By Stuart John, Australia

Can Ed Cowan make more out of his international career than his English namesake? © Getty Images

This sounds familiar to anyone? Regular first-class cricketer plays for over seven years, not excelling but not sinking into the abyss as many have before. Mid-table mediocrity, so to speak. Said cricketer then wakes up one morning and discovers the cricketing fairies (I'd like to imagine Merv Hughes in a Tinkerbell outfit tip-toeing around the house so not to wake anyone up) have turned him into a batting champion. Centuries flow from his bat like beer from the tap, eventually leading to a long-awaited Test call-up. Once there, our hero doesn't disgrace himself either, battling a difficult pitch and a strong bowling attack to make a useful 60-odd before being caught behind; his second innings is less successful, with an lbw decision against him early on.

I should probably mention at this point that our hero is already a published author. If you're an Australian cricket fan, you probably know the answer. And if you said his first name is Ed, we'd be in agreement. But our hero for this particular story isn't new Australian opener Ed Cowan - instead, it's former England player Ed Smith. Mind you though, most of the above could be true for Messrs. Cowan or Smith – and there's more to it than that. Both made their first-class debuts at a young age, for world-famous British universities (Cowan at 20 for Oxford, Smith at 18 for Cambridge); both struggled for about four years into their first-class careers; and both have a reputation for being intellectual in a career that doesn't always look that kindly on those outside the norm.

Probably the major difference between the two Eds is the timing of their season diaries. Cowan's In The Firing Line is about his 2010/2011 season, where his average average of 34 was partially balanced out by a century in the Sheffield Shield final that helped Tasmania to only their second-ever win. Smith's On And Off The Field narrates his amazing 2003 season, where he hit six centuries in six matches to metaphorically blast down the door to English selection down with a cannon, bazooka, laser and anything else that came to hand.

Both wrote their diaries with very different home lives as well: Cowan is happily married to media personality Virginia Lette and settled in Hobart, while Smith broke up from his girlfriend and moved house just before the start of the 2003 season. Smith was already a published author by this point, his Playing Hard Ball: County Cricket and Big League Baseball comparing English professional cricket with Major League Baseball. What is uncanny about the two though is the similarity in writing styles. Both Eds reveal plenty about themselves in their diaries, how they treated triumph and disaster; and even the little tweaks they made to go from Ed Plodder to Ed Dasher. (No, I'm not going to tell you what they were - you have to read the books for that). So what happens next? For Ed Smith, that 64 on debut remained his highest score after his remaining four innings gave him just 23 runs and had him fade out of England contention. He continued playing for Kent for one more season before moving to Middlesex, retiring in 2008 before becoming a major writer for the Times newspaper. For Ed Cowan, that chapter is yet to be written. One hopes that when it is, it's written in a way that will continue to do credit to Eds the cricketing world over.

From Philip and Alan Sutherland, Australia

Australians do not have a great track record in watching cricket not played by their national team © Getty Images

In 1858, the talented allrounder Tom Wills was posed with something of a problem, namely, how to keep his fellow Victorian cricketers fit during the off season. The solution he helped find was the birth of a robust new sport in Australian Rules, said to be something of a mix of rugby, Gaelic football and the similar pastimes involving possum-skin balls of some of the indigenous peoples of the Western District of Victoria.

Over a century and a half since, cricket and the sport it helped spawn, Australian Rules, are uneasy bed-mates. Together, they rule the sporting landscape in Australia’s four “southern” states – Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. Yet, despite sharing grounds they inhabit totally different environs. In 1997, Australia’s regular free-to-air broadcaster of cricket, Channel Nine, had something of a problem too. Its problem was how to keep viewers entertained during the 40-minute Test match lunch breaks. The answer was The Cricket Show, a half-hour magazine-style programme hosted by former Australian allrounder, Victoria captain and Australian Rules footballer, Simon O’Donnell. As successful as it has been, however, perhaps The Cricket Show will ultimately tell less about the state of the game in Australia than another programme from WIN TV, a Channel Nine affiliate in Victoria – The Country Footy Show.

Of course, The Country Footy Show has nothing to do with cricket and therein lies the point. There is no country cricket show, nor will there ever be. Footy may have began partly as a means of keeping flannelled fools fit in the winter, but now cricket is more likely to be a way of keeping footballers entertained in the summer. Australia’s pre-eminent farming paper, The Weekly Times, tells a similar story. Its sporting section is packed with country football ladders, stories and statistics for six months of the year. This includes a small Legends of the Bush column which looks at prominent people and families in the country game. When the cricket season comes around, the only bit that is left is this one, small column, now converted to the bat and ball. This different reporting only reflects the different perceptions of football and cricket. The situation is similar in the rugby states of New South Wales and Queensland as well.

Football is the realm of club loyalties, whether to Melbourne FC in the AFL or South Sydney FC in the NRL and it is clubs that people are most passionate about. That cricket has survived so well Down Under has more to do with its long history of international rivalry, especially with the Ashes and in more modern times against the West Indies at their peak. How this support will transfer to a local IPL-style 20-over competition is difficult to say. This season of the IPL is not being telecast in Australia. In previous seasons, it’s unlikely to have attracted massive audiences here. Australians do not have a great track record in watching cricket not played by their national team. Only the short stuff of the Big Bash came close. To many Australians, the presence of the likes of Shane Warne in the IPL has probably more curiosity-value than anything else.

The coming season is to have two 20-over teams in both Sydney and Melbourne, a radical departure from the strictly state structure that cricket has maintained. Club loyalties in the IPL are reshaping cricket and a similar process is beginning here. We cannot simply blame the IPL, however. Our own attitudes are at least equally responsible for the changes occurring. As a young footballer from the club we support was once reported as saying, “It was nice to be involved (briefly) with cricket again – you forget how much you enjoyed it.” As cricket is dwarfed by its back-sheets son, we forget too that cricket needs space, not just for grounds and deeds, but thoughts as well. When Australians stand at a cricket match and talk footy, do we ever stop to think that the reverse, irrespective of the different time-lengths involved, hardly ever happens.

From Brad Hinds, Australia

Among the many players who have drifted in and out of the Australian side over the past few years, Shane Watson is one of the few who have solidly remained © AFP

Shane Watson may best be described today as the product of a 'long-term investment plan’ by Cricket Australia. It’s been an interesting development for Cricket Australia, whose managerial and administrative decisions over the past few years have become increasingly dubious and contentious. Very few have paid off. In Watson's case, the returns have been exceptional.

Watson always had respectable first-class batting and bowling figures, but the first few years of his professional career on the international stage playing for Australia were plagued with a seemingly insurmountable array of problems. Primarily, there was little confidence in Watson’s longevity. He was continuously hampered by injuries between 2005 and mid 2009 (ranging from stress fractures and hamstring problems). Even more problematic, there was little confidence in his ability to make valuable contributions in the batting order despite his useful medium-pace bowling. In his first 13 Test Innings – spread sparsely between 2005 and the middle of 2009 when he alternated between sixth and seventh in the batting order - Watson scored 257 runs at only an average of 19.7 with a solitary half-century.

He had a solid but noticeably exploitable technique, and Watson had a tendency in the early stages of his career for being trapped lbw. Of course, these forgettable performances (and subsequent injuries, evidently) were easily overlooked when Australia’s normal line-up consisted of great players performing at their prime; Adam Gilchrist, Matthew Hayden, Brett Lee, Shane Warne, Justin Langer, Damien Martyn. Watson was only ever a substitute. He was never called in as a permanent replacement.

But since the retirement of those players (with the exception of Lee in ODI’s), Watson was a key figure that Australia seriously needed to consider in trying to rebuild the team. Watson had Test experience, and this was an advantage when mulling over the many players available who had no international experience at all. When Matthew Hayden retired in 2009, someone had to take his place. The decision, therefore, to give Watson the opportunity to open the batting with Simon Katich – with his apparent fragility and flawed technique - was understandably met with harsh criticism and deep apprehension. It was a precarious gamble; one whose result could be decided only by Watson.

The result? Years of hesitation and apprehension has given way to profound respect and admiration. Despite the myriad of reasonable concerns since that decision, Watson has developed into an enviable cricketer, and one that Australia simply couldn’t be without. Through the tribulations – physical, mental, social – he has emerged perhaps as one of the world’s most complete international allrounders. The board’s faith in him and the guidance of Ricky Ponting, who Watson credits as being a large contributing factor in his development as a professional cricketer, has paid off.

Indeed, when you consider how far he’s come and the extent of his current achievements, his story is almost a romantic one. He is a fighter – a typical Australian quality. Whereas other cricketers in his position may have buckled under the pressure, Watson did not. Rather, the criticism seems to have propelled him to perform above and beyond even the highest of public expectations. Among the many players who have drifted in and out of the Australian side over the past few years, Watson is one of the few who has remained. He has never been in any danger of losing his spot since receiving it. He has embraced the new role that he plays, despite it having been foreign.

As vice-captain, a promotion he only just recently acquired since Ponting stood down and Michael Clarke took over, he is already a leader in every facet of the game. As a batsman, he is the very embodiment of the modern cricketer; an obvious product of the increasing importance placed on the shorter formats of the game. He is powerfully built, relies more on brute strength as opposed to delicate timing, and is very versatile. He is shaping to be an outstanding fielder despite his bulky physique, and he is exceptionally handy as a medium-pace bowler who frequently takes wickets.

He has shown the capacity to adapt well to changing conditions around the world and especially with regards to the differences between cricket formats. On the field he can be a force to be reckoned with. He is both very aggressive and completely dominating. Watson has rarely been bogged down by bowlers. That said he is also a very humble player. When off the field he maintains a calm and collected disposition, and he appears to be both quiet and oddly gentle.

Since he gained the opening position in Tests, he has scored 1696 runs at an average of 50 with 14 half-centuries, two centuries, and a top score of 126. On the ODI scene especially, Watson has even more impressive figures and is becoming an increasingly feared individual across the world with his ability to dominate the scoring from the get-go on almost any pitch and against any opposition. Between 2002 and April 2009 Watson scored a total of 1263 runs across 36 innings at an average of 35 with a top score of 126. In 2009, he scored 1013 runs across 20 innings at an average of 50.6 with a top score of 136 not out. From 2010 to today he has hit 1589 runs at an average of 48 with a top score of 185 not out. (Click for Watson's career summary in Tests and ODIs.)

The frequency at which he scores fifty or more has increased over the years. In Tests he scored only one half-century between 2005 and 2009. In 2009, he scored six half-centuries and one century. In 2010 he scored eight half-centuries and one century. In ODIs he scored seven half-centuries and a century between 2002 and 2009, an average of one per year. In 2009, he scored three half-centuries and as many centuries. In 2010 he scored seven half-centuries. In 2011 he has already scored five half-centuries and two centuries, including that knock against Bangladesh.

Despite his accomplishments, Watson isn’t free of criticism or ridicule. His tendency to fall after getting himself in, persistently plagues his batting. His particular tendency to get out in the 90s has been the source of much humor in the cricket community. That is a phase that he will probably grow out of as he settles even more comfortably into his role as opening batsman. The run won’t last forever – the runs won’t always keep coming. But if Watson maintains his positive approach to his game, there’s no doubt he’ll continue to be a defining symbol of Australian cricket for many years to come.

From Sam Barnett, United Kingdom

The more the merrier: Why does Australian cricket stick to six state teams when 18 are clearly better © Getty Images

In light of England’s recent and consistent success over Australia it is only all too evident that Australian cricket has some serious structural deficiencies. Fear not Australians, for these issues can be amended with a simple overhaul of Australian domestic structure that can be digested in three easy steps.

1. Australian cricket is too efficient. Six states? Why not eighteen? This way players who aren’t going to be good enough for international cricket can still make a living, averaging somewhere around 30 with the bat and 40 with the ball, all the while being able to complain that they play too much cricket. Indeed, without such charity these “honest” fellows would have to get a real job. Furthermore, a double-figure amount of domestic sides allows for an effective drain for all that lovely windfall of cash generated by the international side. This, in turn, can be used to build a series of quaint 15-20,000 seater stadiums, none quite big enough to satiate public demand for international cricket but all too big for domestic cricket itself. This has a number of wholly positive effects. Firstly, it allows for a rise in ticket prices that keeps English cricket where it rightfully belongs: in the hands of the upper-middle class. Secondly, it enables county games to have an adequate number of empty seats: not so many (as in Australia) as to be upsetting to those partaking, but no so few (as in New Zealand) as to make a player question whether he is actually a professional sportsman at all.

2. South Africans. It seems your system’s not producing sufficient players, no? Never fear, South African private schools are here! A guaranteed source of unflinching, unquestioning talent and one in which their development has been completely paid for by CSA and privileged parents. One wouldn’t even have to worry for a lack of patriotism, a few seasons at a county and you have yourself a fully fledged Englishman; it can be assumed that such a process could easily be adapted to any want-away South Africans who find themselves ashore Bondi Beach. While it’s unlikely that the pesky issue of a spinner who can turn milk will be solved, this recent spate of collapses - particularly the current vacuum of runs at places three and four - can be solved instantaneously with a couple of conspicuous accents. Gosh, you really have wasted time trying to fix problems with, wait for it, Australians!

3. Sky money. The Holy Grail for all cricket boards. Forget that our current crop of players, the most successful in generations, were raised in an era of unprecedented free-for-air coverage; no, the cricket XIs of the future will have been raised by ECB Certificate Level 1 coaches and sporadic coaching days with free oversized t-shirts. Besides, youngsters won’t have to sit down and learn from their heroes on TV, they’ll be to busy playing with their community’s free NPower Kwik Cricket set. Even better, this system enables the successful isolation of cricket to the upper-middle class, just in case those pesky peasants thought they might be able to watch live cricket at home if not the stadiums - the cheek! Along with an epidemic of minimally trained coaches, Sky money is extremely useful for giving jobs to the boys. Dean Jones looking a bit lonesome? Just make up a job, that’s how we keep Gatt’s fridge full - all one needs do is feed the press some guff about “Managing Cricket Partnerships”. Just think the amount of revenue you are wasting by trying to make cricket “accessible”!

So, those who “Come from a land down under, where the women glow and the men plunder” (or so I’m reliably told), I hope you have to come realise just where you are going wrong. Simply adopt these aforementioned reforms and Australian cricket will be well on the way for excellent long-term growth, just like it is on these green and pleasant lands.

From Josh Barnes, Australia

Don't give up the reins to 'Pup' just yet © Getty Images

While many people voice their determined opinion about how Ricky Ponting should step down from captaincy, from cricket altogether and Swisse Vitamins commercials, I thought it would be fair for somebody to stick up for the great battler, and against better advice I decided to take on the task. Ponting can remain the Australian Test captain and an integral accumulator of runs. Just by giving up a couple of the things that makes him so great.

ODI cricket: Firstly, Ponting might need to step away from one of his favourite past times: pulling medium-pacers for six in coloured clothing. Following the World Cup (where Super Rick will attempt to win his fourth consecutive World Cup, third as captain) he should be told that reducing his workload may be overly beneficial. Stepping down from ODIs will keep him to Test matches only and allow him to focus on returning to powerful form. Although he remains one of the greatest batsmen to ever don the colours, ODIs must go.

Move down the order : While his pride will already be dented by being told ODIs were finished, Ricky Thomas will have to move down to No. 4 or 5. Facing the new ball is no longer his game, being successful in the middle order is. Ponting has averaged beyond 58 at No. 3 for almost ten years, yet he is obviously moving along in age and reflexes, so holding down the middle order while a younger member of the team takes over No. 3 (or even Shane Watson) is the right move to make.

Stay as captain: Australian cricket has finally made its way to the great, inevitable fork in the road. It can take that beautiful glorious road of return towards the rainbow or glory, or the deadly, dark and dangerous road towards disaster and mediocrity. Australia needs the experience and smarts of Ponting, at least until Michael Clarke grows up and proves himself, or a better replacement is found. Now is not the time to make drastic action to remove the captain, it is time for security and solidity. Panic doesn't help anybody. Ponting is Australia's second greatest batsman and deserves to be treated with respect. But if he wants to retain his position in international cricket, he needs to make a couple of changes. Following these changes we will return to the glorious days of the giant pull shot, the brilliant straight drive and the celebratory bat raise. Or, at least, less sleepless nights.

From Jacob Astill, Australia

Which of these two men is better suited to lead Australia? © AFP

Please excuse my brief philosophising, but in cricket, as in life, you need to ask the right questions to get the right answers. With some ordinary records under his belt and baffling tactical decisions, quite obviously the conclusion of Ricky Ponting's tenure as Australian captain is at its when and not if stage. But the thing that astounds me is that while questions are quite rightly being asked of Ponting, the sound of those questioning Michael Clarke's seemingly inevitable progression to new skipper is being drowned out by a butterfly's wingbeat ten miles away.

The Australian Test captaincy has always been a much more serious job than in other Test countries, perhaps because of the usual abundance of potential candidates or the pressure to succeed placed on the eventual victor to follow in the footsteps of some of the most successful captains and teams in history.

In recent times, current captain Ricky Ponting has fallen foul of this pressure, with Australia falling from one of the greatest teams in history and undoubtedly the No. 1 in Tests and ODIs, to a miserable fifth in the ICC's Test rankings. Although I am an outspoken critic of Ponting's captaincy - I still maintain that Australia lost the first Test in the recent series in India because of terrible captaincy from Ponting during VVS Laxman and Ishant Sharma's match-winning partnership - it has been an extremely difficult period for the Australians regardless, losing some of the greatest players in history and having to go along with some ordinary selections.

But it is this slip in the rankings and some weaknesses in the side that have led many of us to contemplate Australian cricket post-Ponting, and depending on how the Ashes plays out this summer, this period could be upon us sooner rather than later.

But (there's always a "but") is Michael Clarke the right man to lead Australia? It may surprise some of you to learn that I firmly believe no. There are three main reasons behind this: Firstly, he has no experience. A dozen or so dead-rubber fill-ins as one-day captain should not be the requirements for graduating to your captaincy diploma. Clarke has absolutely no experience captaining in first-class cricket, and I think that for him to have any chance of fulfilling his aspirations to captain the Test side he should serve his apprenticeship as a first-class captain learning the unique tactical nuances of the extended game.

Secondly, we need a fresh approach. A side-effect of not having had a protracted period (or any period) in charge of a first-class side means that basically everything Clarke knows about captaincy has come from Ricky Ponting, Australia's worst captain in at least 25 years. All the talk about Australia being in a rebuilding phase is completely true, and to grow as an international side we need to see a captain with fresh ideas and an unbiased outlook on the side, not the same old stale ideas just coming from a different player.

And last but absolutely not least, I think there are better candidates. Cameron White and Simon Katich seem to fit the criteria; they firstly deserve a place in the Test side (White in particular would solve Australia's first slip issues), tactically they add something more than Ponting or Clarke, and they've shown that they can successfully lead cricket teams. Before leaving the State scene a couple of years ago to be recalled as an opening batsman, Simon Katich led NSW to the Sheffield Shield and showed that his cricket didn't suffer under the burden of captaincy, totalling over 1000 runs in that 07/08 season. He also led NSW to the inaugural Champions League Twenty20 title in 2009, showing that he was not a static captain devoid of ideas. If nothing else, Twenty20 cricket does promote tactical innovation. Perhaps the only item in Katich's con list is his age; at 35 he should really be looking to vacate the international scene around the same side as Ponting.

Still, he remains a genuine but ultimately short-term option. Cameron White would be my choice as Ponting's successor. Under him, Victoria have become the undisputed leading side in Australian domestic cricket, making umpteen finals in the Sheffield Shield, one-day competition, and Big Bash over the last few years. Unfortunately for him, he's been labelled as a limited-overs specialist and gaining a recall to the Test side as a specialist batsman does not seem to have crossed the selectors' minds, despite averaging over 40 in first-class cricket, and having flourished as a batsman in recent one-day series for the international side.

Regardless of the end result, Michael Clarke, for me, will remain unfit to captain the Australian cricket team in the long term. We can only hope that a grave mistake is not made by anointing a man who is unfit to take the role, because in a "rebuilding phase" the wrong leadership could potentially cause the Australian side to drift backwards

From Alan & Philip Sutherland, Australia

The benefits will flow both ways if a couple of New Zealand domestic sides join the Australian T20 competition
© Getty Images

The recent four-nil drubbing of the Black Caps by an improving Bangladesh, while good for cricket generally, must shine a spotlight on where New Zealand are heading with their domestic game.

The simple fact is that New Zealand is not a large country and cricket is not its national sport. In the hearts of most New Zealanders, cricket will always come a distant second to the All Blacks rugby team. With just over four million people, New Zealand has a smaller population than three of the six Australian states. Therefore, the task in running a quality domestic competition is so much harder for New Zealanders than it is for their Trans-Tasman neighbours.

In other sports, like netball, rugby, soccer and basketball, New Zealand has solved this problem by joining an Australasian competition. This could well be the future of Antipodean domestic limited-overs cricket too.

The main argument for such a move is an improved competitiveness for player development. During the 2010 Champions League Twenty20 tournament, the Central Districts hardly set the world on fire. They were easily a class below South Australia and Victoria. In a joint competition, two New Zealand teams (rather than six), possibly representing either of the two islands, would face the six current Australian states.

The other sports have shown that crowds will come to watch a local team play an Australian one, especially if they can reasonably be expected to see their side win. Home matches scheduled in a number of venues on both islands would help strengthen the local spectator base.

That is not to say that one would want to see the end of the Plunket Shield. There is no great merit in joint first-class arrangements, but one would hope that an increased exposure to tougher competition in the shorter versions would feed back into the Plunket Shield and, therefore, into the Test team. Playing under diverse Australian conditions will do up-and-coming New Zealand cricketers no harm at all. Neither will it harm Australian cricket, for the benefits flow both ways. Scheduling would become tighter, yet there is so much to gain that it must, at some point, be considered.

From Ibrahim Moiz, Canada

The nomination of John Howard is an act of severe short-sightedness © Getty Images

Gideon Haigh has made himself a name for writing spanking pieces taking apart moral and economic flaws in the cricket fraternity. Unfortunately, his case for John Howard wasn't one of them. It's a fine piece in its own right, filled with Haigh's typical bafflement at the hypocrisies and short-sightedness of some of the world's most vocal bodies--yet it fails, I'm afraid, to make a case for the much-maligned Howard.

First of all, let's get the prerequisites out. What Howard was as prime minister of Australia really doesn't matter; the way and pattern he went about his work does, as that is what will be transferred to the ICC should he become vice-president or president. What he said or didn't say about Murali doesn't matter, either; it's his personal view, and though it may be mind-numbingly frustrating for some fans (myself included) to have to continually beat a dead horse every time Murali grabs a seven-for, Howard is entitled to his opinion.

Nor is the fact that he can't bowl to save his life of any consequence--mere knowledge and awareness of his responsibilities as an ICC official should suffice, and he is at least academically aware of cricket norms.

Indeed, it can be argued that his outsider rank is a strength and not a weakness, seeing as it removes a significant chip from his shoulder. But the fact remains that he is in no way qualified whatsoever for the job either. Those who attacked him as a racist or politician were indulging in ad hominem, trying to break their opponent's case by attacking his character instead of the issues at hand.

The temptation to expose their hypocrisy must have taken over, but instead of presenting a case for Howard's candidature Mr Haigh only attacked the double standards of the opponents; the subtitle to his piece, saying that Howard's opponents "are not exactly shining examples of rectitude themselves", signifies as much.

The fact is that there is a broadly divided view on Howard, and most of it is, unfortunately, not positive. To overcome that Howard would have to be a shining example of level-headed diplomacy, firmness and cool--yet his chuntering, in-your-face manner while leading his country suggests otherwise. His regular forays into the world of cricket went beyond endearing--that was a John Major, or a Robert Menzies--to simply tasteless. He is, unfortunately, seen in some parts of the cricket world as a divisive influence.

The fact is that from all the wonderfully capable administrators who surely must exist in the Anzac realm--that capable former NZC administrator, Sir John Anderson, springs immediately to mind--choosing Howard, whatever the hypocrisy of the nay-sayers, was almost mind-blowingly short-sighted. You may as well have appointed George W Bush head of FIFA--he may be a hell of a nice guy personally and his politics may have nothing to do with his views on the sport, but the fact is that people don't like him.

To overcome that he would have to be a genius at management--and that, unfortunately, is not evident either. Howard would have to change his public image dramatically--and serenading India, unfortunately, won't be enough. Indeed it is a sign that instead of standing up for the Anzac divide, Howard may just end up pandering to the hulking Indian board. In the end, whether Howard does or doesn't get the job--the fact is that there are many, many people better suited to the job, and the nomination is an act of severe short-sightedness.

From Alan & Philip Sutherland, Australia

	Simon Katich's superb second coming © Getty Images

After a disappointing Australian summer for lovers of Test cricket as an even non-partisan contest, one continued come-back slipped under the radar.

Immediately after the 2005 Ashes, Simon Katich’s career showed about as much life as an 800-a-day ODI pitch. He’d averaged 27 and had been severely troubled by English swing. His initial step across the stumps had all the hallmarks of a fatal flaw which would see him finishing his days as a well-credentialled skipper for his adopted New South Wales. By 2007, he’d even lost his national contract. For one who had started so brightly and had so much to offer the Australian game, this would have been a sad end indeed.

At a time when Australian cricket needed diversity, Katich had his attractions. A natural left-hander when it seemed almost every batsman had swapped in their youth, such as Michael Hussey from right to left or Michael Clarke in the opposite direction, Katich never seemed troubled by bottom-hand dominance despite this.

In full flight, his wristy style was a treat to watch, especially square of the wicket, as was the placement of his drives along the turf. With decidedly the most subcontinental-looking technique of any Australian batsman, it was Katich’s series in India in 2008, following on from a successful trip to the Caribbean, that confirmed he was back to stay.

Over 300 runs, including a century in Nagpur was a fine return, but many were left asking why only 19 overs of his left-arm wrist-spin was utilised that series. It was a far cry from his four wickets against India in Adelaide five years earlier. Age and injury take their toll, but chinamen are a rare species and one wonders what may have happened during the Ashes in England if Katich could have bowled more often.

Amid all the hoopla over Shane Watson’s success in the Allan Border Medal, it is often overlooked here that Simon Katich was recognised as Australian Test Player of the year. In many ways it was a win for the old-fashioned cricketer. His behaviour on the field is exemplary and his Sheffield Shield captaincy is first class. His wristiness is somewhat of a throwback to the days of Alan Kippax, in a land where such things are not necessarily widely appreciated at grassroots level.

For a style which is sometimes said to best suit lower, slower Indian-style pitches, it is worth remembering that Katich began his career at the WACA in Perth, in days when it was decidedly harder and bouncier than it has been of late. The result is unquestionable, for he has made an opening berth his own with steely resolve and determined concentration. Were he a few years younger, or a little more fortunate, he may well have eventually become his country’s 43rd Test captain. In many ways, Simon Katich has taken the long, hard route to success, which is just what five-day cricket is about.

From Alan & Philip Sutherland, Australia

Graham Manou continues a long South Australian tradition © Getty Images

For those to whom an organised fan tour, offering such delights as golf with players and drinks with coaches, has about as much appeal as facing a fit Shane Bond with little but a miniature signature bat for protection, there are alternatives. There is still the odd place, or two, where traditions appear to mean something. In the modern world this makes them very odd indeed.

Take the Adelaide Oval as one such example. Despite some modernisation, this remains a cricket ground - a ground for cricket rather than a stadium for herding cattle into. It comes as no surprise then, that the captain of the resident Sheffield Shield team in Adelaide is none other than one who appears to mirror the traditions of the ground - Graham Manou. Also somewhat of a throwback to a bygone era, Manou is a wicketkeeper's keeper, one who puts his glovework first.

When one thinks of Australian keepers, one tends to think of Queenslanders, New South Welshmen and Western Australians. South Australia, however, has an equally fine tradition behind the stumps. If Jack Blackham, the bearded 19th century Victorian, was known as "The Prince of Keepers" and, as writer Jack Pollard described him, "an original Australian hero", then Arthur Jarvis, an Adelaide coach-builder of rather taller and more solid proportions was the prince in waiting. Fellow South Australian and Test captain George Giffen wrote of Jarvis, also known as "Affie", as an outstandingly courageous taker of pace-bowling, standing up to the stumps to the express Ernie "Jonah" Jones and yet maintaining unbroken fingers.

Undoubtedly, were it not for Blackham, Jarvis would have played more than 11 Tests. Jarvis did, however, manage to win one, according to former English captain Alf Shaw, largely by his own efforts. This was the third Test of 1884-85 at the SCG, where Jarvis took five catches plus a stumping off the bowling of "The Demon" Fred Spofforth.

Better known than the 12-stone Jarvis, was another burly South Australian, Barry Jarman. Even heavier, at 13 stone 7 lbs, Jarman was long in the shadow of Wally Grout. In 191 first-class matches, he completed 560 dismissals, including 129 stumpings. One particular single-handed diving catch off Graham McKenzie in Melbourne in 1962-63 to dismiss England's Geoff Pullar is long remembered.

Trapped between Bert Oldfield and the Second World War was Charlie "Chilla" Walker. Quite possibly the best Adelaide keeper of them all, Walker recorded over three hundred first-class dismissals, an incredible 46% being stumpings. It no doubt helped his cause greatly to have legspinners of the quality of Clarrie Grimmett and Frank Ward in his Shield team. In a match against NSW at Sydney in 1940, Walker completed no less than three catches and six stumpings. Charles Walker died two years later while on active service for the Royal Australian Air Force.

Like Walker, Manou has over 300 dismissals and seems destined to be a Test reserve. With just five first-class centuries and an average in the mid-twenties his batting lacks the gusto of Brad Haddin's. However, Manou's keeping is undoubtedly world class and if it wasn't for the unreasonably heightened expectations from keepers with the bat since Adam Gilchrist appeared on the scene, he might well be accepted as the best in the country. Manou has certainly served a long apprenticeship, whereby his glovework has developed a silky smoothness.

Another who seems set on doing the same, is his state deputy, Tim Ludeman. A country boy, born in Victoria's Western District, Ludeman travelled further west for an opportunity at Shield level. Good enough to open the batting in the shorter forms of the game, Ludeman has already racked up quite a number of catches in just a few matches. One hopes that his destiny is not to be stuck behind Tim Paine. As good as Paine is, there should be enough room in the modern schedule for both of them.

From Alan & Philip Sutherland, Australia

	Taking the game to the north will produce more Eddie Gilberts © Getty Images

Expanding the Australian domestic season to include early games in the tropical north of Darwin, Cairns and Broome need not be purely about squeezing in more Twenty20 matches. There is an opportunity to further the game as a whole and bring it closer to indigenous communities.

Australian rules football has long stolen a march on Aussie cricket in harnessing the talent of Aboriginal players. Cricket Australia is attempting to address this, but more can be done. Expanding the domestic structure to include the Northern Territory would take the game to the Aboriginal heartland. A six-state competition need not be set in stone. If an even number is required, the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra) could also be included. Aboriginal populations inland in the eastern mainland states would also directly benefit.

Now, football dominates for two simple reasons - money and opportunity. With 16 elite clubs (soon to be 18) and forty-odd players per club, football offers more spots than cricket ever can. A glance through the victorious Australian Under-19 team will show more than one young cricketer still considering the ready-made football alternative. It is time to expand cricket too.

In the decades since the sixth cricketing state was added, Australia's population has about doubled. We are in no danger of having too many teams.

Initially, the territories may struggle, but with assistance to attract overseas and experienced interstate players for the first few years, they may well be competitive. And given time, their rookie system should provide the pathway that young talented Aboriginal cricketers require. For what better cricketing incentive could we offer indigenous Northern Territorians than the chance to play top domestic cricket in Darwin or Alice Springs, rather than relocating half a continent away to Perth or Brisbane?

The same applies for those in the Murray/Darling river basin. To a bush teenager, a move to Canberra may be less overwhelming a change than one to the mega-cities of Sydney and Melbourne. It is time to decentralise cricket in Australia. Let's not just play it in the north, let's grow it there too.

From James Ozerman, Australia

Does anyone remember the former Australian player and NSW/Tasmanian/Queensland player and Captain Dirk Wellham? When I was growing up in the 1980's he was my cricketer. With some players they are who you want to be as players. To me, he was who I was; a quiet, bespectacled nondescript "outsider" sitting on the fringes of teams, waiting and being overshadowed by events or other players.

Yeah, yeah yeah laugh all you want, I can hear you saying "What, are you kidding me? He was one of the worst players to ever represent Australia!". It's a comment echoed a lot apparently. I decided that I had to do my research on this to prove either he was or he wasn't one of the worst ever to represent his country as he frequently appears on worst Australian teams lists compiled by fans just like myself. What I found may or may not surprise you.

Through my research (i.e. reading of his book, old articles and internet sites such as wikipedia and Cricinfo) and in gathering statistics for this defense, he strikes me as somewhat of a controversial, enigmatic personality that didn't always fit in with the hierarchy of the team, the board, the selectors, the fans or the media. By his own admission he wasn't "gregarious or one of the boys". That didn't stop him being an above average State cricketer (he is only one of two batsmen in history to score a century on debut for state and country) and a first rate state captain (where he won two Sheffield Shields in a row including the double of the shield and the one-day competition) and is the only player in history to captain three different state sides. He played six Tests between 1981 and 1987. He seems to have unfairly taken some flak for some of his supposed actions which may have reflected negatively on his standing with the selectors and the board.

On his Test debut in 1981 where he was approaching his century he was sent a message from the captain, Kim Hughes, who had seen the sky get dark, to take his time. He was tied down by Peter Parker and Ian Botham for 25 minutes before he could get to his century. He was subsequently dropped for the next Test that Australia played. He managed to play another three Tests in 1981-82 and again subsequently disappeared from the Test team.

He didn't exactly get an extended run throughout his career as the next time he was chosen was for the sixth and final test against England in 1985, a tour that seemed very unhappily divided because of the rebel tour to South Africa. Initially, he had signed onto the rebel tour and then pulled out thanks to Kerry Packer, which upset many, both on the inside, and the outside of the team, as well as the board. He and three others, Graeme Wood, Wayne Phillips and Murray Bennett who also were to have gone to South Africa, but like Wellham, pulled out at the last minute (Bennett months before). According to Wellham (in his book) the four were interrogated by the other members of the squad as to where their loyalties were, and later a unanimous vote was taken by the squad behind their backs that basically said that they weren't wanted in the squad.

He again disappeared from the Test team after the sixth test and stayed on the fringes of international cricket with intermittent appearances in the one day side until he was chosen in a dead rubber in the fifth Test against England at Sydney in 1987. He, according to reports was chosen to be Allan Border's deputy by the selectors, but this was rejected unanimously by the board for their own reasons. It is also reported not only in his book, but in "History of Australian Cricket" (by Chris Harte) that he was the one who lead the team on the field to their only win in that series. Was AB threatened by Wellham? Possibly, if you want to look at it from the perspective that the team was underperforming, due to retirements, and the rebel tours and whilst AB's captaincy was under serious pressure, Wellham was the most successful captain at that point in time.

Personally I believe that Wellham would have made an excellent Australian captain. Despite him playing in most of the one-day matches the summer of 1986-87 and being a part of the winning fifth Test team, his international career was over after the tour of Sharjah in early 1987. It was in the same 1986-87 season when Allan Lamb took on Bruce Reid in ODI final over heroics and won by clobbering 18 of 5 balls to seal a famous, if not an improbable victory. Does anyone remember Wellham making 97 in that match? If you go to Youtube you can watch the demolition of Reid by Lamb. Try looking for Wellham's innings (or Australia's innings of the match) and it's nowhere to be found. I all too well remember sitting in the Bradman stand and feeling slightly miffed when Bill Athey took a low catch to deny Wellham a deserved century. Such was the life of a ten-year-old watch his hero trudge off without gaining what was rightfully his.

Granted cricket is about performance and his Test average is only 23.37 which is quite unremarkable compared to others who had longer to prove themselves, but given that his stop start Test career was stretched over six years I decide to compare how his average over his short six Test career stacks up against other (mostly) more established Australian Test cricketers averages (both current and former) in their first six Tests. The results are below:

1. Mike Hussey 80
2. Adam Gilchrist 69
3. Allan Border 70
4. Mark Taylor 63
5. Michael Clarke 60
5. Mark Waugh 51
6. Dean Jones/Graham Yallop 46
7. Geoff Marsh 38
8. Ricky Ponting/Greg Ritchie 33
9. David Hookes 32
10. Justin Langer 26
11. Matthew Hayden 25
12. Kim Hughes 24
13. Dirk Wellham 23
14. Mike Veletta 21
15. David Boon 18
16. Andrew Symonds 17
18. Steve Waugh 14

My conclusion, going by the statistics alone, he actually had a better average than Boon, Steve Waugh and Andrew Symonds after six Tests each and there was only 3 and 2 runs on average between himself and Hayden and Langer. Isn't that a surprise? Statistically at that point in their Test careers they were pretty much on par. But then again cricket isn't all about statistics, it's just as much about characters and personalities.

The impact that Wellham has had on Australian cricket is more than just his personal achievements but also how he influenced two of Australia's future captains, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh. Both players have acknowledged that they gleaned insights and aspects of captaincy from his style of leadership. It is unfortunate Wellham just didn't seem to fit into the Aussie larrakin/ocker kind of player that has become synonymous with those who have played for Australia over the past 30 years. He seemed to be a generation or two too late, a product of a bygone era when it was alright to be quiet or unassuming. Those of us who appreciate that can only ponder what could have been.

From Brendan Layton, Australia

One of the unexpected laughs of the week came at the expense of England, who showed the world they are still the masters of disaster with a dismal collapse to 51 in their test against the West Indies. And the reason I laugh? Every Pommie supporter has been in my ears or on Cricinfo talking up how Australia will be devastated on their trip for England. Following their ridiculous fall on the weekend, I am completely confident that we will retain our hold on the priceless urn.

England and Australia are often accused of paying too much attention to the Ashes. It is true to some respects, although Australia in its time puts a lot of priority on its duels these days with South Africa and especially India, as well as having a long standing competition with the Windies for the Frank Worrell Trophy. England, however, are clearly Ashes-obsessed. The tabloids in England are more infatuated with beating Australia than they are with Amy Winehouse's drunken exploits or what stupid comment the Gallagher brothers have summoned for the week. It's an old sore that they cannot tolerate, a colony creating its own identity and then emerging as superior in some aspects, as they have with cricket.

The hysteria surrounding 2005, when England thrillingly won to breathe life back into the contest, was a good example of how much they revere the contest, and how much it means for them to win. There were some that hadn't ever seen the urn in England's trophy cabinet following its capture in 1989 and subsequent long term possession by Australia. I don't blame them for going mad and then giving MBEs top the victorious team. They did the same for the English Union team when they won the World Cup in 2003, having knocked off, you guessed it, Australia for the title.

England were widely rumoured to be treating this tour as an 'Ashes warm-up'. How that has now backfired spectacularly. Their reliance on Kevin Pietersen is beginning to grow with every Test, especially with the continually lean showings of Alastair Cook and the spineless Ian Bell. Their bowling, apart from the luckless yet venomous 'Freddie' Flintoff, is rather frail. Stuart Broad is developing but can't hide a lack of real pace. Ryan Sidebottom is steady and accurate, but can be negotiated by a good batting line-up. He went wicketless at Kingston, and that might be playing on their minds. The less said of Harmison and Jimmy Anderson the better. Neither are the answer for England's bowling woes.

Harmy is way too inconsistent and has problems with his attitude. Now that he is on the wrong side of 30, they need to cut off from a talented but highly enigmatic bowler. Anderson is a real conundrum. He can bowl prodigious swing at a good pace at times but when he has an off day, which is quite often, he can be plundered for many runs. He was highly ineffectual in the last Ashes series, and the Australian batsmen will be licking their lips if he comes into contention for a place. Monty is certainly their best spinner. And one would hope he finds his mojo, as he can be considered a far better spin bowler than anyone Australia can muster at the present time. England needs to have a long think, and so do all you Pom supporters out there. Do you really think you can win the Ashes with this inconsistent bunch of underachievers?

From Sagun P, Australia

They say that in times of despair, you should look at the brighter side of life and new hope for the future ahead. If one had been following Australian news and media channels over the past few weeks, they can be forgiven for thinking that Twenty-20 is the best format of the gentleman's game and that Lee, Johnson, Clarke & Clark, Hayden, so and so have disappeared off the face of the earth. And why not? When you have David Warner!

If I got a cent for every time I've heard about how we miss Warnie and that he should be recalled, I wouldn't be writing this blog right now. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd be lining up Warnie to be my star transfer for next year's expanded IPL, where I'd apparently be owner of the new Bihar-based franchise with Lalu as my spokesperson. But all that's for another day.

Richie Benaud still thinks Warne can make a comeback in this year's Ashes series and KP's desperate attempt to have Sir Shane made the coach of England goes a long way to confirming the fact that the Poms are scared that it might happen as well! But, as I mentioned earlier, all this talk has suddenly died down once David Warner has arrived onto the scene.

Andrew McDonald made his debut for Australia this summer and Ricky Ponting affectionately nicknamed him "Fanta". I wonder if Warner will be the new "Warnie"; if not just to get the opposition onto the back foot - something the Australians are masters of (among other things). Australia's fixation with all things Warnie is starting to get a bit creepy now. Just go see the new musical about him. Next thing you know, he'll be hosting his own reality TV shows: "Search for Australia's next top Warnie". But wait, we've already found him.

His name is David Warner. Critics have already started doing what they do best and labeled him a one-hit-wonder. If that is the case, I wonder if and how long they will persist with him in the hope that one day, one day he will repeat his heroics from his first hit out; and not just turn up and bowl his fast leggies with returns of 2/45 from every match and get out first ball. My Pakistani friend Ahmed suggested I put that last sentence in, by the way.

It's astonishing that a cricketer would get selected for what was the greatest cricketing team in the world without even a first class match under his belt. It's even more astonishing that some people want this man to be selected to don the baggy green left vacant by Matthew Hayden and enter a team which only 18 months ago was described as "harder to get in than out". Maybe Haydos thinks the same, for he retired the day after he saw Warner spin the Proteas out of the MCG.

Wait, I think Brad Hodge is at my door. ..... No, it was just the postie with my tickets to Sydney to join the Bankstown Cricket Club. For his sake and whatever happens next, I hope he does well and goes a long way to fulfilling his early promise, both in Australia and in Delhi. After all, Sehwag and Co wouldn't want to have let go of Shikhar Dhawan for nothing.

Now if only my German mate Hans Warneberger from Nar Nar Goon would stop thinking he suddenly has new found batting superpowers and strut out to bat with such disregard for the bowling that as the next man in, I'd have to get padded up even before he faced a ball.

From Nick Wennerbom, Australia

Dear Mr. Hilditch, I'm sorry I missed your call last Thursday. I know I needn't, but I still feel compelled to explain. I had a supposedly good tip for the horses that day and got to the pub early to take the fixed odds, but they don't like your mobile ringing when the races are on so I turned it off. Anyway by the time I spent next month's mortgage at the dogs that night I was too drunk to remember how to turn it back on. But please don't get the wrong impression.

As I outlined in my previous letter to you I don't drink on match days and besides, I have a lot of Red Bull with my alcohol which gives me heaps of energy for cricket the next day. Having said that, it was good to see Mr. Hauritz go well in Adelaide, wasn't it? I would imagine you must be thinking that now is as good a time as any to break his heart again. It is with this in mind that I am hoping you will be able to give me some indication as to which Tests I will play and the ones where I am likely to be dropped.

I realise this is a difficult question to answer, but I figure that Mum and Dad will want to come and watch and they need to book flights etc. My understanding is that if I perform well in Perth and Melbourne then I will probably be dropped for Sydney. Whereas if I completely stuff up my first two Tests, I should still be a shoo-in for the third. The obvious temptation here is to try and bowl poorly in Perth thus guaranteeing me a Boxing Day Test, but if I am unfortunate enough to actually grab a couple of lucky wickets then I realise this would place my position in some jeopardy.

I'm sure you appreciate the conundrum I find myself in so confirmation of your selection policy would make things easier for me to organise this end. As I am led to believe this selection policy is likely to scar me emotionally, would it also be possible for you to recommend a good psychiatrist in advance? I have been advised that I am likely to suffer some deep-seated personal issues about the way I am to be treated in the coming months and I need to know if my health insurance will cover this. My mate tells that me you are a solicitor and therefore apparently an intelligent man and he thinks that you would have sneaked a clause into our contracts preventing us from taking legal action for chronic depression in years to come. So if I am to play with you guys I would first have to secure my mental well-being for the future.

This mate's friend's second cousin knows this guy who has a brother who has been through it all before, I think his name was Kim Yallop or something like that. Fortunately I'm told, he appears to be recovering quite well now. Should I be forced to carry the drinks for a game and am only needed in a support role, I too can offer my services to players that need counselling and as always, this is a skill I'm prepared to share with the rest of the team. Over the years I have counselled many of my mates when they have had relationship issues and I have consoled some of their wives and girlfriends too. But I can assure you that I wouldn't engage in any improper conduct with any player's partners unless it was consensual. Incidentally like your good self, this mate of mine is an opening batsman who is thinking of applying for Mr. Hayden's position, I told him to stop dreaming. He gets caught at fine leg on the hook way too often for an opener, but he seems to think that as long as you are the Chairman of Selectors that this wouldn't matter as that was your signature shot during your Test career. Anyway, he might apply in the New Year if his wife lets him. She gave him the ultimatum last week of cricket or fishing which caused a fair bit of angst as you could imagine but fortunately I was there to console her.

Mr. Hilditch as you never left a message last week, I can only assume that you called and couldn't get through. So I trust I am not being too presumptuous in giving you a gentle reminder about my availability over the Christmas holidays and as ever I look forward to catching up soon. Kind Regards Nick.

From Nick Wennerbom, Australia

Dear Mr. Hilditch, I wish to apply for the vacant position of Australian Test spinner following the announcement of Jason Krezja's injury and the pencilling in of Nathan Hauritz, while I assume you are perusing other resumes.

I have been involved with cricket for most of my life and believe I have the necessary attributes to contribute to the success of the team. With your recent change in selection policy to 'horses for courses', it ought be noted that I lived in Adelaide for 6 months and have visited the ground twice to watch games which makes me somewhat of a specialist for this venue.

Recently I have been sending down some useful deliveries on the industrial carpet at our office and was far too good for one of our employees, a Spanish lass named Lorena. Furthermore, I have also been bowling at Anderson Park after work on Friday afternoon where I managed to land nearly every ball on the pitch, which I understand is a pre-requisite for selection.

While I have never actually managed to ever turn a delivery, either to off or leg, I don't think this should hinder my chances as neither Cam or Nath have ever turned one either and which affords me to believe that this is no longer a requirement of an Australian Test Spinner. Another skill that I can bring to the team is my ability to get through the overs rather quickly. After bowling two overs the other day, I reverted to the short run up of one pace, where I was still able to land the ball on the cut portion of the synthetic wicket fairly consistently. This I believe will enable us to get through our 90 overs in day and as such reduce our fines.

When I was younger, my brother and I would often get through 152 overs in the backyard after school until Mum had dinner ready. I also have a Certificate IV in workplace training and assessing, and as a qualified trainer I am willing to put in some overtime to provide some assistance to Mr. Ponting in this regard. My movements in the field have been referred to as gazelle-like by myself and I am confident that I would stop most balls hit directly at me and a reasonable portion of those a metre or so either side of me as well.

As a part time umpire, I am well versed in the tactics of intimidation and this coupled with my recent foray into acting as an extra in a TV ad, leaves me with no doubt that I would be convincing and melodramatic on camera whenever things don't go my way. During my umpiring career I once received some invaluable advice from Stuey Macgill who told me all I had to do was "f***ing well watch and listen" advise that I am more that willing to pass onto Rudi or Billy Bowden during my first spell. As an added bonus I have a short temper and swear profusely - an attribute my work colleagues and manager could attest to and one which surely will enable me to fit in with your organisation's culture with a minimum of fuss.

There are some areas of my game that I need to work on such as my batting and although I was unlucky, I managed to get dismissed via every method possible last Friday in the dozen or so balls I faced. However, with the strength of our 1-10 in the batting order, I don't see this as a major issue. Besides, like for like, Chris Martin is only marginally more adept than me and I can't see this as being a major obstacle to my pending selection. As for my personable attributes, I believe that I have always been a pretty good bloke and have always made myself available for drinks on a Friday afternoon with my teammates from work - although it is to be noted, I have never gotten into a fight at the pub, and I wouldn't drink on match days if that was a requirement.

Would you be kind enough to advise me ASAP of your decision, as I need 24 hours notice to tell my boss Sue-Anne that I would be unavailable till Wednesday, However I do have 30 days annual leave up my sleeve and as such I can avail myself for Perth Melbourne and Sydney Tests as well. I look forward to discussing this further at an interview; if you wish and I can get referees from some of the guys at work upon request. Yours Sincerely

From Kunal Talgeri, India

During their reign as Captain, Allan Border, Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh each brought about a positive change in attitude among their respective cricket teams whilst touring India. Ricky Ponting has undone all that good work over the past year since India beat his team in the 20-20 World Cup semi finals.

Border led a side here in 1986 that tied a Test match in Chennai. The following year, he spearheaded them to a World Cup win. With coach Bob Simpson (a veteran who played a number of Tests against India), Border and his young team showed Indian fans how the Aussies played the game. It was revered and despised in equal measure because the Aussies play the sport hard.

Mark Taylor brought about gentleness in the squad, without making them lose their edge on the cricket field. That was the value of his leadership. He told a mediaperson in 1998 while on tour that, "We (the Aussies) must ensure that we don't feel victimised." Though they lost the series to an Indian team powered by Tendulkar and Kumble, the attitude change was evident. Taylor had taken his team toward all matters of cricketing significance.

From then on, Waugh made an even more conscious attempt, spending time in Kolkata with an NGO, travelling, etc. He still enjoys tremendous respect and warmth in our land. I think, Ricky Ponting has missed a trick or two in terms of adapting to foreign conditions. And the spirit has been infectious - none of his team members seems motivated. And it showed.

From Brendan Layton, Australia

The hotly anticipated India v Australia test series is now over, and strangely the future of Test cricket is now under more scrutiny than ever following a series featuring bland pitches, heated confrontations, and numerous on and off field problems. To be realistic, India should have won this series 4-0, no questions asked.

They had a superior team on paper, in their own conditions, and were facing an Australian lineup with no recognised spinner and three quicks without experience bowling to test level on the subcontinent. Australia did incredibly well to hold it to 2-0, and India's second win only came when Australia made a game chase in the fourth innings that was eventually undone my India's spin attack.

India lost the plot at times during this series, particularly in the field, and undid the hard work their bowlers put in. Ishant Sharma was a worthy man of the series as he was yards ahead of the rest. He bowled manfully and was a constant threat, unlike Zaheer who floundered on the increasingly highway-like pitches, and has now established himself as a world class opening bowler.

India's big problem this series was their inconsistency. They dropped off when they could have had the foot on the throat, and they only barely escaped from threatening situations due to the Australian team's ineptitude, case points being Bangalore and the final Test at Nagpur. Gautum Gambhir and Virender Sehwag batted well on tracks that allowed the ball to scream hit me. As did the middle order at times, although Laxman was clearly the standout. Dhoni had his moments and the tail provided some spunk. Everything clicked at least once during the series.

As for Australia, well, only Mike Hussey came away with his reputation enhanced, with Simon Katich probably not far behind him. All the other batsmen had a touch-and-go series. Ponting himself made a century at Bangalore and then seemed to struggle as Ishant and Harbajan continued to expose his weakness against the ball that moves back in. Clarke had a woeful tour. He fell at critical times and was a shadow of the player that made his presence known here four years ago. His century at Delhi secured the draw but he never really asserted himself. Neither did the dominating Hayden, who struggled for form following a long injury lay off. His 77 was a grand gesture however and gave India a fright on the final day.

The remaining players had brief moments that provided little in the end to write home about. Brad Haddin struggled. He had four starts during the series and failed to convert every single one of them into a fifty or century. His glove work was at times rusty and he comes across inexperienced in unfamiliar conditions. Watson was a real conundrum. A player of genuine talent, he was thrust into this tour following the ridiculous dropping of Andrew Symonds and was real hit and miss. He managed a defiant 78 in Mohali as his team crumbled around him, but he achieved better results with the ball, being by a long way the best of the Australian pace men with 10 wickets at 32.10, with a best of 4/42 that gave Australia the slightest of hopes in the final Test.

Australia's biggest problem was their bowling, which never really looked like taking 20 wickets. Their biggest mistake was picking Cameron White, who himself rarely bowls at first class level in deference to Bryce McGain. White never looked threatening and his value with the bat was minuscule at best to compensate for the lack of penetration. The pace attack also floundered. Lee should never have gone on tour. He was never in the right frame of mind and lacked rhythm. Stuart Clark was the only one of the bowlers to keep the batsmen in check, but at the same he wasn't able to penetrate.

Don't get me started on Johnson. I am firmly convinced he should not be playing Test cricket. He was erratic and never looked threatening with a new ball, due to the fact he couldn't swing it to save his life. How he continues to play at the expense of Bollinger or Siddle bemuse me, as they are both far superior bowlers to Johnson. Siddle did little in his test debut but it was a tough ask bowling to strong batting lineup on a pitch so flat my grandmother could have scored a century on it. His time will come, he has the talent. Krejza is yet to discover his worth, despite an epic 12 wickets in his debut test. He needs to lower his economy rates and keep getting picked. He may be the player we were searching for.

Australia has some deep soul searching ahead of a tough 12 months on their cricket calendar. India too must address some problems within their makeup, such as their inconsistency, the loss of several old hands (Dravid is on borrowed time, but luckily they have the impressive Vijay to take his spot if needed) and a tendency to get defensive when they have a series lead. India are still a strong side and the better side during this series, but a lot more work is needed if they are to overtake Australia as the number one nation.

From Brendan Layton, Australia

Australia has been blessed with plenty of determined and classy captains. From the original skipper Dave Gregory, to the classy all-rounder and now legendary commentator Richie Benaud, and on to the strong-willed and canny Ian Chappell. In arguably Australia's greatest cricketing age, there have been four that have taken on the challenge: Allan Border, Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting. All had unique skills and abilities, and all were determine individuals.

On pure ability, Punter is miles ahead of the other three, while Tubby was the least gifted. AB and Tugga were decent all-rounders in their prime, but Punter and Tubby were highly gifted fieldsmen. Their respective terms of leadership were also highly unique and reflective of their character.

AB was probably the most singled-minded of them all, probably based on the fact he played during Australia's lowest ebb and then worked his hardest to get the team back to the top. Ponting and Waugh have been in charge during Australia's dominance in the last eight years or so. But they inherited a team that had already claimed the top spot. The man who set that chain of events off was Mark Taylor, close to, if not already, Australia's greatest test captain.

Taylor inherited a strong team from Allan Border that had established itself well and then set the wheels in motion to make that squad invincible. During his time Warne and McGrath came of age, players such as Steve Waugh came into their prime, and they churned out talent at a time that could have enabled two strong Australian teams to run around.

Taylor was the most balanced captain of the four. He was bright, energetic, generous and highly diplomatic. At the same time he could also be utterly ruthless without being downright cruel. He was immensely respected for his courage and tenacity, and tactically he was not merely astute, but can be considered one of the finest visionaries of his time.

Taylor did what no Australian skipper had done since Ian Chappell in 1972-73 and toppled the West Indies in the West Indies, thus establishing themselves as the undoubted world champions, a position they still hold. He is held is such high regard by those he led that they consider him the finest captain they have played under. Such a credit is not to be taken lightly in Australia's golden era, but it could go to no better player than the lad from Wagga Wagga.

From Nicholas Angel, Australia

Ricky Ponting has said that the disappointing form of his opposing captain Anil Kumble could turn into an issue for India at the selection table. Ricky Ponting's comments may well serve to motivate the Indian skipper. Ponting only has to cast his mind back a week or two when his fallibility in India and batting average of 12.28 were the fulcrum of the pre-series coverage. He went on to post a magnificent century.

On the eve of the second Test match in Mohali, the series is still wide open yet it is Kumble who has borne the brunt of this week's coverage both in India and abroad. He has been criticised for his captaincy and for carrying an injury into the first Test. He has been criticised for being too old. But expect him to take a bagful of wickets, if not on his 38th birthday tomorrow, then at another crucial time during the Test match. The last time Kumble played a Test at this ground he was the man of the match.

It's not too often Kumble has gone wicketless in Tests and the chances of it happening twice in a row are akin to hoping the 'All Blacks' crash to consecutive losses. India have not lost to the Australia for three tests in a row now. A solid contribution from their captain will not only galvanise his team, but given the narrow margins of recent contests, just might tip the momentum India's way decisively. All of the Indian team, and the celebrated Four in particular, recognise the pressure their captain has been under this week and expect them to celebrate extra hard with his every success. It is this unification, this drive, that Ponting has unwittingly handed to the Indians on a silver platter.

Seemingly Ponting intended to add more fuel to the fire and contribute to Kumble's disrupted preparation. But saying a third seamer might be a more penetrative substitution for Kumble betrays a more likely truth: Ponting's Australians fear Kumble. He is a proven match-winner and although he is in the twilight of his career he has publicly declared that he will graciously depart the arena on his own terms. Better then to have let the sleeping giant lie.

From Ravi, United States of America

Ricky Ponting announced that they can take advantage of 'Old India' with their brand of 'new-age' cricket. No one denies that the Australians are athletic on the field, but that doesn't always translate into better fielding overall.

Ganguly is truly an average fielder but looking at the other three, Laxman, Dravid, and Tendulkar, we are in for a surprise. Laxman is slow but he has rarely dropped a catch in the slips (key area in Test cricket). In fact, he has caught some blinders comfortably. His close-in fielding for the Indian spinners is also exceptional. Dravid too is one of best slip fielders in the world. Together Dravid and Laxman must surely rank alongside Mark Waugh. Tendulkar is more versatile and is a good slip fielder for fast bowlers. He is also an outstanding fielder in the deep with a surprisingly good arm, considering his serious elbow injury.

We don't often come to associate the Australians with poor fielding, but looking at the awe-inspiring Michael Clarke's brief stint at slips where he regularly dropped simple catches, it shows that nobody is infallible. Admittedly the Australians have the best ground fielding and also more of the complete packages like Ponting, but that doesn't mean the Indian seniors are the root cause of India's concerns. Not everyone needs to be flying on the boundaries ropes to be good fielders - a fine catch at slip or silly point are equally important in games.

Sure India's famous seniors have sometimes been ugly on the field, but they have been pretty awesome in their preferred positions too and left us with memories to treasure just like their gifted batting.

From Daniel Cotton, Australia

The answer to Australia's spinning dilemma is a left-arm chinaman already with the squad. In the run up to the Australia A tour of India last month Simon Katich did not bowl in the nets. Instead, having been picked as captain he felt his role was to give every opportunity to Australia's new spinners. "It would be wrong as the captain to be bowling myself, he said. "We have picked so many bowlers on this tour as the selectors want to have a look at those guys."

In the wake of the retirements of Warne, Hogg and MacGill, Australia trialled three relatively inexperienced spin bowlers on the Australia A tour. The best of those three, Bryce McGain, is now injured and will be flying home. Additionally, the selectors saw fit not to pick Beau Casson, the West Indies debutant, in the senior squad. Again he has been overlooked; it has just been announced that Cameron White, an 'all-rounder' who on average has bowled two overs in each of his 21 ODIs to date, is to join the Squad as McGain's replacement.

Without debating the merits of the selection, surely with a Monday arrival, White won't be match ready by Wednesday. Now, with Jason Krejza's 0/123 at an economy rate of 6.15 in the first innings of the tour match against the Indian Board President's XI, it is time for Katich to loosen up. Krejza simply doesn't appear up to the task and his First Class career statistics of just 43 wickets at an average of 45.46 from 23 games doesn't make good reading.

By contrast Katich has 86 First Class wickets at 37.41. Better still, his 12 Test wickets have come at 33.83. Katich is a better, more experienced bowler. And while it may be tempting to consider that even a jet-lagged White, as the 'specialist' spinner, would be a better selection than a part-timer, it is worth noting that White's average and strike-rate at First Class level is inferior to that of Katich.

Not picking a specialist spinner and giving the bulk of spinning duties to Katich has other benefits. Australia's batsman have so far underperformed on tour; the addition of an extra batsman would help bolster the line up. In this scenario Australia won't be short of bowlers; the addition of allrounder Watson to the trio of Lee, Clark and Johnson makes for a healthy pace attack. Additionally Michael Clarke, who has an unbelievable bowling record in India, can provide support.

Clarke's back troubles make it impractical for him to bowl a large number of overs, Katich, however, has no such problem. The year after moving from WA to play for NSW Katich bowled 141 overs in picking up 32 First Class wickets at 22.21. A performance that caused Stuart McGill to remark, "When he came to NSW I identified him as the second best spin bowler in NSW by head and shoulders. He's got the potential to be a great all rounder for Australia." He followed it up with a further 17 wickets the following season before he took over the State captaincy. And this is the problem for the selectors, as captain Katich rarely bowls and so we have seen little of his talent as a wrist spinner since. Seemingly Katich' modesty is depriving Australia of an exciting spinner.

An exception to his bowling exile came this May when Ponting threw him the ball in an Australians tour match against the Jamaica Select XI. Katich picked up match figures of 6/66, afterward telling reporters that he has never stopped bowling in the nets. Just as well, it looks like he will be needed.

If the selectors do make what would be seen by many as the brave move of entrusting Katich with the spinning duties, it won't be without precedent. Michael Bevan, coincidentally another NSW batsman and left-arm chinaman, was picked for his bowling abilities in the 1996-97 series against the West Indies: he took 15 wickets in the series and had match figures of 10/113 in Adelaide. Katich has every chance of equalling that feat.

From Anand Kumar, India

There is something different about this Australian side which has landed in India. I am not speaking about the composition of the team or the skill of its players. I am referring to the attitude with which it has left its shores.

There is nothing new about new untested players in Australian squad. Ever since Damien Martyn retired, Australia has been dealing with a slow exodus of its colossus players and dealing very well. It is no stranger to seeing new players in their team trying to fill up big boots. The likes of Damien Martyn, Justin Langer, Glenn Mcgrath, Shane Warne, Jason Gillespie, Brad Hogg, Stuart Macgill and Micheal Kasperowicz have gone out of reckoning in these last two years, some on their own terms and a few on selector's terms. And prior to that we of course had the Waugh brothers, Andrew Bichell, Paul Reifell and some more.

There has been a steady exodus happening in Australian cricket since the turn of this decade which has come to characterise them. In last 2 years, this exodus was massive but what happened along side was that every loss was equalled by some one else who came up and grabbed the opportunity. I am not trying to say that now there is panic in Australian dressing room and they have lost their sleep. But something is different.

Have a look at the things they have said in last few weeks. Micheal Hussey said Australian team is not yet settled for India (that was two weeks back). Any Australian would not have said anything like this even a year back. Matthew Hayden has said that he believes he will be the target and even went as far as to admitting that Harbhajan Singh will be quite a threat in the upcoming series. Even a year back, any Australian would have instead gone ahead and said that they will dominate the opponents lynch pin. Ricky Ponting while trying to egg on Jason Krejza could not muster anything more than saying that he spins the ball a long way. Does he spin it more than Murali, I am sure not and if spins even close to him, why didn't we hear more about him before? Uni-dimensional spin alone is not going to pose any problem for Indians. What has caused this uncertainty in Australian minds? Challenges are not new to them. Well, we will never know. It can be anything.

May be they have hard done by the sudden departure of both Brad Hogg and Stuart McGill. A trip to India with spinners even they have heard less about would have been a humbling experience. Probably, they understand that there has not been one really exciting player they have produced in two years or so and that is worrying. Or perhaps, all that happened in last summer down under has actually shook them.

The captain had been one of those hit the hardest. But most unsettling must have been Symonds' absece from the team. He was a vital cog and is out of the team for non-cricketing, non-fitness and non-doping issues. This might be commonplace in Pakistan but not in Australia. What is clear to me is that this team has come with an undercurrent which is very un-Australian. They are not missing 'Australian ability' as much as they are missing 'Australian arrogance'. And that in the end may be their undoing.

From Vipul Gupta, India

I do not think that many people would have been surprised by Symonds conduct. As I am sure not many people would have been shocked when Harbhajan slapped his 'younger brother' Sreesanth in an IPL match last summer. The one trait that is comman to all these 3 gentlemen is that they are of a 'slightly' volatile temperament and believe me I am trying my best to put it very mildly.

All three have been involved in on field controversies on numerous occasions in their careers. Things had already started to heat up in India itself and it came to a head with Roy alleging that Bhajji had passed a racist comment against him in the very eventful Sydney Test Match. Unfortunately the only person who displayed any grace and dignity in this entire unsavoury episode which threatened to derail the series was Kumble, the Indian skipper who personally requested Ponting to withdraw his appeal. But the Aussie skipper was adamant and he felt that he could not let his 'mate' Roy down by withdrawing the appeal and it was his stand which put both the CA and the BCCI on a collision course which threatened to fracture the entire cricketing fraternity.

Come to think of it, the crazy juvenile antics of these players was about to bring this great game to its knees. Such mavericks are found everywhere and it is up to the people who are occupying the positions of power to control them and not allow the events to get out of hand. I am afraid that the subsequent events have only put a big question mark on Ponting's wisdom and judgment and by that token of logic even the CA cannot be spared. I am sure that by the end of his career Ponting will be regarded as a great batsman and a good captain, but as a Statesman, not at all, which Anil Kumble proved that he was in that series.

One also cannot help but wonder that things might have been different for the unity in the Aussie dressing room were it not for the IPL's Twenty20 tournament held in India. I am sure that the salary offered to Roy must not have gone down well with some of the greats in the Aussie team because compared to them he was just a toddler starting out in the Test arena. It was amusing to see the sensitive Symonds lament the fact that how the CA had bowed in to the BCCI's financial power when he himself did not think twice of accepting the Deccan Chargers offer, which itself is a brain child of the BCCI.

It might be argued that it is in the nature of the beast that such players have serious temperamental flaws and although they might be adorning this great game as jewels it is very important for the authorities concerned to recognize this particular breed of players and to understand that they cannot be allowed to hold the game of cricket as hostage by their actions and any incident should be nipped in the bud itself before it snow balls into anything major. Surely, as a die hard cricket fan this is not asking for much , or is it?

From Michael Sheppard, Australia

The recent selection of Darren Patinson by England only a couple of months ago looks positively normal when put alongside the strange picking of Jason Krejza for India, an off-spinning bowler with batting potential, who only last year was forced to travel interstate to find a first class birth.

Bryce McGain, as Andrew Hilditch pointed out, deserves his place in the touring squad owing to his amazing season in Jason Crejza, on the other hand, achieved very little of note - except for increasing an appalling average and being caught for 'drunk driving'.

Beau Casson has a right to feel aggrieved. His all-round talent greatly contributed to the success of the New South Wales side in claiming the Pura Cup. He also acquitted himself admirably, though not spectacularly, in the West Indies earlier this year. Perhaps the selection panel felt that selecting two wrist spinners in McGain and Casson would not sufficiently utilise the Indian pitches, which Andrew Hilditch seemed to indicate by stating that Crejza was a selection purely on account of the conditions.

But why Crejza?

I admit, Daniel Cullen has not been bowling at near his best for some time, but in his last match for South Australia he claimed 4 vital wickets before suffering an injury. By not picking Cullen, the selection panel has indicated that they feel they made a mistake in awarding him a contract for the past two years and for playing him against Bangladesh in 2006.

This selection reminds me of the controversial selection of Nathan Hauritz over Stuart Macgill some years ago, or not selecting Macgill for any of the Ashes tests in 2005 when Warne was destroying England single handedly. Incidentally, in both series Australia lost. In my opinion, those were mistakes then, and the selection of Crejza over Casson or indeed Cullen, is now.

From Brendan Layton, Australia

Following the man's centenary last week, I saw a plethora of Bradman articles thrown around talking about his legendary status and iconic role within cricket. I've decided to throw my two cents in and look at both man and player.

It is extraordinarily hard to dismiss a man who has averaged 99.94 in a 52 test career span, with 29 centuries and 13 half centuries and a high score of 334, which was at its time a world record. He was leagues ahead of his nearest rivals of batting, which were at the time Wally Hammond and Herbert Sutcliffe of England, and George Headley of the West Indies. Headley and Sutcliffe average 60 and Hammond averaged 58, although that averaged suffered after World War II.

He also played in an era of uncovered pitches in which batting could be made difficult when weather permitted, such as the creation of a 'sticky dog' which led to balls shooting erratically off the surface. It has been a wide source of debate as whether Bradman often batted on these styles of wickets (In the home series of 1936-37, he famously reversed the order on a drying pitch at Melbourne, and his 270 changed the series). The majority of his tests were against England, he played against South Africa, the West Indies and India once in his career and none of those tours were overseas, which is vastly different to the current crop of players that play in a variety of conditions and countries. No bowling strategy as provocative as 'Bodyline' has been devised for any other batsman, and even then Bradman averaged 56.57.

Bradman the man was vastly different from the cricketer idolised as an Australian hero during the Depression era. He was regarded knowledgeable but aloof, a shrewd businessman but ham-fisted with money. He was a practising mason and had a long history of grievances with Catholics Bill O' Reilly, Jack Fingleton, 'Chuck' Fleetwood-Smith, and Stan McCabe. O' Reilly and Fingleton were probably his biggest foes. The trio never got on. Although they had immense respect for each other on the field, that was the end of it. The pair laughed the Don back to the pavilion on the occasion of his final test innings, when he was bowled second ball by Eric Hollies for a duck, and they constantly criticised each other over their roles in the team.

He has also been singled out by influential Australia skipper Ian Chappell as one of the prime reasons for World Series Cricket, claiming in a documentary that Bradman 'treated board money as if it was his own money' during a boom time for cricket in the 70's. As an administrator, Bradman was wise but refused to budge on money. He was also regarded as somewhat old-fashioned. Still, Bradman was regarded as the all-knowing doyen of Australian cricket and was often sought after for advice, made all the more harder in his later years when he became a recluse in his home in Adelaide. He always responded to letters with fond affection though, and was polite and helpful for young cricketers seeking advice, whether life or cricket related.

In terms of the greatest batsmen ever, what makes Bradman stand out is not just the fact that he was far ahead of his contemporaries, but he overwhelms all that follow him. It was a common trait to call an exciting young batsman in Australia 'the new Bradman' (Norm O' Neill and Doug Walters suffered this comparison) and it was often a kiss of death. He is justifiably, in terms of figures, ability and influence, at the top of the batting tree in cricket, with his nearest rivals being Sachin Tendulkar (A man Bradman once considered similar to himself), Viv Richards, Brian Lara, and Wally Hammond. There can be no other player quite like Sir Donald George Bradman.

From David Anderson, Australia

I was a late convert to the Andrew Symonds fan club and still only hold a junior member's ticket. For a long time I didn't think he was up to the job, especially in Test cricket but in the last few years he has proven me and a lot of other people wrong.

It's true that he made a major stuff up in 2005 when he turned up for an international match still half cut from the night before and since then there have been a couple of other misdemeanors of less consequence but he appears to be copping a fairly rare deal out of this Darwin fishing trip (mis)adventure. The report of the incident in Cricinfo states, "Symonds' passion for fishing is well documented and he took to the water early on Friday, the day before the first Bangladesh match. When a compulsory team meeting was called later that morning, Symonds did not know about it as he was already wetting a line. An optional training session was later held at the Marrara Cricket Ground, which he had already decided not to attend".

So lets see, he's out on the water on what is essentially a day off and some bright spark decides to call a team meeting after he has left and when he doesn't turn up he's hung out to dry by Cricket Australia and his buddies and made to look a complete tool by the Australian media. Come on, there's either a fair bit of detail missing from available reports or he has been treated rather poorly on this occasion.

If there's more to this story I'd like to read it.

From Ashok Sridharan, India

Blasphemous as it may sound, I'll stick my neck out and say that the current Australian side is not a great side, it is merely a good side with a few great individuals. For all the talk of their complete dominance and being head and shoulders above their opponents, the simple fact is that their dominance has been on the wane, especially post Warne-McGrath.

There's no doubt that Australia's complete dominance in the late 90s and the early noughties would have never been possible but for them. The only time in recent years that the two were missing (Against India in 2003-04), the Australians had to fight tooth and nail to avoid being beaten by an Indian attack that was little stronger than a club attack (missing two key bowlers in Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh by the way).

Coming to more recent times, Australia beat India 2-1 at home last season in a series that could well have gone the other way but for some appalling umpiring at Sydney. That they were beaten at Perth - the Australian equivalent to Barbados for the West Indies in the 80s - by a team from the Subcontinent with an attack peopled largely by rookie fast bowlers (Pathan, Sharma and RP Singh, whose combined age was 64 years) shows just how far their powers are on the wane. Their recent outing in the Caribbean too would have been a lot closer but for Brett Lee, whose 18 wickets at 23.7 was the difference between the sides. That they should have been stretched by a West Indies side rated only better than Bangladesh by itself speaks volumes about their decline.

While Australia have commendably managed to remain perched on top of the Test table despite the exodus of several key players in recent times, its hard not to get the feeling that they are ripe for the plucking. Their decline may not be as marked as that of the West Indies in the 90s and beyond, but there's no doubt that the age when Australia just walked over any opponent is now over. India came close to pulling that off last season and it remains to be seen whether India, South Africa and England (in chronological order) can expose the cracks that outstanding individual performances have papered over.

Brett Lee, who turns 32 this November is unlikely to be able to go on at the same rate beyond another season or two at the very most. Of the younger lot, Tait has so far been injury prone and Mitchell Johnson, touted as a once-in-a-generation bowler, is yet to establish himself in the team. There appears no seriously talented spin bowler anywhere in the horizon. Michael Clarke apart, none of the other young batsmen have so far made a serious case for themselves at the highest level. Hayden will be 37 and Ponting will be 34 later this year. Players like Hussey, Stuart Clark and Brad Hodge, all in their mid 30s might be more than useful, but are not going to help the future and are unlikely to be around too much longer.

For sure, all or at any rate nearly all the above-mentioned players are not going to be around another 3-4 years down the line. Only time will tell whether Australia's rise to the summit was due to the much vaunted Australian system or whether it was simply due to the coincidental appearance of several supremely gifted players in the same generation.

From Abdullah Khalid, United Kingdom

The recent admission by Marcus Trescothick that he used minty saliva on the ball to shine to aid it to swing more is another example of the two yardsticks used in cricket. When Wasim and Waqar in '92 demolished England with reverse swing they were labelled as cheats, but when England uses the same reverse swing it becomes an 'art' perfected by the English bowlers.

Similarly, during the 'Oval' fiasco, Darrel Hair was so quick in penalising the Pakistani team for ball tampering that he did not even give it a second thought, and on what evidence...his instincts ! However, here we have someone admitting that he did use something to aid swing, and I hear that it is legitimate. Micheal Kasprowicz went on saying that he wished they had applied more so the ball missed his glove. Huh! Let me be very honest, if this had been admitted by any Pakistani player, the whole series would have been scrapped or worse the scoreline reversed. The only reason this has not been possible is that it has never been proved that Pakistan did it. If it was so, then the current Pakistani fast bowlers would be winning matches as well, which they cannot, because perfecting the art of reverse swing is difficult and it was only the great Khan and the Ws who could do it perfectly.

Double standards have always been the norm for Australia and England. From the '87 incident involving Mike Gatting and Shakoor Rana to Ross Emerson/Darrel Hair and Muralitharan to the Oval fiasco, there have always been double standards applied by these nations. It is time we have one law for all rather than different laws for different countries. We already have seen the split in ICC, the CT and Zimbabwe issues are clear examples of this split. Round 1 (Zimbabwe) was won by the Asian bloc, Round 2 (CT) to the non-Asian bloc. What happens next. We might be hearing Lalit Modi soon saying the IPL Champions League will take place in Delhi, Mumbai, Karachi and Lahore. What will happen then?

From Michael Sheppard, Australia

Since the retirements of Shane Warne, Stuart MacGill and Brad Hogg, the search for the next Australian spinner has continued with little success. Cricket Australia are aware of the issue; indeed, they have recently appointed Shane Warne in a consultative role to discuss the art of spin bowling with the captains of the Australian States and to mentor young spin bowlers. It is far too early to pass any judgment on what this role will actually achieve, but it is clear that Cricket Australia are attempting to be productive.

This is evident in the fact that Daniel Cullen, Cullen Bailey, Daniel Doran, Beau Casson, Cameron white, Steven Smith, Stephen O'Keefe, Jon Holland and Aaron Heal have been invited to the Commonwealth Bank Centre of Excellence, which is run by Cricket Australia and the Australian institute of Sport, in the hope that one or more of the invitees would go back to their states with the armoury capable of allowing them to succeed. The Australian selectors briefly considered Daniel Cullen and Cullen Bailey sufficiently promising to confer upon them Cricket Australia contracts and, in more recent times, they have given Beau Casson and Cameron White contracts. The unavoidable truth for most of the above players is that after attending the Centre of Excellence (which they were selected to attend on their promise or on their merits as spin bowlers), they have all regressed.

In Daniel Cullen's first year, he spun the ball prodigiously and was not afraid to use his variations. He took an amazing swag of wickets and was talked of as the next test spinner for Australia after MacGill and Warne. Cullen Bailey aggressively flighted the ball and attacked - looking always for wickets. After receiving their respective contracts and attending the Centre of Excellence, however, the two Cullen (s) lost their way. Cullen Bailey was reduced to bowling in a net, with a rope tied half way down from one side to the other, so he could find the flight that had deserted him. Same too Daniel Doran, who leapt on to the first class scene, spinning the ball and claiming wickets like his hero, Shane Warne. After attending the Centre of Excellence and enduring the ignorance of Jimmy Maher (his Queensland captain), he also faded in the reckoning. Although Beau Casson has now been picked for Australia, performing adequately in the West Indies, his career stalled terribly after attending the academy. He was unable to gain a place in the New South Wales side and was forced to change his action.

In Ashley Mallett's excellent biography of Clarrie Grimmett, the wizardly leg spinner that played for Australian in the 1920's and 1930's, he describes how important Grimmett and his bowling partner, the fiery Bill 'Tiger' O'reilly, considered developing one's own style of bowling. The commentator Kerry O'Keeffe tells of the time he saw Cameron White play cricket as a teenager and being able to spin the ball the way in which he wanted - a skill which O'keeffe believes is less evident for Cameron White in present time. The question is, therefore, are the coaches tinkering excessively with the techniques of the young spinners entrusted into their care? Is this the reason Australia fails to produce bowlers like Muttiah Muralitharan or Ajantha Mendis, great bowlers but who possess a curious technique? Would Clarrie Grimmett be instructed not to keep his arm so low, or tiger O'Reilly told not to bowl so fast if they were beginning to spin today? I hope not, but I have my doubts.