign. The resting Ponting theory would have allowed Clarke a trial run and given some more match experience to the likes of Haddin, David Hussey and perhaps George Bailey from Tasmania. It is extraordinary that Victoria and Tasmania played the one day final and none of their respective squads appeared in the one day international team. The staleness and stagnation of that national team, coupled with some inspired opposition led by the multi-talented MS Dhoni, have produced this igminious result.

The challenge for selectors now is to balance the need for rejuvenation against the need for continuity within the team. The trip to Pakistan, if it goes ahead, represents an opportunity to pick an in form, balanced squad, particularly if Symonds (who has clearly laboured under his injured ankle for much of the summer) does not go. The selectors erred by not persuading Ponting that a rest of his back and his mind were best for his and the teams long-term interest. Ponting now probably has one season to decide whether he should continue in the one-day format.

Symonds was treated in a similar manner. By my reckoning, he played every match of the season even when only 75% fit. As a bowling allrounder, he contributed less than ten overs for the one day series, while his best replacement in David Hussey massacred attacks in both 20/20 and one-dayers. Pakistan represents a chance to correct these mistakes. If the team decides to go. That is another matter entirely.

Kentucky Fried Cricket's great leap into the unknown

The curious beast known as the Indian Premier League (IPL), or according to the ICC, the 'good' barbarians, has entered a new stage. Its grand auction of talent has taken place and Mahendra Singh Dhoni has garnered top dollar, with Andrew Symonds a close second. The teams have faced a fascinating mix of imperatives, trying to build commercial franchises from scratch, with players having to provide all-round ability both on and off the field. It seems that the Monkeygate affair has no effect on Symonds' popularity in India, and his earnings were further boosted by his serious equivocation over the ill-advised tour of Pakistan. Precisely why anyone thinks it is a good idea to send Australia into the lion's den of extremism for an entire month, given the white hot atmosphere over Iraq and Afghanistan, has clearly replaced their brain with dollar signs. Rudd and his foreign affairs team should effectively ban the team from travelling for the tour unless a suitable surrogate option such as Sharjah, Sri Lanka (mmm, maybe not on second thoughts) or even a late-season Australian tour can be arranged.

Those issues aside, the IPL represents a grand attempt to reshape cricket in the Indian marketing image. Utilising the wondrous pulling power of Twenty20, the BCCI aims to redefine the parameters of world cricket. Instead of Indian one-day tournaments being sandwiched around other tours, with the Australia summer programme sacrosanct, the world will schedule the entire Future Tours Program, that much vaunted instrument that gave us a diet of constant floggings of Bangladesh, around the IPL kernel.

The colonel's secret recipe is to model a league on a truncated version of the English Premier League, with players playing for around six weeks of the year. An interesting development is the use of a salary cap and a restriction imposed by Cricket Australia that only two Australians can play in each team. These teams are geographically based franchises, with six of them hosting a local hero known as an icon. The icon commands megabucks - at least 15% more than their franchise's next highest earner. On top of this, the teams must include four players under twenty-two and can select players from within an international pool of contracted players. In effect, it is close to the AFL draft system but with each selection made on an auction basis.

Whether this will work remains to be seen. The question is will it turn out like an exhibition series and hence be a very expensive non-event, such as the unloved ICC Superseries or will it resemble a long-established marquee competition such as the Premier League or the World Series. It remains to be seen, however we should see some exciting cricket and intriguing captaincy as players learn a new game and have to deal with the specific strategy set by the team management, not just the teams offered up by selectors.

Rest Ponting and change the dynamics

The Indian cricket team has done something remarkable. It has rendered Ricky Ponting irrelevant from the batting landscape. With the exception of his century in the Adelaide Test, Ponting has not registered a significant contribution in over two months, and the situation is starting to expose the weaknesses in the Australian team. Labouring under a back injury cannot be good for either his movement or his captaincy, and through the agency of Ishant Sharma and the ubiquitious Harbhajan Singh, India are exposing the lack of all-round contributors and defiant middle order batsmen. With Andrew Symonds hampered by his dubious ankle, threatening to become a problem of Flintoff-like proportions, the middle order is effectively carrying two less than fit players.

What Australia needs is new energy and to seize the initiative back from their subcontinental tormenters. Clarke's 20/20 captaincy was attacking and inspired and he showed a measure of responsibility sometimes lacking in his batting. He should be given the chance to match tactical wits with the all-out approach favoured by Mahendera Singh Dhoni, who seems to have channelled his batting aggression into his field placements. Resting Ponting would also allow the promotion of Victoria's prolific other Hussey, David. David Hussey is a hard hitting batsman and spinner who could compensate for Symonds' restricted state. It would certainly take the pressure off Ponting whom Sharma and his spinning mate are causing nightmares.

Professional game, unprofessional behaviour

The aftermath of the Harbhajan Singh- Andrew Symonds clash continues to roll on. Now it has experienced even vice-regal and prime ministerial intervention, with both those leaders calling for more grace in accepting the umpire's decision and treating fellow players as human beings. Some of this talk of grace and courtesy has the air of a halycon day which never actually happened. Be that as it may, the current crop of Australian cricketers, who for some time appeared to get a very lenient deal from umpires for misconduct on-field, has actively employed 'mental disintegration' as a key tactic. The line between valid remarks and outright sledging and bullying is very thin and it is easy to see young players forgetting it altogether.

The spectacle of several players from both Australia and India seated at the bar table of an Adelaide Federal Court room must surely be a wake-up call for the game. Clearly something was amiss, a perception heightened by the fact not one player was in shirt and tie - most members of the public would risk ejection from a court room in such attire and few witnesses would be so lax as to turn up in a tracksuit as both Ricky Ponting and Harbhajan appeared to do. However, perhaps the lack of respect for the surroundings was fitting given the appaling behaviour of the ICC and the BCCI, which seem to veer from one mindless crisis to the next.

The ICC has clearly been caught off-guard. Its umpiring panel is now run in a semi-professional manner, but the referees administering code of conduct infringements are different shades of amateur. No other sport would conduct legalistic tribunal hearings with an official with no legal training, as Mike Proctor, referee at the Sydney Test, admitted. For some reason, the ICC's most experienced referee, Ranjan Madugalle, was not available to referee the series initially. Given the tension expected following the Symonds controversy in India, one would have thought the ICC may have pre-empted trouble.

The prosecution of the case against Harbhajan has betrayed a lack of process and understanding. First, the evidence was not viewed sufficiently to establish the correct charge. Harbhajan was ultimately fined for abusive language, a Level 2 offence, but he was originally convicted of racial vilification, a Level 3 offence carrying a three match ban. Second, Proctor dismissed the contrary testimony of Sachin Tendulkar, a strange move in the absence of objective evidence. Then, having set up a formal appeal tribunal under former NZ High Court Justice Hansen, the ICC made one final blunder to discredit its own competency. It somehow failed to provide Justice Hansen with Harbhajan's disciplinary record. Hansen then mitigated the punishment based on the evidence before him, rather than all the facts that should have been taken into account at sentencing.

The net result of this is that ICC incompetence has fuelled Indian hysteria at perceived injustice and caused the BCCI to throw its considerable financial weight around with various threats about cancelling the tour. The apparent approval of the Sri Lankan board does not help matters.

This latest episode merely confirms the fact that the ICC has a woeful record in handling major issues on the global cricketing stage. The World Cup in the West Indies scheduled games in the Caribbean and then told the crowd to behave like it was at Lords. The final ended in farce, with Sri Lanka batting out the overs in the dark. That finale has proven an apt metaphor for the crisis that followed. The fact that the ICC still allows Zimbabwe to compete, and only dropped them from Test cricket when it became manifestly clear its team could not compete, shows a total lack of ethics and basic understanding of humanity beyond the corporate dollar and regional politics. If the BCCI wants to build bridges with the other unions in England, Australia and New Zealand, it would be best served working for the complete suspension of Zimbabwe until its cricket organisation returns to normality. At present, the Zimbabwe Cricket Union is an adjunct of Mugabe's ZANU-PF party, and hence allowing it to play is recognition of Mugabe's government.

All the cricket nations need to discover a spirited way to compete and cooperate, that encourages fair play and tolerance. They need to work together to balance spreading the game with commercialism, so that we marvel at the feats of players and not make hysterical appeals to nationalist sentiment.

Heavy artillery key to Australia's streak

Australia faces a Herculaean task to win the Third Test and become the side with the most Test wins in succession. As any all-conquering side such as the Melbourne Storm or Sydney Kings might tell you, winning a lot of games in succession only puts you closer to your next loss. Despite that somewhat gloomy axiom, Australia's dominance of the Test cricket scene has an inherent weakness. It relies on imposing its will on the opposition by a strategy of all-out attack. In a batsman-friendly era where bowlers are fairly mediocre, bats so dense as to seemingly exert their own gravitational pull on the ball and boundaries so short that Darren Lehmann's locks look luscious in comparison, this strategy is generally a winning one.

However, if the ball swings, bounces excessively or does anything beyond the parameters regarded as normal, the penchant for attack becomes self-defeating. Australia's kamikaze approach in the first innings bears this out. The divine wind for India sprang up from the east and they made full use of it. The normally cannon-fodder line of half volley outside off-stump became a Psiren call to the grave, as such level-headed souls as Mike Hussey perished driving through the off-side. That Michael Clarke still has a clear weakness against swing bowling (and a bizarre impetuousity to take off when hitting the ball to backward point) adds another wobble to the equation. Ten years ago, perhaps fifteen, Australia would have contented itself with a score of say, 4 for 200 after day 2. Caution, however, is in short supply in the dominating mindset and hence the entire side lasted a paltry fifty overs.

If Australia are to complete the streak, they will have to win in spite of the manner in which they won sixteen Tests, not because of it. Already in this innings, Rogers and Jaques have perished courtesy of Pathan's rejuvenated movement. The pitch itself possesses relatively few terrors at this stage and is as benign a fourth-innings surface seen since Gilchrist and Langer won the Hobart Test against Pakistan. The dangers, much like with the original kamikaze, are in the air and in the psychological disturbance those raids create. Australia's relentless charge is reminiscent of the great conquest of Sulemain, the Ottoman emperor who took the Turks all the way to the gates of Vienna. However Sulemain's campaign relied on its great cannons for its success. When the rain fell, the cannons became stuck in the mud, rendered useless by the elements. The Austrian army escaped, and the Turkish charge was halted.

To win tomorrow, Australia will have to bat judiciously, seeing off the swinging ball and making the most of tiring bowlers. Both sides have found it hard to remove middle-order batsmen once the swing slows and the wind dies down. If Australia have sufficient wickets in hand to capitalise on those opportunities, they may well find themselves in rarefied run-chasing territory.

On YouTube everyone can hear you scream, just ask Marcos Baghdatis

Just when communicating had reached new heights, things have gone a step further. We have now become accustomed to the incredible utility of email to send both professional and personal correspondence. It has become second nature to 'google', tapping into the meta-searching oracle of the modern age. These changes, while revolutionary, give all but the most careless users control over their information and reputation. Individuals can maintain a level of privacy without taking too many precautions.

The next wave of social networking sites changes the equation. Sites such as MySpace, Facebook and YouTube offer users a tremendous opportunity to tap into the global information stream and gain instant notoriety. The massive increase in processing capacity means that videoclips are now the media of the moment. The important detail here is that video can be both in the form of a deliberately devised skit or simply filming the activities of others. It appears this has happened to the (Greek) Cypriot tennis player Marcos Baghdatis, who has some fairly unsavoury friends who have recently developed a taste for pepper spray.

Clearly, there is a very high potential here for embarassing footage to see the light of day. An individual's control over their own image is greatly reduced. This may lead to greater accountability and accompanying caution by figures in public life. It is almost certain that many of these clips will end up in court. Lawmakers will shortly be faced with the challenge of how to handle possibly defamatory images of individuals taken and or published without their consent.

The problem is more complex than Ponting

Cricket now appears to be in a state of rapidly escalating conflict. The main battle appears to be between the BCCI and vocal sections of the Indian media on one hand and the Australian cricket team on the other. Whereas first India was in apoplexy over perceived bias in umpiring decisions and the racial charge levelled against Harbajhan Singh and his subsequent ban, the outrage has now spread here with respected SMH cricket columnist Peter Roebuck's call for Ponting to be sacked, along with seemingly half his side.

The Australian team is partly to blame for this mess purely for its stubborn failure to recognise a large proportion of people cheer for its opponents simply because they see the team as arrogant and overtly aggressive. This has been a problem since Steve Waugh's era of psychological warfare. It was build around Hayden's imposing bulk and tendency to use expletives, plus Warne's boorish behaviour and McGrath's on-field crankiness. Ponting's snarling performance in England when run out by a substitute (a practice Australia later adopted) reinforced the view on the world stage. The Australian team's persistent tendency to target opponents through the media has further added to this resentment. The fact that Darren Lehmann was suspended for racial abuse for two one-day matches seemed to confirm this reputation.

All of this, plus continual criticism about team tactics such as late declarations and apparently conservative field and bowling choices has finally got to Ponting. He and his senior playing group have closed ranks and adopted their own siege mentality, behaving something like the West Coast Eagles immediately after Ben Cousins' initial ban. That Cricket Australia felt it appropriate to put them in an appalling triumphant KFC series of commercials, which show the team so bored with thrashing the opposition that all they can think of is the food to follow is an act of extraordinarily bad timing. Kumble would be best advised to show that ad to his team as motivation that Australia does not respect them and play to the utmost of their ability. Cricket Australia should have the ads suspended immediately.

Racism is clearly a hot issue in this series. Cricket Australia launched a zero tolerance policy at the beginning of the season to prevent retaliatory stupidity from the comments made against Symonds in India. It appears that Ponting's pique at accusations of sledging have caused the team to push home the idea that India are not squeaky clean in this regard. Unfortunately it could easily look like Ponting wants Harbajhan gone because he keeps getting him out, rendering him irrelevant to the contest.

The current fracas seems to blame Australia for umpiring in its favour. In the midst of this hysteria, perhaps there is an argument about 'bias'. Being a long-suffering supporter of the Sydney Swans and watcher of a large number of AFL games, it is very apparent that umpiring follows a pattern. Umpires are constantly exposed to players and have their own psychological impressions. These may subtlely affect their view of events. It is patently obvious that Swans players get a better deal in Sydney, and they get a better deal when they are in front. When the game is in the balance, decisions often go the other way. Conversely, a national team such as Australia with an imposing record will probably get a better deal as umpires perceive the stronger team should do better and that may affect their vision. On umpire imitation, India themselves are sensitive, having had three players suspended for it and then cancelling a Test match in retaliation. One of those players was Mr H Singh.

In to all this comes the turbulent climate of India. Fanatical to the core, supporters are whipped into a frenzy by the thousands of media outlets clammering for ever more sensational stories. The team are under incredible pressure - for many this is their last chance. That must surely go for the administrators with the crisis over the two Twenty20 leagues causing chaos among those running the game. Any opportunity to get sympathy rather than blame must surely seem attractive.

The best answer to this mess is for both teams to make a public show of harmony. The ICC may uphold the appeal and then the whole issue can be determined at the next ICC meeting. Ponting and Kumble should bury the hatchet, but for the rest of the series agree to defer to the umpire's decision on all appeals and make a determined effort to appeal only where they are reasonably confident. Cricket Australia could also assist its players by briefing them on the ramifications of their behaviour and issue internal fines for inciting remarks and excessive appealing.

Technology and common sense needed to calm fraying tempers

The Sydney Test has descended into a barrage of accusation and counter-accusation. One would not be surprised if lawyers were drafting more than the odd defamation action. This sorry statement of affairs is an indictment on all parties including the authorities (namely the ICC and the BCCI, although Cricket Australia are not without blame), numerous media outlets, the extraordinary passionate, vibrant but sometimes self- harming beast that is Indian cricket and the boorish behaviour of Australian players.

Firstly, the cricket. Teams that tour Australia lose if they adopt a siege mentality. India are in danger of adopting a complain first and ask questions later attitude, blaming a bevy of unfortunate umpiring decisions. It is notable how crestfallen India were when Symonds was given not out on 30. The situation is complicated by the tremendous pressure placed on the players and the weight of expectation stirred up. The popular movement to reinstate Ganguly has given the sense that anything is possible if demanded by the public. The players and, more to the point, the apparatchik administrators are going to be extremely reluctant to take responsibility for defeat if it means having their effigy burnt in Mumbai and Kolkata. India genuinely believe they should have won last time here, a myth perpetuated by most of the world's media. The sense that their destiny has been denied has made for an explosive outcome.

Secondly, the Australian team itself. The spotlight of the media is on Australia, whose reputation is universally of a great team but poor winners (and even poorer, if rare, losers). No one pays much attention to the atrocious track record of India, particularly vehement appealing on the last days of Test matches. There is a considerable reservoir of sympathy available for an opposition player to criticise Australia's sledging. Australia have clearly lost the battle to portray themselves as a fair team, and they have had enough of constant criticism. More should have been done sooner, and action should certainly be taken now to stop the resentment building up.

Personally, sledging should only be demonstrative of a player's wit and not touch on anything that might be personally offensive. There is no place for any form of racial vilification. There is now an interesting exercise in cultural education going on, with what looks like a cynical counter-charge made against Brad Hogg. Whereas the use of the word 'monkey' against Symonds is well known to have racist overtones, the word 'bastard' allegedly used by Hogg (and quite possibly used) does not often mean 'illegitimate male child' in common Australian usage. This whole mess may require a list of terms to be drawn up, or at least common consensus on what players can and cannot say on the field.

On the umpiring issue, the ICC is paying for a good idea badly executed. Bucknor has stood in 120 tests because he was voted onto the ICC international panel and it is meant to represent the Test playing nations. The problem is that no other umpires have emerged on the panel to replace him, and that Australia's Simon Taufel, rated the world's best umpire, cannot stand in Australian tests due to a perceived conflict of interest.

In other words, we get substandard umpiring to avoid bias. Having said that, the two umpires in Melbourne made almost no errors until the final day. Clearly, umpires have good days and bad days. The question is how to maximise one and minimise the damage on the other.

The best way to deal with the current situation is for the ICC to put more money into training and supporting umpires. This should allow for say, a panel of 16 umpires to umpire Tests with sufficient time for umpires to recover and de-stress. Umpires would also have yearly sight and hearing testing plus complete a practical umpiring simulation. These results would then be used to determine promotion or relegation of umpires. Within matches, the ICC could direct umpires to pay less attention to calling no-balls to allow more focus on the play. Third umpires would be empowered to recall batsmen if replays showed the bowling over-stepping. Teams could have three challenges an innings. The challenges would relate to whether catches were bump balls and whether there was an edge or not on catches and lbw appeals and whether the ball pitched outside leg stump on lbws. Challenges could be made by both the batting and fielding sides, although a fielding side would only get the benefit on catches. The technology used would include Hawkeye (plotting the pitch of the ball, adopted in tennis) and the HotSpot heat-detection system, as both show objective evidence of where the ball ended up. In one-day games, two challenges would be allowed per innings.

Variety or venom: which would put you off your Christmas turkey?

Australia has again failed to resolve the question of its spinning department for the Boxing Day Test and following series against India. Since the retirement of Warne and the injury and slow recovery of the less than vintage Macgill, Australia is left facing a gaping chasm in the quality of its next line of tweakers. Australia have been reticent to call on Hogg's services unless the pitch shows obvious signs of turn, preferring a pyjama battery of assorted medium and fast bowlers. This reluctance has now led to the team having no clear understudy considered suited to the Test spinner role.

The question then boils down to a choice between Hogg as the next best spinner or Tait as the next best pace bowler. Given the record of frontline spinners such as Warne and Macgill is not great and the record of bit-part spinners, namely Hogg and Robertson in India is positively awful, the smart money must surely be on Tait. Having variety is great. The question is whether that variety offers a competitive advantage to a captain who can call on the extra option as a viable wicket-taking or run-slowing option.

If India play Hogg without fear, then Tait must surely play. Tait is a law of nature, a whirlwind that either blows fiercely levelling batsmen and wickets with equal regularity or continually misses the target and gets carted to all corners. This unpredictability means Tait will only be seen as understudy to Lee or a fiery fourth bowler to unleash on bouncy tracks. Unless he is the more dangerous option.

The other aspect is whether Australia feel they need Hogg as back-up for Macgill until the next tier of spinners emerge. The situation is bizarre. Contracted spinner Bailey is playing second XI for South Australia, Cullen is on his way back, NSW has so many spinners but none in the side at the moment and poor White was injured at the worst moment. As an allrounder, White would have been a decent chance of selection if he was in good form.

This surfeit of spin options is a major headache for Australia, whose stocks more resemble South Africa's at the present time. Hogg may well have deserved his chance to play Test cricket by being the last man standing.

Can McClelland and Swan bowl spin?

As no doubt everyone will say soon, this season's Test series versus India and Sri Lanka will be the first of the post Warne-McGrath era. There have been other seasons when either or on rare occasions neither featured, but they involved rather short-term fixes attempted by the selectors.

The selectors clearly have to maintain a balance of experienced and newly blooded players. With that in mind it is extremely fortunate that Hayden seems to have been rejuvenated. Australia have to, however, be careful they don't slip into Ponting-reliance in the same way that India has been Tendulkar-reliant and West Indies Lara-reliant. If they do that, they should remain an extremely strong side.

The opening partner question looks to be settled in Jaques' favour. He has a tremendous record in both state and country cricket in recent years and is back in form to make big hundreds. He has comprehensively demolished Rogers' claim. Watson is such an injury risk that his career is practically on life support.

Hussey has shown a great adeptness in holding together the middle order and can bat with the tail, so is a more natural option at 6.

Symonds and Clarke must produce big runs and bowl consistent spells of spin. The big hole Australia has is in the spin department with none of the contenders in consistent form. As with the two put-on shadow ministers, the spin department is uncertain.

MacGill has been patchy and ropable with officials, Cullen is yet to consolidate his form after a stellar season on debut and Cullen Bailey is too inexperienced. The question for selectors is whether Hogg's one-day form has improved sufficiently to translate to the Test arena. Considering the selectors don't regularly play him in one dayers, it would seem a sign of desperation they would consider him for Tests. I suspect they are thinking if they can get one good summer out of him it will allow Bailey and Cullen to develop into contenders. A wildcard is Katich who could play the role Bevan played for a season as the wrist-spinning all-rounder. This would then be a question of whether Katich's bowling is at the standard it was when he last saw off Hogg.

With Gilchrist to play on, the pace bowling looks to be in good shape with Clark providing the metronomic accuracy from one end and Lee firing in from the other. Johnson's surge solves the problem of playing Bracken who is inconsistent at Test level. Tait should provide back-up if anything happens to Lee while Hilfenhaus is in the wings for Clark.

My side for the Test would be:

Hayden, Jaques, Ponting (c), Clarke, Symonds, Hussey, Gilchrist, Lee, Hogg, Johnson, Clark (Hilfenhaus 12th man).