The old and the bold hold key to Boxing Day test

James, I heard Siddle crediting 'JL' with improving the tail enders ability to 'dig in' and 'guts it out'. If only 'JL' could get the top 7 to play less often like millionnaires and 'dig in' when it's needed, the tail enders wouldn't have to keep bailing them out. Still, it was a fine win. There are the makings for a very potent bowling unit there. I would just urge people to keep their expectations realistic for now. The potential in Australia's bowling stocks is encouraging for the future, but they are largely inexperienced and with that will come some inconsistent performances on occasion. Having said that, India's batting looks so painfully brittle at the moment that a 4-0 series result to Australia is a distinct possibility. Personally, a 2-1 series result to Australia would make for more interesting viewing.

Do you understand what the Trans-Tasman trophy is? It was a two match series and we won the first therefore retaining the trophy because we were the current holders and thats the main thing. Did New Zealand win the series? No. We lost one test? So what? England were completely pathetic in their loss to the West Indies a few months before the 2009 Ashes while we were playing well and beating South Africa in South Africa. Guess who won the Ashes? "Experts" like you predicted doom and devastation before this test because of that meaningless loss to New Zealand. Tell me, if Novak Djokovic, Federer or Nadal lose a match in a 250/500 series tournament to a much lower ranked players does that automatically mean they will NOT win a grand slam? No. And we saw from the win in Melbourne that the loss against New Zealand did not mean we would lose against India. Thats not to say we will regain the Border-Gavasker trophy or win the series. But if we dont win the series against India its not because of that meaningless loss to New Zealand. If we lose at the SCG it will be because we played poorly/India player better. Any negative impact that loss to NZ had is gone with this win. Ponting scored 60 in tough conditions and you criticise him? He didn't go on with it? No one bloody did. Did Shaun Marsh go on with it? Besides Cowan's 68 the 3 young players failed 5/6 times in the two innings and you give ponting crap for not scoring a century???? The guy top scored for the bloody match with 123 runs. Oh, and Tendulkar came second.Then Hussey and then Dravid. Hmm, all old guys. Where were the young guys, Mr Expert? Thats right, they were failing spectacularly like Marsh and Kohli. I can't believe I didn't point this out earlier but the definitive proof that batsmen are more technically correct these days is the tailenders. When did you see number a 9 bat technically correct as Pattinson? Even Hilfenhaus is no dummy nor is Siddle and its not like these guys are all-rounders or particularly talented as batsmen. I know you'll throw up guys like Lindwall and Davidson because you are extremely predictable. Difference was those two had natural talent as batsmen as did Benaud. In the past guys like Chris Martin were common. Now hes an oddity and an object of amusement. The best example of how things started to change is Merv Hughes. A total abject failure with the bat when he made his debut but by the time he retired he had 1000 runs. Its not that tailenders are any more talented than before but they are more technically correct due to professionalism and training.

Ferguson is not test material. His footwork just isn't up to scratch and his eye isn't that good. We'll find that Shaun Marsh isn't test material in the long run but if Australia can get some good performances out him thats good enough. Just because he wont be a 100 test player doesn't mean he doesn't have something to contribute to the team now. And the players that give the team the best chance of winning the next match should be selected. I don't care if the players are as old as Wilfred Rhodes was when he played his last test. Its not like the younger players in Sheffield Shield are going anywhere soon. If Ponting and Hussey are there in West Indies so what? Khawaja will still be around if he misses a spot. Is he going to retire from cricket? I dont think so. And as we've seen with Hughes making a player a debut too soon is just a recipe for disaster. England broke him downa nd destroyed in 2009 because he was too inexeperienced. Hes going to need another 2-3 years of first class cricket before hes ready.

The problem with your thinking is thats its old, outdated and belongs in the semi-professional era of the 1990's which Australian cricket is stuck in. Cricket is now a fully professional sport. Deal with it. The reason England are number 1 is because they finally broke free of the past and made the changes necessary to win. And yes. We need to win NOW. This is idea you need to lose X number of Y number of games is stupid. For example lose 5 games now to win 5 games in the future has no net gain. And theres no guarantee that younger players will develop or cut it at test level. People parrot about players liek Boon, Jones, Waugh, Hughes, McDermott being given chances in the 80's when Australia was bad but for every Boon there was a Robbie Kerr. For every McDermott there was a Dave Gilbert. We labour under this impression that you have to "build" a team through selection. As if the selectors are solely responsible for putting together a good team. Selectors can pick players but its up to the players to perform and there is no guarantee that any player will have a long international career. Who would have thought McGrath would have had the career he did after his 1st test?

well said Bayman

Ferguson's record is ordinary in first class cricket. He should be playing the ODI's though.

I'd be careful about agreeing too readily with Brendon, Scotty. Lots of emotion, not much logic. And yes, well done to young Patto because without him we might have been well and truly skewered. Only Ponting, Hussey and Cowan made more runs than him - and Huss needed four starts. Luckily, history only records the result proving, yet again, that it's not how, it's how many!

Brendon, A meaningless Test to New Zealand, how so? That Test had a great deal of meaning. It showed, yet again, that Australia's batsmen have no idea on anything but a road or against bowling who can't move the ball - a point proved yet again by India in Melbourne. It also proved that Pattinson is a real find. Given the talent available to India far exceeds anything poor old New Zealand can put on the park that loss to the Kiwis was anything but meaningless. The fact you don't rate New Zealand is no reason to treat the loss as an aberration - it was very significant indeed. We won this Test against India because our bowling dominated - not because our batting was so good. The last four in the lineup also provided the winning margin and a couple more besides. The bowlers have shown they are Test quality, the batsmen have not. Your heroes Ponting and Hussey have hung on but have they really convinced everybody? Ponting's first innings 62, while gutsy, was largely unconvincing. He looked like he could get out at any time. Hussey, admittedly, got a decision against him but while it was incorrect it was not a bad decision. The proximity of ball, bat, gloves, body and the late swing away after it passed made it look like a nick was a distinct possibility. In the second dig Ponting got another 60 but still could not go on with it. It was probably a better looking knock than his first but all it's done is probably just prolong the agony. As for Hussey, whatever bad luck he had in the first he more than made up for in the second. Out three times, and dropped, before he finally convinced the umpire he was really out. The 89 was valuable in the context of the match but did it really prove old Huss was back? I don't think so. The four outs told the real story even if only one of them, the last, counts in the book (I'm even ignoring the dropped catch - but that should have been out too). Brendon, you could get 89 with five chances. By the way, Brendon, nobody is a Ponting or Hussey hater. Plenty of us think, however, they're past their use-by date. Today hasn't changed that except for the permanently blind among us. That win was down to the bowlers - no more and no less. Any idea that Australian cricket has solved it's problems because it managed to beat an aging India is fanciful. Let's just wait and see if we can repeat that in Sydney. What we can probably say is that we now have the basis of a pretty good bowling attack for this series and the near future. The same cannot be said of the batting. There were times when Khan, Yadav and Sharma looked like they could get the top order out at any time. Curiously, it was those same Aussie bowlers, Siddle, Pattinson and Hilfenhaus, who provided some batting steel. It is about time the batsmen lent a hand. It is a team game after all.

Fantastic win by Australia. Australia somehow scored 573 runs in this test match. In theory if you score more than 600 in a test match your more than likely to succeed in victory. Australia can't rely on our tail end batting to get them out of tricky situations. Although young Patto does have the potential to be an allrounder. We're improving our fast bowling depth. I can't believe how well Hilfy bowled in this game, while Siddle improves all the time. Add to that with Patto, Cummins, Harris, and others like Hazelwood, Cutting, Starc......we certainly have depth, its exciting Billy McDermott is certainly making a difference as a bowling coach. Maybe, just maybe, there needs to be a change with our batting coach.

I don't know about ferguson mate, his batting technique is prone to LBs and out bowled

No, I have posted many times that the worst possible reault for Australian cricket would be Ponting and to a lesser extent Hussey to get runs and give selectors an excuse (note excuse not reason) to keep them rather than retire them. I am not surprised it happened. Quality players as those too are will always be capable of getting a decent score (half century); but in Ponting's case he has hung on too long and needs to make way, his performance over an extended period shows that conclusively. Australian cricket needs to rebuild, not hang onto the past. If Watson is ready for test two or three Cowan or Marsh will go, not one of the old guys as it should be. Come the tour to the West Indies Ponting and Hussey will take seats instead of guys like Khawaja, Cooper, and Ferguson who are good enough in shield cricket and need a crack at the next level to see if they can be part of the test team's climb back to number one (Ponting, Hussey and Haddin cannot help with that).

Two things: a) You're right. Credit to the Australian team. b) It's easily arguable that Ponting/Hussey are two of the six best bats in the country on form. However, that's only half the argument for dropping them: the other being that they are old. Now, IF you believe that batsmen require seasoning at Test level to reach their potential (arguable, but seemingly accepted) AND you believe that Ponting/Hussey can't bat like this for more than, say, a year (can't really imagine him batting to forty), AND you set your goals to be "win the Ashes in 20XX" (whichever year, maybe not even next year), THEN, and really only then, there's a strong argument for dropping them now to win later. If you think the Shield does a good enough job, or you think that Ponting and Hussey can make it to the next Ashes, or if you think Ponting/Hussey are the best NOW and it's not worth sacrificing the India series for the Ashes or any future win (which you might not win, things mightn't: it's not as if we're gambling a sure-fire dynasty here); then you can argue for Ponting and Hussey. You can take either side on any of these factors. Just understand the other half of the argument, because it's fairly clear that at least Ponting is in form.

Could not agree more Brendon - where are they all? Struck mute? Well done to the team and especially to young Patto.

How typical. Australia wins and theroar goes quiet. When Australia lost a MEANINGLESS test to New Zealand the place nearly went into meltdown. And Ponting and Hussey haters are quiet. Too busy eating their own words?

I will be very, very unhappy if the Bangladesh Cricket Board ever give Justin Langer a job.

Langer's record as batting coach is amusing.

Ah well life's interesting these days for us followers of the Australian cricket team. Clear weaknesses but also promise. Just read another fascinating article in the SMH about the bowlers improving under McDermott's instructions, effectively dissing Cooley. What I would like to know is what Justin Langer is telling the batsmen, clear technical weaknesses on display again. Whats clear is we will have to bowl really well, again. Not letting Dravid get entrenched would be a huge bonus.

David, Sehwag for mine is the key. If he gets away and scores a quickfire 80 then India should be able to chase down 250-ish. If he goes early, I can see Australia knocking them over for under 200. Seems for a Test to go the full distance these days it has to be played on the subcontinent.