Michael Clarke, writing in Australia's Daily Telegraph, says his team takes responsibility for the batting in Hobart. Australia, he says, have the prefect chance to start moving in the right direction once more in the Border-Gavaskar series.

When I first came into the Australian team everyone said we had a weakness against spin bowling and we did a lot of work on that. That's what we're doing now against the swinging and seaming ball. We're practising as much as we can. It will take time for us to improve and we will keep working on it. So, I think the pre-Test batting camp is a positive initiative.

[India's] their bowling lacks experience and they're dealing with injuries as well. They'll have concerns there. Zaheer Khan is a big player for them. I think it's going to be a really good contest between youth and enthusiasm versus some old wise heads in the Indian team ... I am 100 per cent confident there'll be no repeat of the unpleasantness the last time Australia played India in a Test series at home.

Australia collapsed from a strong position yet again to narrowly lose the Hobart Test to New Zealand by seven runs. Going down to a good bowling attack was by no means the worst thing that could have happened to a side that has struggled like a dialysis patient waiting for a donor, says Malcolm Knox in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The Australian team bottomed out two years ago, when they only just beat the two worst teams to have come here in decades, the 2009-10 West Indies and Pakistan. At that point the team was a sick man in denial, believing he'd burst out of bed any minute. Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey would come good again, Mitchell Johnson was a once-in-a-generation fast bowler, Shane Watson was the new Keith Miller, Simon Katich was Bill Lawry and Bob Simpson in one, Marcus North was a future Australian captain. The fruits of that thinking were harvested in last year's Ashes embarrassment.

In the Australian, Peter Lalor writes that the folly of axing Simon Katich for Phillip Hughes becomes more obvious with each passing innings, each inconsistent performance and each new low.

Doug Bracewell, and not David Warner, should have been named the man of the match in Hobart, says Fred Woodcock on www.stuff.co.nz.

Now we have a situation where the Australian public jump on their mobile phones to decide the man of the match, with the player who gets the most votes receiving the official award. It's nothing more than a popularity vote.

In the New Zealand Herald, Doug Bracewell's father, and former New Zealand player, Brendon talks about his son and his match-winning performance.

It is often said that New Zealand raise their game when they face their Trans-Tasman rivals Australia but the reality over the past decade is quite different, writes Will Brodie in the Sydney Morning Herald.

It’s as if sports-starved fans have contrived to accept the myth of Kiwi competitiveness out of hope for a compelling Australia v New Zealand series, desperate to avoid the dullness of the past decade of Test cricket played between these two teams.