This year has been the gestation period for Test cricket's rebirth © Getty Images

Apparently the end of the world is signalled by the rise of two suns. Now this hasn’t happened yet, but a year with two World Cups in it comes uncomfortably close for my liking: 2011 saw the cricket World Cup played in March, and the rugby World Cup in September – so perhaps the end of the world as we know it, is nigh? Hopefully not, though, for there are plenty of stars rising on the Test cricket horizon to herald not an end but a new beginning for the original format of the game.

This year also saw two subcontinental cricketers of substance making their voices heard. Kumar Sangakkara, indisputably Sri Lanka’s greatest Test batsman, and Rahul Dravid, arguably India’s equivalent, called with passion for the revitalisation of Test cricket. Their plea may or may not have fallen on deaf ears as far as the game’s administration is concerned. The long-awaited Test Championship seems to be a non-starter, and the traditional powerhouses seem to be dictating who plays whom, where and when. Sri Lanka have long been requesting more tours to England, South Africa and Australasia, and when those opportunities are provided, perhaps, Test cricket will be a more equal-opportunity genre. However, until the ICC wakes from its short-format slumber, Dravid’s and Sangakkara’s peers have taken it upon themselves to raise the profile of Test cricket.

It may be that the cricketers have been influenced by the astrological shifts taking place unbeknownst to us. The sages have led us to believe that 2012 will usher us into the Age of Aquarius. A more enlightened, spiritual, philanthropic age (i.e. Test cricket), freeing us from the shackles of the Age of Pisces, which is marked by organisational structures pursued and protected through violent means (i.e. the birth of T20 cricket). So perhaps the end of the world in 2012 is not really the end of the world, merely the end of the world as we know it.

Dravid, during his Bradman oration, lamented the fact that he was playing Test cricket, and sometimes even ODI cricket, to sparse houses in India. With the following it has in the subcontinent, it seems inexplicable that Eden Gardens should not be packed to capacity every time India plays. But that, Dravid evidences, is the state of things as they are. There can be no doubt, assuming that Sangakkara and Dravid speak for a majority of their colleagues, that Test cricket is the preferred format for players themselves. It is what they consider the toughest test. Test matches are a cricketer’s Wimbledon.

Be that as it may, perhaps the recent upheavals in Test cricket have led to some introspection. And with the planets contributing their collective might, Test cricketers have become more altruistic, more Aquarian. The not-quite-tied Test between India and West Indies was second to none for its drama. The low-scoring yet tense second Test between the Black Caps and the baggy-green caps was a riveting affair, and the Boxing Day matches, in both South Africa and Australia, are proving to be superb contests.

I’m not sure whether it’s just me, but close, tense, hard-fought Test matches are far more memorable than down-to-the-wire ODI or T20 games. Similarly, the frequency of close Tests, as opposed to closer short games, has taken a major leap forward. The ODI that goes down to the last over with both teams still very much in it is a scarce commodity. More so the T20 game that does so. Instead of fulfilling the promise of excitement on tap, a vast majority of T20 games end up being decided fairly early on in the piece - meaning spectators have to be satisfied instead with the number and size of sixes hit, a swashbuckling individual score or scantily clad cheerleaders. Given the nature of the formats, it stands to reason that T20s and ODIs should probably be decided in the final over more often than not. The marked absence of such results can lead us to conclude either that the balance of power in world cricket is lopsided, where some teams are very good and others average, or that the formats are flawed. I seek to draw no conclusions, merely mention something that seems empirically incongruous.

Going back to newly reborn Test cricket: we have seen some stellar new performances. Vernon Philander has four Michelles in three Tests, plus a match bag. Virat Kohli’s performances look like he will be one for the Indian future. And Marchant de Lange and Dinesh Chandimal have signaled their intent on debut with seven wickets and an attacking fifty.

I’ve been involved in recent Facebook discussions on what a good target for a fourth-innings chase might be, and friends call to ask whether I saw that last spell by Pattinson, Steyn, or now even Umesh Yadav. Ravichandran Ashwin, after making a name for himself in limited-overs cricket, has become a century-scoring offspinner who adequately fills the Harbajhan void. The world of Test cricket is exciting.

It’s not the end, it’s a new dawn. Hooray!

Everyone, including Hussey, knew the rules of engagement before that match started © AFP

Here we go again - another Border Gavaskar Trophy on the line and it starts to get "tasty" after just one day. The Internet era merely serves to heighten the tensions because unlike the old-fashioned 'Letters to the Editor' which were usually written with more eloquence and vetted by editors, online blogs are much more raw and unfettered in both passion and vitriol. It's a classic Beauty and the Beast situation where we get to see what people are really thinking, protected by anonymity and distance, unhindered by rules about grammar and spelling, unafraid to vent opinions that range from sincere passion to patriotic fervour gone mad. I've seen some of that already this morning with reference to the DRS controversy. Some of it has been entertaining and illuminative whilst some of it has been just plain idiotic. That's the world wide web for you.

From what I've read this morning, it seems to me that some bloggers have just lost their sense of balance and perspective, blinded by their bias for or against the two countries involved. Here's my attempt to bring some common-sense and logic back to the debate, arguing from a neutral position of indifference as to who wins but with a strong desire to see the Indian and Australians fans not rip each other to pieces with emotive arguments that go beyond mere cricketing matters. Many incidents over the last few years have unnecessarily damaged relations between us, starting with the infamous Sydney Test when Harbajhan Singh and Andrew Symonds clashed and extending off the field to more serious incidents involving student bashings and loose talk on both sides of the Indian Ocean.

Let's start with the silly comments being bandied regarding the DRS not being used because it allows the Indians to cheat. It's not the ICC who are necessarily to blame, neither are the Indian cricketers themselves culpable. It was a decision agreed to at board level. Regardless of whether the BCCI has too much power or not, a topic for another debate altogether, the cricketers themselves are simply playing by the rules that were agreed before the series began. It's not like the Indian players suddenly introduced the playing condition when Michael Hussey walked out to bat. Everyone, including Hussey, knew the rules of engagement before that match started.

Umpires make mistakes. That happens. Disappointed as Hussey may have been, surely he is not suggesting that he has never benefited from similar decisions going in his favour, either as individual or as a team. The accidental fact that it was a first-ball duck when his career is on the line shouldn't change anything. I'm not even sure if Hussey is complaining too much, apart from that initial show of frustration for which a man of his calibre and disciplinary record can surely be forgiven. It's the irrational fools with short memories who are quick to start labelling the opposition players as cheats who are the real cheats in my opinion.

Short memories? Anyone remember when these teams last met during the New Year’s Test? Symonds smashed the cover off the ball and chose to stand his ground. He was simply playing by the rules and any Indian fan who called him a cheat should be similarly embarrassed today. Symonds' innings defined the course of that Test match but the bottom line is that he was simply playing by the rules of the day. He was no more or less of a cheat than anybody was yesterday (unless Symonds himself is one of those mystery bloggers hiding behind a ridiculous pseudonym, venting irrational spleen to fuel tension).

What about the Peter Siddle no-ball incident today when he castled Rahul Dravid? The replay reprieved Dravid, just like it did for Michael Clarke at the Gabba a few weeks ago. Dravid didn't ask for the replay - the umpire called for it himself because he was unsure, just like he did for Clarke who went on to score a big hundred. Both teams were aware that the umpires had this option available to them. It's not like Marais Erasmus made it up on the spot just to try and favour India. The only person at fault was Siddle for not keeping his foot behind the line.

Australian supporters are entitled to be disappointed with the Hussey dismissal yesterday but if you hail from a cricketing culture that has always played by the code where batsmen do not walk and leave all decisions to the umpires, surely you have to accept that you take the rough with the smooth. How does yesterday's chain of events make the Indians cheats? Does that also make the Aussies cheats when they nick one and don't walk?

I find it particularly amusing when Australian fans complain about genuine umpiring mistakes. As far back as I can recall, from junior cricket ranks upwards, our kids have been brought up on the notion that you only walk when your car has broken down. Leave all decisions to the umpires and if it's your lucky day, that's cricket. That system is fraught with hypocrisy because I've seen many batsmen scream like stuck pigs when they get a bad one, I've seen many fielding teams happily accept decisions when they acknowledge amongst themselves in the team huddle that the umpire clearly got it wrong and most amusingly, I've seen fielders who give the batsman an absolute gobful for not walking when he nicks it! If that's not hypocrisy, what is? Surely a system that is built around living with the umpire's verdict is inherently in danger of choking on its own words if they abuse batsmen for not walking when he gets away with one? Under these rules, the only ones who are cheats are the ones who want the rules to work both ways. And they accuse the BCCI of opportunism?

Everyone's so busy accusing each other of dastardly deeds that they forget that it was a genuine mistake by the umpires. That happens. It works both ways. I read some ridiculous comments overnight that seemed to insinuate that the Indians opted against using DRS because it would allow them (the Indians) to get away with cheating. Where's the logic in that comment? That logic only holds true if the BCCI can somehow exert enough influence to infiltrate the game with crooked umpires. If that's the accusation, it is a very serious one indeed and completely destroys the fabric of the game. It's also a gross insult to the umpiring fraternity who clearly make mistakes on the field (as do the players) but would be appalled to think that the some cricket fans actually believe this is so. Any serious cricket follower who has watched the actual on-field umpiring incidents could not possibly think that there is a corrupt system in place that favours India more than other teams. It's just plain ridiculous.

The long-term solutions lie in getting the respective governing bodies to agree on a system that is acceptable to all stakeholders, cricketers, fans, umpires and cricket boards alike. There's a much bigger debate to be had as to whether the technology is reliable enough to be used universally and whether the BCCI should be allowed veto rights based on their power alone. That's a political debate though and one that doesn't really figure in some of the blog comments from all fans who seem hell-bent on accusing each other of racist bias.

What's new about a system that is controlled by the most powerful? We live in a world that runs entirely along those principles where the major industrial nations write the rules and everyone is forced to play by those rules. Those who choose to play by different rules get bombed into submission. One man's terrorist is another man's liberator. The debate about whether the BCCI has too much power or not is a worthy cause to contribute to but it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether players or umpires are cheats. All parties agreed to the system before the first ball was bowled. Just because yesterday's decisions may have come at the start of Ed Cowan's career and the end of Hussey's doesn't make it an act of foul play. By the end of the summer, I am sure the Indian batsmen too will cop some poor decisions so let's hope we don't see a repeat of the sanctimonious hand-wringing and ugly accusations against the umpires or the team who dare to appeal for a nick. Even if it involves Sachin Tendulkar. If he doesn't want to risk a poor decision, tell him not to make a mistake then! Clearly that's what we expect of umpires these days.

So to those vitriolic and irrational bloggers out there who seem to thrive on cowardly insults across a forum where daft nicknames hide their true identity, try not to confuse on-field decisions with agreements made by cricket boards and the ICC. Those are systemic decisions that are as much about politics and power as it is about what is best for the game. I'm certainly not one of those who believes that any governing body, BCCI and Cricket Australia included, necessarily act in the best interests of the game. They act in the best interests of themselves. But let's divorce the players and umpires from some of the grubby individuals who skulk in the corridors of power. Some men are still honourable. Some men still make mistakes. They make honourable mistakes. That's not cheating.

If a pure performance-based system came into operation, players could become selfish and honest mistakes could harbour lingering resentment © Getty Images

Lost amid the hype of the launch of the Big bash League has been a much more interesting and significant event in Australian cricket – the suggestion that Cricket Australia might move to a more performance-based contract system. This will be a radical move for a system that has long been rooted in the notion of the aura surrounding the baggy green cap (substitute canary yellow for ODI's). The suggestion is reckoned to have its genesis in the Argus Report but I fear that if taken too far, it will fail to have the sort of effect that similar strategies may have in the corporate arena that Don Argus is familiar with.

To a certain extent, the performance-based system is already in place anyway. A 25-man contract list that is refreshed each year is clearly based on the most highly rated players, though with an eye to the future more than a reflection of the past. If it was based purely on performance rather than potential, there can be no reasonable explanation why Brad Hodge hasn't been in this list for the last few years; his limited-overs form has been nothing short of brilliant in recent times. So clearly the performance-based system that is currently in place is a forward-looking exercise, mindful no doubt of past form but not tied exclusively to such easily measurable statistics like runs and wickets. Just ask Simon Katich. Actually, don't ask Katich – he might speak his mind and that's a breach of corporate protocol apparently. Hell hath no fury like an opening batsman scorned and all that jazz …

It would be unrealistic to pine for a system that was based on the incredibly strong Sheffield Shield structure that has been in place for many years, most notably in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That was a performance-based system too in the purest sense but it had its roots in Grade cricket. There were no real contracts in place, just state squads that you dropped in and out of based on form. If you consistently scored runs in 1st Grade, you got selected for your state team. If your form dipped, you went back to club cricket. With the need to now provide some form of job protection or security for professional cricketers, that system is no longer viable in that pure form. I fear, though, that it might go too far in the other extreme if Australian contracts became performance-driven to a level that creates uncertainty and fear instead of stability and job security.

The problem I have with this proposed new system is that it might make players too selfish, nervous or jealous. It's only human nature to safeguard your own livelihood and that generally works in a normal office or factory environment, where it's not part of the job to run the risk of dropping catches off your colleague, running him out or sacrificing yourself for the team cause. If a pure performance-based system came into operation, there exists the very real possibility that players would naturally become selfish and honest mistakes would harbour lingering resentment.

Take Katich for example – he's been involved in a few run-outs with Shane Watson. Katich has lost his place while Watson is a fixture in the team. Who's to say that if Katich had not been the batsman dismissed in those incidents, he wouldn't have scored heavily and would still be wearing the baggy green? "That's cricket," I hear you say, but it becomes harder to shrug your shoulders and write off your career with that careless catchphrase anymore.

Likewise Mitchell Johnson, who was hanging on by the skin of his teeth in South Africa recently. Not only did he have to contend with the odd dropped catch but he might also start to question why he wasn't bowling downwind or into the rough or at the tail or with the new ball. So many conspiracy theories or bad luck stories can creep into the mindset of these guys who fear that they're going to be judged purely on numbers.

If we had a system based purely on numbers, perhaps Shane Warne may never have got his chance at all. His Shield record wasn't spectacular but the selectors at the time recognised a streak of genius and backed their instincts. Under a new system that is purely performance-based (logically, that can only be retrospective because you can't perform in advance), Warne may have taken a lot longer to be called-up to the Australian team. Nathan Lyon is winning rave reviews now but clearly his selection was based more on nous than on numbers.

The rotation system will need to be scrapped too if performance-based contracts come into play. Which player is going to happily agree to rest against a minnow team? Which top order batsman will volunteer to sit out a game on a green top against Dale Steyn, Vernon Philander and Morne Morkel? Which fast bowler will complain of some convenient hamstring soreness after he sees a flat pitch at the SSC in Colombo? Unless you can come up with a system that can also measure these variables, including qualities like courage, peer-respect and selflessness, you will have a yardstick that is utterly unsuited to sport. Cricket is not like athletics where you can simply measure someone against the clock or against the rest of the field in the same conditions. Winning or losing a toss can change a career. Team instructions, like "we need to score quickly to set up a declaration" might require a disclaimer to be signed before the batsman agrees to the T and C's.

Cricket, by its very nature, despite being a numbers game that can be measured statistically, has too many variables to be judged by commercially accepted performance or HRM benchmarks. You need a system that still allows for genius and raw talent, and that something special that defies an accountant's scrutiny. It still needs to be a system that is underpinned by runs and wickets, though, because a complete disregard for those fundamentals just leaves players very confused about what they have to do to gain selection. Ed Cowan's selection is great news in that respect – he has done all that can be expected of the next cab in the queue and when another player lost form, the selectors showed every Shield cricketer in the country that there is a unerring logic to their process. That builds faith in the system.

Paul Marsh, the astute and straight-talking boss of the Australian Cricketers' Association, has an excellent point when he asks if anyone else in the cricket set-up is subject to the performance measures that the administrators seem to be keen on imposing on the cricketers. If the 'suits' are keen to bring corporate incentive structures into the mix, does that apply to the hierarchy in Jolimont St too? After all, while the cricket team has undergone significant change since they slipped from being champions in all forms of the game, some if it through natural attrition (Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Hayden, Gillespie, the Waugh brothers) and some of it through culling (Katich, Hauritz, Hodge, Krejza, Hughes, Khawaja, Beer, the list goes on), has the same sword been wielded in management circles?

I genuinely am unaware of the answer to that question so I have no hidden agenda for asking it, but it's merely to make the point that it is disingenuous to commission things like the Argus Report that tries to hold the cricketers accountable for the dip in the team's performance unless all 'team members' also wear the pain. What about the management team that presided over that period of disappointment? Is Katich entitled to ask if they are still holding on to their jobs?

Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of applying overtly corporatised HRM principles to a 'profession' that is still essentially a sport, with all the glorious uncertainties and vagaries that come with it. I worked for many years at a university where I saw brilliant academics promoted to managerial posts. They might be brilliant at analysing atoms under microscopes but they were woeful at running a business. It's hard to apply one set of benchmarks to a totally different skill-set. Bottom line question – will the new system lead to better performance? I doubt it. Try convincing me that Sachin Tendulkar will score more runs if he is offered more money. Likewise Kumar Sangakkara who hasn't even been paid his salary in full yet – I can't see a man of his calibre trying any less harder in Durban next week just because he received his long overdue paycheque.

There's no easy solution but when business tries too hard to apply text book principles to sport, it just doesn't work. Some things defy logic. Cricket has long been a beast of that ilk. And I love her all the more for it.

To expect the fans to follow artificially created franchises (not teams) and engender the sort of tribal passion that characterises AFL and Rugby League is a serious error of judgement © Getty Images

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb and state my predictions upfront. Right or wrong, at least I won't be accused of pretending to be wise after the event. This post is bound to alienate as many people as it resonates with, so let's just hope we can engage in a civilised dialogue and light-hearted banter. After all, this article is about Twenty20 cricket, so what could be less serious than that? There we go – first shot fired!

I know for a fact that I'm not the only person out there who thinks that the Big Bash League will end up being a flop. Many knowledgeable cricket folk I have spoken to share that view for a number of different reasons. So for the record, let me articulate why I think it is a doomed experiment, regardless of how long the experiment will be persevered with, through sheer bloody-mindedness if nothing else.

Edwin Land, the inventor of Polaroid and a man who probably knew a thing or two about developing quick copies, had this to say about the sort of process that led to the birth of the BBL in some think-tank, possibly at an executive retreat on a beach on a tropical island: "it's not that we need new ideas but we need to stop having old ideas".

Firstly, unlike the IPL (which I still think has a limited shelf life but at least enjoys 'first mover advantage'), the BBL is a cheap copy of a product (the IPL) that operates in a cricket-mad market and attracts the very best players in the world. Australia just doesn't have the sheer numbers who will continue to watch BBL games ad nauseaum. The IPL has proved that it doesn't require significant external interest in the event. Domestic consumption alone is enough to feed the beast, although I'm not quite sure how long it will take before that menu too will start to look a bit tired. But that's another debate altogether. From our perspective here in Australia, domestic interest in the event will wane as soon as the initial novelty wears off. Quality products stand the test of time. You can't throw enough money at a cheap imitation to keep it afloat, regardless of how many bells, whistles and Hollywood starlets you throw at it.

Cricket Australia's marketing gurus are relying upon the sort of tribalism that keeps football clubs throughout the country in plenty of coin. Well actually, even some of those tribes are in serious financial difficulty these days but I think they have totally misread the Australian sports fan. To expect them to follow artificially created franchises (not teams) and engender the sort of tribal passion that characterises AFL and Rugby League is a serious error of judgement. I just can't see a backyard barbeque or dinner party where someone keeps making an excuse to dart into the TV room and check on the score and then return to the patio with all the other blokes waiting to hear the score. That's tribalism. BBL may satisfy the entertainment segment of the market for a short time but it won't get thousands of fans living and breathing every run and wicket, crying tears of joy and pain over their franchise's performance. For a small market like Australia, you will need that die-hard fan base to sustain a viable franchise.

The timing of the BBL is also wrong. Yes, I understand why they need to schedule it for the holiday period but it clashes with too many other things too. Like the Boxing Day Test, the New Year's Test in Sydney, the Australian Open, beach holidays and social gatherings where it would be deemed almost rude to have the cricket playing in the background at an evening family barbeque. In my family for example, if we have guests over for dinner, the television stays off. It's slightly different over a long lunch if the Test cricket is on or if Australia were playing in an ODI but I'm sure there would be many families who would not care for the distraction of a meaningless clash between the Sydney Sixers and the Melbourne Stars dominating the sanctity of a dinner party or evening social engagement.

Further on that point, if the BBL can only survive on the back of garnering interest during the holiday period, doesn't that say something about the whole tribalism thing? None of the football codes that the BBL is trying to emulate needs holidays and good weather to sustain fan interest. In fact, tribalism is best exemplified by the fact that footy fans will turn up in droves on a bitterly cold, wet and windy winter's night to watch their favourite team get flogged every weekend. That's tribalism.

Timing wise, the fact that we have this ridiculous situation in which Cricket Australia has to schedule a so-called 'Batting Camp' before the Boxing Day Test, just underscores how ridiculously out-of-synch our priorities are. Batting Camp? It used to be called Sheffield Shield cricket my friends! You know, that quaint old system that was arguably the best domestic competition in the world? You know, the testing ground where players had to take wickets and score runs before they got selected for a Test match? Bit old-fashioned, I know, but it worked quite nicely for a hundred years or so. Here we are, about to face one of the powerhouses of cricket (India) and our best players have to attend a batting camp to get themselves prepared for the Boxing Day Test? And they keep trying to tell us that Test cricket is still our number one priority. Yeah right.

The over-the-top marketing messages I see from Cricket Australia have clearly been borrowed from our sycophantic obsession with the American marketing machine – it may attract a certain type of audience, but is this where they see the future grassroots support for cricket coming from? They talk about trying to engage with the new generation and that's an admirable ambition, but the danger lies in alienating one loyal set of fans in order to attract an entirely different segment of the market who may only ever consume cricket in this fast food format. I refute the theory that you will be able to migrate these new fans to a longer format of the game. Why would they? Their first experience of cricket will be music, colour, costumes and short attention spans. How do we ever hope to get them to appreciate a brilliant spell of outswing bowling by a Pattinson to a Dravid who is doing everything possible to leave as many as he can without losing his off stump? Where's the fun in that to somebody who has only ever been weaned on a boundary every over, with rap music accompanying every big hit?

Finally, for all those brilliant marketing strategists who reckon that the 'side entertainment' is what attracts people to the game, I have this question to ask of them? What sort of high quality product needs so much diversion to attract a sustainable following? Is the product so inferior that the only way you can sell it is to dress it up in fancy uniforms, loud music and all the circus tricks? Is the product not worthy of standing on its own? Especially for a game like Twenty20, which is so fast-moving, is the audience that bored between each over and each fall of wicket that you have to seduce them with some other form of entertainment to keep them in their seats? Is it not enough that high-quality athletes are smashing sixes, smashing noses (in Brendon McCullum's case) and performing acrobatics in the outfield (Steven Smith on Friday night)? Our old friend Edwin Land of Polaroid fame sums it up rather succinctly when he said "marketing is what you do when your product is no good".

Last night's pantomime at the MCG just about said it all. Has our cricket dropped to such a low level that we're reduced to having an ageing star of yesteryear being the biggest crowd-puller and his girlfriend tossing the coin? We needed to see Shane Warne pashing Liz Hurley to give this BBL product true legitimacy? How long before we run out of famous ex-cricketers with fake blonde hair, dodgy mobile phone etiquette and Hollywood partners?

There's talk in the local newspaper of Shane and Liz being the star attractions for the game in Brisbane on Tuesday night. Gosh, and we've even arranged to mind his kids for him while he supervises Liz tossing! And this is the future that the BBL is banking on for long-term viability? Clearly the cricket itself isn't exciting enough to get people in the door so we need to have the likes of Liz Hurley tossing the coin and playing tonsil hockey with our great leg spinner? This is the vision for the high quality, long-term sustainable product that is going to attract investors and compete with the IPL?

To those marketing geniuses in focus groups, understand this – a BBL franchise will never be a team. It will never be like following the Tigers or the Bulldogs (choose your footy code – same difference). People will see through this tribalism rubbish for what it is. If the product isn't good enough to stand on its own two feet without the distractions, even the new punters you seek to attract will vote with their feet and move on to the next teeny bopper craze.

If this Test had been played in New Zealand, with the same viewer voting system in place, no prizes for guessing who would have won the award © AFP

The great Man-of-the-Match debate after the Hobart Test … my first reaction when I watched it live was a bit of surprise. I would probably have gone for Doug Bracewell but could see why the judges chose David Warner. Once it dawned on me that it was a viewer-driven poll, though, I was less sanguine about the decision. "How stupid," I thought. Of course it was only ever going to go one way if that was the way it was decided. My next thought was, "Honestly, who really cares?"

Clearly, I'm in the minority. Clearly, lots of people do care. So let's look at both sides of the argument then.

This MOM award thing is such a fine line. Especially in such a close game. If this Test had been played in New Zealand, with the same viewer voting system in place, no prizes for guessing who would have won that award. Even if Warner had got Australia over the line, Bracewell may have won the vote. I don't think Australians are the only folk who would have voted for their own man in a tight call.

Let's look at it another way; in Hobart, if Warner hadn't taken that last single, exposing Nathan Lyon to the strike and smashed two boundaries instead (if anyone in world cricket is capable of doing that, surely Warner would be close to the top of that list), would that have changed everything? It would have meant that Australia would have won the match, Warner would have scored a few more runs and Bracewell would have taken five wickets instead of six in a losing cause. So, would eight extra runs have changed our opinion on the whole matter?

What if it wasn't Warner who hit those extra eight runs? What if Lyon had snicked a couple of boundaries or even played one of those delightful Mark Waugh-esque flicks through midwicket? Would that have made us less critical of the popularity contest verdict?

My point is that in a game that was so close, it was a marginal call anyway as to who would get the MOM award. Personally, I would have chosen Bracewell but it wasn't the 'no-brainer' that some people suggest it was. After all, here was a bloke in only his second Test, often pilloried for being a Twenty20 slogger, carrying his bat through a tense fourth-innings chase on a pitch where the next-highest individual score was less than half his 123. It was a pitch that suited bowlers after all so perhaps, if you wanted to be devil's advocate, it could be argued that Warner's effort was more meritorious than Bracewell's bag of wickets.

Do the players themselves really care all that much? Sure, we remember the MOM from a World Cup final but do we really remember each Test match award? It's only a temporary title after all. The circus moves on and today's MOM is yesterday's forgotten hero. How many cricketers trade their reputations on official MOM awards? They play so much cricket these days and each award ceremony is nothing more than an attempt by sponsors to get some gormless, star-struck chief executive or marketing manager on stage to hand over some hideous looking trophy or gold-plated carving. The compere asks the player insightful questions like "how do you feel?", the player responds by thanking the sponsors and acknowledging the contribution of "the rest of the lads" and another memorable (not) ceremony winds up with a mug shot of the aforementioned chief executive trying to shake the hands of anyone who had anything to do with the match, including the groundsman, umpire or bus driver.

Real cricketers don't really care about these awards, not to the extent that the public seems to anyway. Cricketers are not like politicians who care more about what other people outside their 'industry' think. To cricketers at this level, the respect of their peers is more important than any award. Bracewell knows that he has the respect of his team-mates and more importantly perhaps, he has earned a new level of respect from the Australian team. That's probably his most satisfying emotion - knowing the opposition team rates him. MOM awards are all very good but honestly, they'd trade all of those awards for that deep sense of respect and being rated by the opposition. Cricket at this level doesn't need titles to confer legitimacy. Their achievements transcend such cheap thrills.

Cricketers tend to value quiet respect and admiration from inside their community much more than popularity contests conducted by mobile phone companies who make money from every vote. Warner, clearly crestfallen at losing the match, should be applauded for not whooping it up when he got the award. The Australian team were dignified in not going over the top when handed the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy. The New Zealand side were dignified and gracious in victory, aware that in young Bracewell, they had a champion of the future. Dignity, respect and a quiet sense of a job well done. No need for anything else.

The Hobart pitch was probably the closest thing New Zealand would find to local conditions at home © AFP

Let's get this Hobart Test into perspective then; I don't see it as quite the surprise and quite the train smash that a lot of other Australian writers think it is.

It's not such a bad thing for Australian cricket because now there's a genuine sense of competition and hopefully that will translate into a renewed interest in the longer format. Having said that, I hear that the Test was poorly patronised in ground attendance terms but my gut feeling is that it was widely followed on TV, on the radio and via the internet. I'd like to think Australian cricket fans (as opposed to fans of the Australian cricket team) realise now that every Test match is a genuine contest and well worth taking an interest in.

It's not that much of a surprise because if NZ were going to play well at any ground in Australia, it was likely to be on this greenish Hobart deck with conditions ideally suited to swing bowling too. It is probably the closest thing they would find to local conditions in NZ, with the ball nipping around off the seam and swinging in the air. It's the sort of pitch that suited their scrappy, battling, brave style of cricket, especially against an Australian batting order that refuses to bat in any other way other than to hit the ball on the up and away from the body. On good, hard decks, that works a treat. This was a pitch that required a bit of old-fashioned grafting - whilst Australia were still unlikely losers, it wasn't that much of a shock was it?

New Zealand played smart cricket and most importantly, they held their catches in the slips. Both Ross Taylor and Martin Guptill were excellent in the field and that was probably the difference. Had they shelled any of those catches in either innings, that might have been the difference. They expected the Australian batsmen to try to hit through the ball instead of treating it like the green seamer it was and when the chances came, predictably from players like Phillip Hughes and Brad Haddin, they grasped them. For their part, the Australian batsmen kept throwing hard hands at the ball and looked dismayed when it ended predictably, in tears. Again, where's the surprise in that?

What is of more concern to Team Australia is the issue of how they get their batsmen into any sort of Test match nick before Boxing Day. Perhaps it's just a timing issue or a cluttered calendar or a slight under-estimation of New Zealand's appetite for a battle but from a preparation point of view, the Big Bash League could not have come at a worse time. How do you get batsmen to practice leaving the outswinger alone or not playing across the line when you're in constant Twenty20 mode? It would take an exceptional player to be able to switch from Twenty20 mentality back to Test match style and I'm not sure if any of the players in the gunsights are that exceptional. Well, their form isn't that exceptional anyway.

The bright spots on the horizon are worth celebrating too. James Pattinson and David Warner have both given us enough to be optimistic about. Let's not forget though that Hughes too started off with centuries early in his Test career and he's now the subject of intense technical scrutiny. For a domestic system that lauds itself as being the best in the world, one has to wonder how Hughes' apparent technical shortcomings were not exploited by Sheffield Shield bowlers. How can he score so prolifically in Shield cricket if his faults were that obvious? I'm of the opinion that Hughes is just one swashbuckling innings away from redemption, so long as he reverts to that style of play. He will never be a Katich-style grafter so we might as well move on from that era and accept that he scores in different zones and can self-combust more spectacularly too. The kid scored a Test century just a few months ago in Sri Lanka and came close to another one a month ago in South Africa. Likewise Michael Hussey, who carried the batting in Sri Lanka - he'll come good again. Haddin is the one who probably needs to be looked at because he seems to getting out in the same way without peeling off a big score to warrant the risks he's taking to drive on the up through cover and mid-off.

For an fogey like me who has no interest in the BLL circus with pensioners masquerading as stars, I'm looking forward to the real cricket starting again in Melbourne on Boxing Day. India too have their old men turning out but these guys are deadly serious. Sachin Tendulkar, VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid against the young fast bowlers like Peter Siddle and Pattinson... worth waiting for. All New Zealand have done is to remind us that this Australian team is vulnerable. Very vulnerable. And that's good for cricket.

Young players like Pat Cummins should have a good, long think about longevity and whether that is more important than the quick buck, attractive as that may seem © AFP

Mickey Arthur's recent comments on the rotation policy that Australian cricketers will have to learn to accept, provides excellent material for a discussion on the topic. Arthur talks about the need for "adult conversations" and maturity amongst the playing group so let's start right now then with this blog piece.

Going by comments left by ESPNcricinfo readers, this is clearly a multi-dimensional issue. It's the sort of topic that can be discussed at a mature, sensible level since it lacks the emotion and patriotic fervour surrounding discussions on a particular player or country. I'm looking forward to reading the varied comments that will hopefully follow.

From my perspective, I'm not a big fan of the rotation policy. I come from a generation where each game was sacrosanct and there was no such thing as a "free ride". You played in every game you were selected in, the best team was always selected and you never willingly gave up your spot for anybody else, unless it was due to injury or form. Perhaps that's a reflection of the fact that I played in an era where we were certainly not complaining of too much cricket, and weren't in the habit of surrendering a hard-won spot in the team.

In 1990, I was best man at my sister's wedding and I chose to get there just in time for the start of the reception because the church service clashed with an A-grade game in Brisbane. Despite much grumbling, my family accepted that cricket was my 'job' (to some extent) and that having spent a whole off-season trying to make the team, I wasn't going to risk losing my spot. I argued (unsuccessfully) that my sister should have got married on a weekday instead! Considering that I wasn't good enough to be an automatic selection the following week, I really could not afford to give somebody else a chance to sneak in ahead of me.

The game has moved on since then. They play a lot more cricket and apparently, despite the army of medical specialists, the fittest cricketers of all-time seem to be breaking down at a higher rate than I can ever recall. Maybe the medical support staff and the culture that goes with it just makes cricketers more likely to be aware of injuries these days whereas previously they would have just played through some niggles, perhaps exacerbating the problem. A recent U-19 squad coach I spoke to suggested that when teams don't have a physio travelling with them, they end up with a lot fewer injuries than when there is one.

If the current problem is that they're playing so much cricket and that's what is causing the fatigue-related injuries, here's a simple solution. Play less. How hard is that? The administrators and the cricketers want to play more cricket so they can line their pockets, yet they complain about bigger workloads and more injuries. It's not rocket science chaps – if you can't hack the pace, play lesser cricket, even if that means lesser money, and then we won't need to rotate players. Shock, horror... we might even have the best possible team selected for every game. Now that's a new way to bring the crowds back to Test matches!

I know that it's all about the money and the TV rights. Yes, yes, I get all that. But if we're now playing so much cricket that nobody is actually that interested in each game, is that a counter-productive strategy? I did not watch a single ball of the recent Australia v New Zealand Test match which was played in my home town. I am vaguely aware that India played West Indies in a series recently, but I don’t know what happened. I remember reading about Ravi Rampaul scoring some runs, and one of the Tests ending as an exciting draw in Mumbai. Pakistan recently played Sri Lanka somewhere in the Middle East and it was on Pay-TV but I cannot recall a single note-worthy score. So my point is that in trying to make more money from playing more cricket, you risk saturating the market to the point where even cricket lovers like myself stop following games closely. Less cricket, less injuries / fatigue, less need for rotation. Possibly, less earning power for some cricketers and oards too.

Some cricketers will say they want to play as much cricket as possible and earn as much as they can. Fair enough but if that's the case, don't complain if you get injured or if you get rotated because of fatigue. And certainly don't complain about excessive workloads! Young players like Pat Cummins and Mitchell Starc should have a good, long think about longevity and whether that is more important than the quick buck, attractive as that may seem. If they sign on for IPL contracts, they might get rich quicker but will it risk their long-term prospects of playing international cricket for another 12-15 years?

Despite Michael Hussey's reservations about the rotation system, I think it is more likely to apply to fast bowlers than to batsmen. I haven't come across too many batsmen who claim they are too fatigued to keep scoring runs. If you're in good form with the bat, unless you have an actual injury like a broken bone or a torn hamstring, I can't see a batsman agreeing to being rotated for a Test, just so he can have a rest. The day that happens will be the day Test cricket loses its intrinsic value as the ultimate form of the game. A fast bowler might actually be physically fatigued if he had back-to-back Tests in hot weather and with a heap of travel thrown into the equation, but batsmen will be loath to stand aside. Despite Arthur's calls for maturity around this issue, I can't see it happening. Just think back to Shaun Marsh's entry into Test cricket in Sri Lanka when he scored a century - why would anyone like Usman Khawaja be immature (naïve) enough to stand aside and let Marsh play a Test against a relatively weak bowling attack? It's different in the case of say Stuart Law or Martin Love who were essentially drafted in to temporarily replace established stars. Both parties knew that as soon as the incumbent returned from injury (or family duties), they would walk back into the set-up, a good show from the replacement notwithstanding.

Does the rotation policy apply to the captain too? Surely if fatigue is a factor, the captain must be more susceptible than most? If Michael Clarke was a bit weary, would it be acceptable for him to miss a Test as part of the rotation policy? In my eyes, that would utterly demean the institution that comes with being the captain of your country in Test cricket. I realise that it happens more readily in ODI or T20 formats but Test cricket? Surely not!

I can see why it is in Mickey Arthur's best interests to prepare his squad for the possibility that they may be rotated. If he can manage the angst that flows from these selections to an acceptable growl, his life will be a lot easier. But from a cricketer's perspective, I just can't stomach the thought of being "rested" for an international game when I'm not actually physically incapable of playing. Never having played at that level (and wishing I had), I cannot envisage a mindset that would allow me to stand aside willingly. If that is what ends up happening to Test cricket one day, it will signal the end of the romance and passion that has always been the format’s claim to purity. Surely some things are more sacred than the tawdry glamour of the IPL, the glitzy bi-annual World T20s, and the endless list of ODI trophies presented by inane CEOs of electronic companies smiling and fawning on stage with Tony Greig whilst he gushes over another forgettable event?