Do India have the balls to beat Australia?

To me, Australia's 2005 Ashes loss was an aberration. It should not have happened. A lot has been said about the reasons why, and I think a lot of it came down to "reverse swing bowling" to over simplify the issue. There has been quite a bit of talk about how it was that the English were able to engineer such reverse swing, with speculation ranging from a specific type of breath mints, to the English pitches, to the type of cricket balls used.

Whatever it was, it was something that wasn't present when the English visited Australia in late 2006.

Anyway, it seems like the Indians are using the same balls that the English used and there is speculation that this is what has given them the winning edge.

Personally I think it's no excuse for Australia not to be able to play reverse swing, they should be able to use tennis balls with duct tape on one side for all I care, I don't see how a powerful cricket nation like Australia can't deal with reverse swing.

From my point of view, the only way a specific cricket ball was a factor in our Ashes loss was when Glenn McGrath stepped on one during training before the second test and injured himself.

That's what lost us the Ashes.

The only way a specific cricket ball will lose us the series in India this time around, is if they put one in the hands of Jason Krejza.

Thankfully, we've dodged that bullet - for now.

So, we've lost this test...

I don't buy this argument that Australia has no depth and that this crushing defeat is a sign of things to come.

I think it is a sign that the selectors - Andrew Hilditch, David Boon, Merv Hughes and Jamie Cox - really need to have long hard think about the next Test. It's not the retirement of champion players that has left us in this position, it's some very poor selections. I can't comment on Cox and Hilditch, but Boon and Big Merv were never known for their intellect.

I am not at all surprised we couldn't bowl out India, but I am surprised at how badly the batting fell apart. We need some steel - it is not the time to be trying out pretty blond-haired boys like White and Watson who simply are not good enough to be there. The selectors have been trying for years to get them into the team, but Watson kept getting injured and there wasn't a big enough excuse to get White in. You can't argue that they are both players who haven't the attitude to play for Australia - White has been a quality captain of Victoria and Watson has impressive first-class numbers. But in Test cricket, what counts are results. Watson batted well in one innings, but couldn't buy a wicket. Isn't half the excuse to have him in the team because he can bowl a bit? Is he really "the future" as the commentators kept saying? As for White, well he simply isn't up to it and you can't polish up any argument for his inclusion.

So why are we relying on these guys? We have quality players like Bollinger and Hilfenhaus in the wings who can actually bowl (not to mention Bracken), and Jacques, Hodge and David Hussey are just waiting to have another crack. And if we must try a spinner - which is one area where I will concede we are lacking - then what really is wrong with Casson or one of the other guys who actually give the ball a tweak? Why bother contracting Casson if we're not going to play him?

In the next Test I'm not sure what the best option is but would consider a four man pace attack with Clark back for White. Siddle did OK and could keep his place but his promotion above the aforementioned Bollinger and Hilfenhaus is quite odd. Katich should have a bit more of a bowl, and I never thought I'd say it, but wouldn't Andrew Symonds be handy right now? With a team of this balance, Watson's position must be under threat but he seems to have done just enough for now. Perhaps we will turn to Krejza?

Well played India, you certainly deserve this win and even with our strongest possible current team I think you would have beaten us. I'm not surprised at Ponting's fight with Lee, he must be at his wits end with the selections. We almost got past England in 2005 when we had a bit of a selection problem, but we are not as good as that team and India are better than England were.

It's a shame we couldn't give India a good game.

Have we ever had such a long and strange batting line-up?

So we went with Cameron White to bat at number 8. Interesting. I presume we have had a change of tactics as White is not a bowler. And we have Watson at number 6. Not a bad bat, but not as good as Jacques. And not a Test class bowler.

So, let's theorise what the selectors are doing, as it's clearly not obvious. I think that they are so unfathomably keen to get Watson in the team that they had to find a way to get him in there. Instead of picking a proper bowler, they picked a bloke (White) you can bat reasonably well to cover for the fact that Watson really isn't that good a bat. And the selectors seem to like White too, so having Watson there is cover for White's own lack of bowling skills.

It's a strange circular argument - use White to cover for Watson, and Watson to cover for White. The better solution? Pick a decent batsman in Jacques and a decent bowler in, well.... Maybe there is the problem. Picking White is conservative. The selectors probably thought "we don't have enough bowlers to bowl them out, so there is no way they are going to bowl us out." What a shame we seem to have to go against the way we have picked teams over the last 15 very successful years - that is, 6 good bats, 4 good bowlers and a keeper. Haddin is a top batsman, we should not forget. We don't need this much lower order cover and we need a spinner, not Watson's medium pace (and White is pretty much a pace bowler too given that he doesn't really spin it!)

It's the strangest line-up since Bevan was picked at number 7 in the Test team. The difference then was that Bevan could actually bowl and took the South Africans apart!

And what happened to Casson? Is White plus Watson really better than Jacques plus Casson (or Bollinger or Siddle or West - probably not Krejza)?

Oh well, Watson will probably go and score 100 and White take 10 wickets now. We are lucky India are not the team they were a few years back when I have no doubt they would have taken us apart.

So, about this team....

I feel like I've been a bit out the loop. I leave the country for 18 months, only to return and find out I only know half the Australian cricket team.

We all knew the Aussie team would change with the retirements of McGrath, Warne and co, but I never expected to find a team with the likes of Peter Siddle in it. Apparently, one of the world's best ODI bowlers, Nathan Bracken, is not good enough for the squad to India.

It's nice to see Bollinger get a go after being injured, and I was always going to be surprised by the spin bowling selections, because it was always going to have to be a punt after the retirements of Warne and MacGill, who were so much better then the rest, so good luck to Jason Krejza and Bryce McGain.

If somehow Shane Watson gets in ahead of Simon Katich - and the selectors will be trying to work out a way to make that happen seeing as they seem to love Watson and hate Katich - it will be a travesty. They came up with bad excuses for his dropping last time, and they will do it again. Even though Symonds has been left at home, there may not be space for the best batsman in the country, and this is a crying shame.

It should be a good series with India as they aren't the team they were, and either are we. I just hope they all keep their mouths shut and get on with the cricket.