Maddi's Gymnastics Birthday Party

Today was another busy Saturday, with people moving all over the place. Looks like another busy winter.

Jessie had her first game of the new hockey season this morning, an 8.00am start meaning no Saturday sleep-in for Dad. It was also her first game in the Under 11's which meant her first game on the full field and with full regalia for goalkeepers. Up against the more experienced Gerringong team the Albion Park side fell 7-0, but Jess played in defence in the first half and probably managed to stop at least three goals with her great efforts. In the second half they had her playing in the halves, which she was less familiar with, but it was a good learning experience.

At 1.00pm we were all at Carmel & Co. Gymnastics Centre in Sunset Avenue, Warilla where we were having Madeleine's 7th birthday party. Helen had organised it, and it was all done very well. With every piece of gymnastics equipment imaginable, the two girls/ladies running the show organised a few activities to begin, before allowing 'free time', meaning the 14 kids could run around and use anything they wanted. It was 30+ degrees on the day, and warmer indoors, so they all ran themselves ragged. Helen had over-catered on the party food that came at the very end, but all in all in was a great party. Helen had outdone herself once again, and I think all of the kids had a great time.

The Fairy Castle Cake. Good job Mum!

Death to the Spirit of Cricket on the South Coast

Before the story commences, let us deal with the facts foremost:


Fact

Clause 3.4 of the S.C.D.C.A Competition Rules for 2012/13 states;

For the purpose of third and fourth grade semi finals and finals, a player shall be deemed to belong to that grade or team in which he played six of his last eight full competition matches. Where players have played less than eight full competition matches in that season, their eligibility to play in semi finals or finals must first, be confirmed by the Board.

And further;

Games played in the Association’s Competitions, (whether One or Two Day Matches) where competition points are to be allocated shall be deemed to be full competition matches.

A bye, forfeit or complete washout shall count as a qualifying game where the nominated team has been submitted on the match result form as detailed in Clause 6.2. A nominated twelfth man shall not count as a qualifying match under this clause.

For the purposes of this playing condition a ‘full game’ means when a player is listed on the Captain’s declared team sheet for a scheduled one day game or both days of a two day match (including where day one has been washed out and day two is played as a non scheduled one day game).

For Qualification purposes all selected teams will be Final and no changes to be made on My Cricket after match inputting has been made official on My Cricket, were teams have byes or washouts this will also apply, this will be monitored through My Cricket using the applications checklist.

This will also apply to teams having byes or washouts.

Fact

Clause 8.2.8 specifically states in regards to the use of an unqualified player;

Where a team plays an ineligible or unqualified player in a Semi Final or Final, the match will be awarded to the opposition.

Fact

Kiama 3rd Grade Gold had matches against Gerringong on Saturday February 2nd, 2013, and Albion Park on Saturday February 23rd, 2013 washed out without a ball being bowled.

For both of these matches, the selected team was sent by text message to all players in the days before the match was to commence.

Fact

In an oversight, for both of the above matches, the selected team was not inputted onto the MyCricket website.

Fact

On Saturday March 16, 2013, the 4th placed Kiama Gold 3rd Grade team defeated the minor premiers, Oak Flats by 110 runs to 96, in their semi-final at Oak Flats' home ground, Shane Lee Field.

Fact

Following the completion of this match, an Oak Flats player - not the Oak Flats Executive Committee - contacted an official of the S.C.D.C.A board, and asked for the result of the match to be overturned, as the Kiama team had allegedly fielded an unqualified player, as per Clause 3.4 of the Competition Rules for 2012/13.

Fact

Acting on this contact, the S.C.D.C.A overturned the result of the match, and ruled that Oak Flats would progress to the final of the 3rd Grade competition.

Once the dust has settled, it comes to light that, on the statistics available on the My Cricket website, a player that took the field for Kiama Gold in the semi-final had only had 6 matches registered to his name as having played during the season. As ruled in Clause 3.4, if this was the case, the Kiama Cricket Club would have had to ask for permission for that player to be eligible to play in the match. Where the confusion had lain was that, in the two matches that were washed out in February, that player had been named to play. With those matches being allowed to be included in the eligibility f a player for finals cricket, it meant that he had in fact 'played' eight matches during the season, and he was effectively qualified without having to ask for permission to play.

However, with those two teams not having been entered onto the MyCricket website, these two matches were not registered at an official level, which, according to Clause 3.4, was a necessity. As a result, acting on Clause 8.2.8, the match result was reversed.

The Kiama Cricket Club 3rd Grade Gold team has, for the past three years, been the breeding ground for the Kiama Cricket Club. Its charter has been based on older senior players mixing with Under 16 and Under 14 juniors in order to bring these kids into Grade cricket, learn the game under some senior players and yet still be competitive. It requires a large rotating of the player group, in order to give everyone a game. This season alone 22 players had a game in this team - not through necessity, but because of the format of the team. Next season it will hopefully be more, given the number of players graduating into Under 16's in 2013/14.

No one can suggest here that the initial fault of this situation lies anywhere but squarely at the feet of the Kiama Cricket Club. Last season, with the number of washouts that occurred, it was imperative that the teams that were chosen had to be emphasised on the MyCricket website, to ensure that the Club and the District could ascertain who was qualified for which Grade. As it turned out, with four Grades all playing semi-finals it didn't become a huge issue. But the fact that this occurred last season, and was assiduously performed at the time, meant that there is no excuse as to why it could not and should not have been correctly done this season - all the more so because without 1st and 2nd Grades making the finals this season, player eligibility was always a chance of becoming an issue. It was an oversight, and it has proven to be an expensive one.

Given all of these circumstances, even with text messages of chosen teams to use as evidence, no one could convincingly argue that the District should overrule themselves in a normal situation, and allow Kiama to play in the 3rd Grade final. According to all of the regulations as they are written, the District was well within its rights to do what they have done at the appeal against this decision by the Kiama Club.

But that is not the full story, and it is the underhanded, unsportsmanlike and villainous dealings that occurred BEFORE this match was played that need to be examined and aired, and then ruled upon in the same manner as those that have already been presented to you.

Sometime prior to this match commencing on Saturday afternoon, at least one senior and experienced Oak Flats player became aware of the team Kiama had chosen for the semi-final. Whether or not this was from the team being posted on the Kiama Cricket Facebook page at 8.56am on Saturday morning is not clear. From that information, at least one senior and experienced Oak Flats player garnered from what had been entered on the MyCricket website that, according to the figures, one Kiama player in the announced team list had not played enough matches to be considered as eligible to play semi-final cricket. With this in mind, at least one senior and experienced Oak Flats player made a call to at least one senior and long serving member of the Executive of the South Coast District Cricket Association (S.C.D.C.A). In the discussion that followed, the  board member of the S.C.D.C.A was made aware by the Oak Flats player of the apparent discrepancy in the matches played by the Kiama player. The Oak Flats player then allegedly asked the board member of the S.C.D.C.A whether they should inform the Kiama Club of this information. In return, the alleged reply from the board member of the S.C.D.C.A was "it is not up to us to sort these issues out, that is the Club's responsibility".

With this in mind, we now have a situation where at least one senior and experienced Oak Flats player, and at least one experienced and long-serving member of the Executive of the S.C.D.C.A, knew going into the semi-final between Oak Flats and Kiama that, no matter what the result turned out to be on the field, only one team would be able to progress to the final. Given that this is the case, it is almost impossible to believe that the majority of the Oak Flats team did not know about this on the day. Also, at one of the other semi-finals being played on the day, the member of the S.C.D.C.A Executive allegedly freely spoke of this information in front of other people, and was even quite flippant about the fact that the Kiama Club's 3rd Grade side might be playing their hearts out at that moment, but they had already cooked their goose. With this information, it is also difficult to believe that more people on the Executive had not already been told of this situation.

Which do you judge to be the greater of two evils?

Do you judge an experienced and long serving player, who knowingly went into a match with this information? That if they won fair and square, they deserved to be in the final - but if they lost, they could (and would) immediately appeal to the S.C.D.C.A to take the match away from their opponents because they had played an ineligible player? No doubt they would claim that they had informed the ruling body of the information they had discovered, and that their responsibility ended at that point, that it was not up to them to inform a fellow Club that this could happen.

Do you judge an experienced and long serving official of the S.C.D.C.A, who knowingly allowed a Club to choose and play a player who, with the information available to them, was to all intents and purposes ineligible? No doubt they would claim that they had competition rules in place to deal with the information they had discovered, and that their responsibility ended at that point, that it was not up to them to inform a Club under their jurisdiction that this could happen.

Why did no one - whether it be from those that discovered this information from Oak Flats, or from the District once they were informed of this information - attempt to contact the Kiama Cricket Club and question them?

In a best case scenario, the District and the KCC could have agreed, with the help of the text messages of teams, that the player in question was in fact eligible to play. Oak Flats could then have been informed of this decision, and the match could have progressed as it did, with the selected teams, and all ruled upon by the District.

In a worst case scenario, the District could have ruled that, despite the text messages of teams, the rules of the District had not been followed, and that the player was ineligible to play. In this instance, despite the fact there would have been grumblings, Kiama could have chosen a replacement player who WAS eligible, and the match could have been played where the end result would have been completed on the field, and not by disqualification and appeals and with the shattering of dreams of innocent kids who just want to play cricket.

How exactly would previous administrators of the S.C.D.C.A, respected and multi-honoured people like John O'Dwyer, Richard Boxsell and the late Athol Noble, who have dedicated their lives to the administration of the game of cricket on the South Coast, react when told that the current board (or, at least one member of that board) allowed a game to proceed in this fashion when they had information BEFORE IT WAS PLAYED that meant that there was a 50% probability that they would have to reverse the result of the match. That they allowed a game to proceed in the full knowledge that only one team could proceed to the final. That they allowed the game of cricket on the South Coast to be brought into a state of disrepute through their own inability or lack of desire to take a course of action that allowed both teams to play on an equal footing, not one where one of the teams could never advance. Is this how the District likes to run the game on the South Coast?

Some years ago, cricket at all levels brought in a preamble which was titled The Spirit of Cricket. In essence, this was to instil in all players, young and old, a sense of playing hard but fair, and that to treat the Game of Cricket with the respect it deserves.

I do not believe that there is one fair-minded person in the world, who watches or plays the game of cricket, that would agree with what has happened this past weekend in this country 3rd Grade semi-final fixture. Surely, there is not one person who believes that if a person or persons within a ruling body were aware that a team under its jurisdiction was about to play a match with an allegedly unqualified player, which in turn meant that the result of the match would become null and void should this team win the match, that they would allow this match to proceed without informing that team of the situation. Surely, there is not one fair-minded person who believes that if a person or persons from a rival Club is aware that the team they are about to play in a semi-final match is possibly about to use a player who may possibly be ineligible, that they would not share that information with that team prior to the toss being taken.

There has been zero respect shown to the Kiama Cricket Club, and in particular its 3rd Grade Gold cricket team, in this matter. An oversight on a website team list is now said to have cost them their season. Had this all been discovered the following day, when nothing could be done to change it, then this still would have been a terrible miscarriage of justice for this team. However, when it is discovered that this whole bad taste saga could have been avoided before it began, had someone - ANYONE - who knew of this situation before the match commenced come forward and made it be known, then all of this could have been avoided.

How much dignity and respect are you willing to lose in order to win at all costs? Is it worth being branded as poor losers, and have that stigma attached to you for years to come, just to have a chance to win a 3rd Grade premiership in country NSW cricket?

How much dignity and respect are you willing to lose in allowing a Club under your authority to mistakenly play a player who was allegedly ineligible? What kind of authority would ever do that, apart from one who perhaps felt vindictive against that Club, and took pleasure in seeing it have to go through this agony? What other reason would any organisation, with the knowledge they had before the event occurred, allow this game to commence under these circumstances.

At a time when it is increasingly difficult to encourage kids to play cricket when they have so many other pursuits to choose from, and to encourage adults to give up their entire Saturday to coaching and playing cricket, it is incidents like this that cruels that even further. No good at all has come from this incident. Not for the Kiama Cricket Club, who will lose disgruntled players who have sworn never to play a game of cricket under the current District board. Not for the juniors who played in that match, believing that they had made a Grade final on their own merits, but had it ripped away from them. Not for the Oak Flats Cricket Club, whose spirit of fair play has come into serious question. And certainly not for the District body, which must now live with the consequences of all of the actions that have occurred.

The Little Runner

Jessica Peters can be a very determined young girl.

Last year at her school cross country, she made the entire distance, but had to walk for long periods of the race, and had some trouble with her asthma. While a bit disappointed in herself, she was more than anything else sure she could do better.

This year, in the lead up, she did plenty of practice with her class during school time, where they would run around the school.

Today was the race, and, above all of the expectations of both Helen and myself, she ran a great race. Helen was there to see her, and said she only had to stop to walk on a couple of occasions, and apart from that she kept plodding along.
So well in fact, that she ended up coming fifth in her age group, and as a result she will be heading off to the District Carnival to compete in a few weeks. She was so proud of herself, and couldn't wait to call me at work this afternoon when she got home to tell me about it.

What a champion! She obviously didn't get this off her father, but the fact that Helen was a good short-course runner when she was at school may perhaps go part way to explaining it.

My cross country career was not as successful, as this little exchange on Facebook shows.

A Sydney Sojourn - Part Three

After a room service breakfast, we took a stroll through the Royal Botanic Gardens before we had to book out of our room and catch our train back to reality. There have been quite a number of changes since Helen ruled the roost back in the 90's between 1994 and 1999. But it is still a lovely, tranquil place to visit and walk around.

A Sydney Sojourn - Part Two

We awoke to the sun streaming in through our east facing windows - quite a treat when there is no chance of anyone actually peering in at you at the same time!

We rose and went down to City Extra for breakfast, which was right at Circular Quay. The big breakfast was what took my fancy, and along with coffee was a very enjoyable way to start the day.

From here it was time to go shop browsing. Helen rarely gets the chance to look through clothes shops, and it has been a long time since I have been forced to do so as well, so we spent most of the morning looking through places such as Myer and other places of which I have no recollection in the search for bargains.

Watch out David Lawrence!

It was also St Patrick's Day today, which meant not only a lot of green and crazy people, but a parade along George Street near Town Hall, which created bottlenecks along the sidewalks.

I was able to duck into Utopia to make some quick purchases too, which was good. A Gamma Ray DVD and a couple of CDs meant I was at least able to make some part of this my own.

In the afternoon we took the rivercat up to Parramatta and back, which was terrific. It was great to be able to cruise up the harbour and into the river, and see how quickly it does become just a small mangrove covered stream. Though the breeze had picked up a little, we still had a great afternoon.

After some more champagne in the spa, and another room service dinner (yes, I got exactly the same meal as last night), we made the five minute walk to the Opera House to watch Neil Finn & Paul Kelly in concert together. And it was just fantastic. The songs they played, the way they sang them, the fact that Paul's nephew and Neil's son played in the band, was brilliant. They played for 2 hours and 40 minutes, amazingly long in this day and age. It was just a marvellous experience all round.
The following night they streamed their final gig live on YouTube, which is below. The concert starts at about the 19 or 20 minute mark. It is completely worth watching.

Putting the icing on the cake, as everyone streaked off to get taxi's or cars or trains, we strolled back to the Quay, and took the elevator to our room and our bed. Awesome.

"Whenever I Fall.... At Your Feet..."

Edit this setlist | More Paul Kelly & Neil Finn setlists

A Sydney Sojourn - Part One

Neither Helen nor I have ever seen Paul Kelly in concert, and though we have seen Neil Finn, we were always keen to see him again. So when, in November, I discovered that they were going to play TOGETHER at the Sydeny Opera House in March 2013, I jumped to get good tickets, and was able to keep it a surprise long enough to give to Helen for Xmas.
Also, as the concert was just a couple of weeks after our 20th wedding anniversary, I decided to make a weekend of it, and booked accomodation near the Opera House for two nights, and organised Mum & Dad to look after the kids.

So, today we drove over to Minnamurra at 10.00am, and after a cup of tea with Mum and farewells to the kids (for pretty much the first time in their lives) we boarded the train for Circular Quay. And what a lovely train ride it was. We both had our headphones in, listening to our own music, and also reading our own book or magazine, or just staring out the window. Quite the change, and very relaxing.

We arrived at Circular Quay just prior to 2.00pm, and booked into our hotel, Pullman Quay Grand, right on Circular Quay and the Royal Botanic Gardens. I had booked aroom on the RBG side of the hotel, and the room and view were both quite stunning. We had a room on the top floor of the visitor accomodation, and the management even sent up a complimentary bottle of champagne for our anniversary. So we sat on the balcony and had a lovely time.

After champagne we had to go out and find sushi for Helen for lunch (not for me, thank you), and having walked around the Quay and the Rocks, and bought a few essentials (more champagne and some chips and chocolate) we returned to our room. Having perused the room service menu, we decided on eating in and a couple of in-house movies.
The movies we watched were "Argo" (which was informative and gripping with some good performances) and "Bachelorette" (which was a female "The Hangover" which was basically tripe).
My dinner was superb. Wagyu rump steak with chips, awesome stuff. Helen also enjoyed her meal, which was of a fabulous standard and reasonable price considering where we were.

Anne's Birthday

No rest for the wicked, as we were up before dawn to make sure we could get a day in to go to Sydney to take Anne for lunch for her upcoming birthday.
Crazy stuff, allowing an alarm to awake you at 6.45am on a Sunday morning, but we needed to keep moving if we were to meet the timeframe of the day.

We arrived at Darling Harbour at 10.30am, and as usual decided to catch the Monorail around to Pitt Street. It wasn't until after we bought our ticket that we discovered what most people seemed to already know - that they are going to tear down the monorail in a couple of months. Ludicrous!! How is one supposed to find their way from an easily found parking station at the Entertainment Centre to the dead centre of Sydney without the Monorail?! Walk? With three kids? Very disappointing, and kids were almost devastated. As such, we had to take a couple of photos with them and the monorail for posterities sake.

We met Anne at the Sky Phoenix chinese restaurant, which was a yum cha restaurant, something that both Anne and Helen looooooooooooooove and that I put up with but would much rather be somewhere else. Winning dishes for me included the BBQ pork, shredded beef (a bit like crunchy witchety grubs, but still ok) the fried noodles and peppered honey pork. Good stuff. Best part of the lunch was that Josh actually ate quite a lot, fried rice and fried noodles and a spring roll and jelly for dessert. Cost as much as about five Macca's runs, but you get that I guess.

So, it was an interesting day. Started at 7.00am, and we got home at 3.30pm, all for an hour's lunch date, all of which with parking, monorail, fuel and lunch cost about $275.00. "Yikes" is what the financial manager of the family said once he had worked it all out.

Brown Paper Bag Party

It has been a long time since my parents had one of their big get togethers. When we were kids, and teens, and even twenties, there were any number of parties during the year that we were all invited to and would attend. Australia Day at the Toms' home was always a highlight, and Anzac Day at our house was also great. With much of the old group beaking up and moving away, or in some cases even passing on, these parties have become a bit of a thing of the past.

However, today, for the first time in a long, long time, Mum & Dad hosted one of their famous "brown paper bag" parties.
Ah, I hear you ask, "What the hell is a brown paper bag party?!"
Well, every couple who come must bring with them a bottle of red wine. There is no specification as to what kind of red wine it is, nor how... good... it has to be. The bottle is wrapped in a brown paper bag so that the label cannot be seen, and each is designated a letter. Then, throughout the day, you have a 'taste' of each of the bottles on offer, and mark them accordingly out of five as to what you think of it. Once the bottles are empty, they are unwrapped for all to see, and their score is averaged out. At the end, you can see exactly which you thought was the best, without being swayed by  a label or price or anything like that. It's a good way to discover new wines by taste only, and a good social event.

The scores mount up

The weather was perfect for the outdoor event, and I caught up with a lot of family friends who I hadn't seen in 10-20 years, so it was a good afternoon.

I managed to try all 12 wines on offer, and found most to be pretty good. (surpise surprise). The winner turned out to be a 2010 Robertson's Well Shiraz. Current price at Dan Murphy's is $13.75 a bottle, so probably worth a couple of investments.

Later in the afternoon Tony and I took the kids over to Minnamurra River for a dip as tghe tide came in. I was amazed that the water was so warm for this time of year, and the kids enjoyed the swim.

To top off the weekend, we came back in time to watch the Eels pulverise the Warriors 40-10 in their first round clash in the NRL. After last season, what an amazing start to the new season. Their real form will be judged by their performance against Canterbury on Thursday night.

Also - here's a photo of Maddie playing around with the sprinkler this morning, just like we used to as kids, well before they brought in all of these nasty water restrictions.

Will Bungling in India Be Reversed or Reverted?

The wash up from two demoralising defeats in the first two Tests between Australia and India has been extreme - warranted in many respects perhaps, though possibly an overreaction in some ways. In wading through the destruction caused by an 8 wicket loss in the 1st Test (with an innings defeat only avoided by a 66 run partnership for the final wicket) and a crushing innings defeat in the 2nd Test, easy targets have been vilified, and any sense of reasoning has been set aside.

The selection of the squad for the series raised eyebrows at the time it was announced, and by its very nature locked the tour selectors into a dangerous game of picking unqualified "all rounders" and spinners with little or no success (as I have detailed in this post).

In fact, the team chosen for the 1st Test was almost the best they could do given what they had to pick from.

They chose Moises Henriques as a bowling all rounder in preference to the batting of Usman Khawaja, and chose returning paceman James Pattinson in front of Mitch Johnson, who had had his best summer for a number of years. Both of those selections worked - Henriques bowled accurately and scored two fifties on debut, and Pattinson was dangerous in taking six wickets for the match. Michael Clarke had some luck with the lack of the DRS in India to make a wonderful century, which drove Australia to a respectable first innings total of 380. In reply, around tea on the third day, India was 7/372 when Ashwin fell, and with only three tailenders and MS Dhoni remaining, a small deficit was what Australia was looking at. At this point, the Test was still dead even.

So what happened in the next 49 overs? Dhoni went ballistic, the tail hung around, and 200 runs were added for the final three wickets. What was to blame for this? Poor bowling plans? In some respects, yes. Dhoni took Nathan Lyon, who had bowled steadily again without being dangerous, out of the game. Peter Siddle bowled straight and on a length, but produced nothing to trouble the batsmen. Mitchell Starc once again reverted to bowling around the wicket, taking away every advantage he has by being a left arm quick. Mystifying. The bowlers and fieldsmen showed an inability to get a good crack at the tailend batsmen.

In the long run, it was Dhoni's amazing 224 from 265 balls that changed the match, and sometimes there is just nothing you can do to stop it. Australia applauded Adam Gilchrist's ability to do this, and it won Australia many Tests in the decade when he played for our national team. Sometimes players have a day out, and they are unstoppable. This is what happened in these 49 overs, and while things could have been done better in a bowing and fielding capacity by the Australian team during this period, it most likely would not have changed the result too much.

What hurt was Australia's response. The top six could put together only 6/131 between them, though Phil Hughes and Michael Clarke received unplayable balls aided by the deteriorating wicket. Henriques and Lyon showed that it could be tamed with a last wicket 66 where both patience and attack was rewarded. India lost two wickets in making the required 50 runs for victory, but Lyon made the ball do some tricks in the short time available, as well as having two chances missed. If India had been chasing 200 for victory instead of 50, it could have been a completely different result. A case could be made that Australia wasn't as far behind in the 1st Test as the experts and the scorecard may have suggested.

Why then did we see the team that walked out for the 2nd Test chosen? A case could be made for a second spinner to be chosen, and Xavier Doherty was quite rightly (of the spinners chosen in the tour squad) named as that second spinner. But then we have Lyon being dropped, and Glenn Maxwell, who would probably not even play for Victoria as solely a batsman or solely a bowler, being chosen as a front line bowler in his place. Lyon's figures in the 1st Test were not appealing (3/215 and 1/29), and while for the most part he showed nothing more than he has in his previous 18 Test matches, on that final afternoon he was able to produce some deliveries that kicked and spat off the dying wicket, which (to me at least) boded well for what he may be able to do in a similar situation in the next Test. He would have to deal with Indian batsmen treating him with contempt, but perhaps he would be better prepared for that the next time.

Instead, he was given the flick, and a part-timer (at best) was drafted in to do his job. And it had been coming for awhile. For some reason, the selectors, or at the very least the Chairman, John Inverarity, has had a huge man-crush on Maxwell for 12 months, and has taken any opportunity to push forward the case that he is the next big thing, that he is too talented not to be in any Australian team. His results at first class level do nothing to help prove this, but the National Selection Panel (NSP) almost shoe-horned him into the eleven for the 3rd Test against Sri Lanka at Sydney in January at Lyon's expense, and now they found a way to finally do it here. It really just appeared to be a very selfish move to get a guy into the team that the NSP wanted in at any cost. And the cost? Well, two scores of 13 and 8 batting at number eight, and he appeared all at sea, and unwilling to play himself in, whereas Lyon had faced 78 deliveries in his innings in the 1st Test. The Indian pair Vijay and Pujera took a liking to his bowling, and though he did bowl better when he decided to go around the wicket finishing with 4/127, he didn't look threatening until he was bowling at the tail and they were trying to take advantage of him. This was no fault of his own, it was a situation that he had been thrust into when he was palpably not ready for it.

Overall again though, one partnership gave India the advantage. The 370 runs that Vijay and Pujera put on together was two runs more than Australia could score in both innings combined. India lost their last 9 wickets for 116 runs, which again showed that, apart from one outstanding moment of batting, the Australians were not too far off the mark. Again, during this partnership, the Indians had the running, with a number of balls flying just wide or high of fieldsmen. This happens, and you need to be able to put those behind you. Siddle was again economical but mostly not threatening. Henriques again held up an end without looking like taking a wicket, but really that is as much his job as the fifth bowling option. Pattinson again was the best of the bowlers.

Doherty was innocuous throughout the second day, but looked more likely on the third day. Without a real quicker slider that both Stephen O'Keefe and Michael Beer have as a change up into the right handers, Doherty will not be as dangerous to the Indian batsmen as he could be. It's a tough ask for the bowlers, and given the runs they have had to defend so far, it is an impossible one.

The bowlers have had some excuses. Our spinners in these conditions are just not in the same universe as the Indians, though it has been Ashwin who has been the real handful. Our batsmen are not picking him at all, which is amazing given they faced him in Australia only 12 months ago. Australia's spinning crop at the moment are plodders. 3 or 4 for 100-odd from them in unfamiliar conditions is not an unfair return.

But we need more aggression from our pace battery. When Mitch Johnson was out of the game for 12 months, I never expected him to return. But return he did, and in the process probably had his best summer in four to five years. He has had success in India before through his aggression, which Indian batsmen do not like. It is therefore another mystery why he has yet to play in this series. He is exactly the guy we need bowling on these wickets. Again, I never thought I'd say this, but Johnson should have been the first bowler picked. Pattinson has been a revelation, and we can only hope he doesn't break down again. Siddle has been ineffective in these conditions and should be 'rotated'. And the coaches should all be telling Starc to stay over the wicket and bowl with some fire and pace, not try and bully batsmen from around the wicket on dead pitches. If he can do that, he should be in the team. If he can't, then he shouldn't.

Australia will not compete in India again until our batsmen score the runs required to do so. In the first two Tests they have also gone in a batsman short in order to pick an "all rounder".

It's been a tough ask. Two of Australia's greatest ever batsman retired within three Tests of each other, leaving a massive hole in the batting line-up. There was never going to be an easy fix to this situation, and some patience was going to have to be exerted. For the moment, Michael Hussey's position has been taken by the all rounder Henriques, while Ricky Ponting has been replaced by the returning Shane Watson. Hardly a straight swap.

The batting order is a dog's breakfast. The opening pair of Cowan and Warner has never appeared settled. One is a blocker who is unable to rotate the strike enough to keep his innings moving in a forward direction. The other is a slogger who loves to be a flat track bully, but when faced with a wicket that is something else is incapable of deciding how he should play. Neither has looked comfortable, and their dismissals have been ugly. In two of the four innings they have put together a fifty opening partnership, which is all you can ask of your openers - take the shine off the ball. If Cowan could find a way to get more singles to break the spell of the Indian spinners, and Warner could better choose which balls to play aggressively, then they may still salvage something from this series. If they can't then not only will Australia lose this series, but they may also lose their places in the team.

I don't mind admitting that I have a soft spot for Phil Hughes, and the obvious trouble he is having against spin has probably marked his card once again in the short term. He copped an unplayable delivery in the 1st Test, but his three other dismissals have been troubling. He has been no less disappointing than the others in the top six, but you can almost guarantee in the current selection environment that he will be the only one sacrificed in order to make it look as though they are being pro-active. It will be another unfortunate episode if this is the case. In his last Test in Sydney, he scored 87 and 34. In his last first class game before leaving on tour, he scored 120 and 35. His is the best current form of any player apart from Clarke in this squad. Surely, if someone is to go, that needs to be remembered and recognised.

Unlike Hughes, I have no soft spot for Shane Watson, just general disbelief that he continues to be exempt from any discussion that he should lose his spot in the team. Another four innings without reaching 30, and now not able to fall back on his bowling. If it was any other player in the team (and they all are) they would be concerned as to whether they will be in the next Test team. Just how many failures will it take until he is 'rotated'? This continued selection ignorance is endemic of the problems our batting line up faces.

Why is the skipper still batting at number five? Is he hiding? Is he scared? I don't know the answer, but it surely must end. He needs to lead from the front, and take on the Indian spinners and knock them off their game. He needs to make a stand and change up what has been happening with the batting. The scary thing is that it is plainly obvious that a dry spell is coming for Australia's captain, because no one keeps scoring the number of runs that he has been without experiencing a dip sometime. That day is coming, and if it coincides with him moving up the batting order, then we may never hear the end of it.

Can Australia get back into this series? Most would say no, but it is not out of the question. What the selectors decide to do with the team for the 3rd Test will be important.

To my way of thinking, there needs to be some varied thinking on the matter.

Usman Khawaja has been around this team for most of the last four months, but has barely hit a ball in anger. He will play the 3rd Test, and will do so with almost no cricket behind him. What a way to set him up to fail! We can only hope he can stand up and deliver. He should bat at number three, the position he has been groomed to take up for the past two years.

Despite all of my misgivings about him, Watson should be retained and asked to open the batting again. If this appears to be contradictory, given my comments above about both Watson and Hughes, then so be it. Hughes hasn't got the time in this series to turn around his obvious deficiencies against spin, while Watson has at least looked solid before his inevitable dismissal once he is set. Also, this will bring together a left/right hand combination which will hopefully play with the Indian bowlers lines and lengths.

Clarke must bat at four, and with Watson and Khawaja above him, I think this gives us a more solid looking top four than we have had for some time.

Now - what I would do, but will never happen - I would leave Cowan opening the batting, and move Warner down to number 5. At five he can play his natural game, and like a good number five can move the game for the batting team in the right direction. Cowan and Hughes are both unsuited to the position, which leaves Warner to be the man to do the job.

I would prefer to have another batsman to play at six, moving Wade back to number seven and choosing just four attacking bowlers. However, the only other batsman in the squad is Steve Smith, and as Henriques has already proven he is a better bat than Smith, I would reluctantly retain Wade at 6 and Henriques at 7.

I would also revert back to the three pacemen and one spinner option of the 1st Test. Doherty perhaps now deserves another chance, and as he spins the ball away from the right hander it may be an advantage. I would also rotate Siddle out, and choose Pattinson, Starc and Johnson as our pace bowlers, all attacking. It may well cost us some runs through undisciplined line and length, but I'm not sure we can leak any more runs than we already have, and we have to take 20 wickets in the match to win it.

With the squad we have, my team would be: Watson, Cowan, Khawaja, Clarke, Warner, Wade, Henriques, Johnson, Starc, Pattinson, Doherty.

My guess is that the NSP will go with Warner, Cowan, Watson, Khawaja, Clarke, Wade, Henriques, Maxwell, Johnson, Pattinson, Doherty.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Australia can compete better for the remaining two Tests of this tour. It will require the bowling attack to be more aggressive and clever, and the batting line-up to be both patient against the good balls, and aggressive against the bad balls. If noting else, our selected team must be prepared to recover the dignity and honour lost in the first two Tests, and be able to stand toe to toe with an opponent that may think it has the better of this Australian team, and may not know what to do if they are called on it.