Can the Aussies take any positives at all from this Indian tour?

Across the spectrum of world sport, there’s scarcely a post-match press conference that does not feature the losing team hanging onto whatever ‘positives’ they can find – however trivial they may seem.

By the time this series is done, there’s no doubt that Michael Clarke, Mickey Arthur, the other selectors and Pat Howard will display this solidarity and nominate some saving graces.

It’s worth pondering though, is there anything that can actually be salvaged from this wreck of a tour?

If Australia loses in Delhi, it will match the 4-0 thrashing handed to Bill Lawry’s team by South Africa in the troubled 1969-70 tour.

There is only one certainty arising from the series – and it’s an obvious one: Michael Clarke is indispensable.

No Australian player since Allan Border has had to take on so much responsibility for the team’s performance. There is no other player in the current squad close to having the same level of job security.

But the lower-back condition that has afflicted his entire career is a constant worry.

According to The Australian’s Peter Lalor, Cricket Australia is fearful that the condition could soon become unmanageable.

Of most concern though, is that he has no obvious replacement as either batsman or captain should form or fitness desert him – or if the results carry on as they are.

That’s not to say he’s done a bad job. In reality, Clarke has done wonders with the limited resources at his disposal.

However, Clarke faces 10 Tests against England that his team will struggle to win on current form.

England will be at overwhelming odds to retain the Ashes at home this winter and heavily favoured to win the return series in Australia a few months later.

However unlikely, it is conceivable that Australia could lose every Test.

Should any of those outcomes come to pass, questions will be asked.

It’s hard to imagine a serious alternative as captain will emerge in the next 12 months. For starters, someone will have to cement their place in the team.

Normally, Shane Watson would struggle to retain his position as vice captain after an infraction like the homework affair and his poor performances with the bat.

But all indications are that he will and, ridiculously, could be captain in Dehli should Clarke fail to recover for the final Test.

Looking elsewhere, David Warner, Matthew Wade and Ed Cowan have all been touted as successors.

None have properly established themselves as Test cricketers.

James Pattinson and Peter Siddle will most likely find themselves on the majority of team sheets over the next year, but in the age of ‘Informed Player Management’, there’s a slim chance of any bowler leading the side.

Furthermore, the selectors are no closer to finding a first-choice team. These past two seasons since the Argus report was released should have been used to find a core group of players to persist with during the next five to 10 years – no matter the results.

The 4-0 defeat of India in 2012 would have been an ideal time for Michael Hussey, Ponting and Brad Haddin to move on.

A new squad could have been assembled with 18 months to establish themselves before the Ashes. Instead, the selectors banked on Hussey and Ponting to survive.

They’ve now been caught short.

We all know what they say about hindsight though. Regardless of how these circumstances have arrived, the selectors now have to find a solution.

It’s an unenviably difficult situation for them to negotiate.

The biggest problem is the batting order.

Steve Smith and Moises Henriques have shown glimpses of promise in India, but only glimpses. It’s too early to tell if they are the answer.

Phil Hughes has been dreadful on this tour, but can Australia really afford to drop him a third time in his young career, particularly given the paucity of convincing alternatives?

Ed Cowan is yet to convince that he has the ability to better his so far middling performances.

Only David Warner has shown considerable ability at Test level, but is anyone ready to back him to make crucial runs when the team is most in need?

Many cricket fans in Australia will make a case for their favourite alternative; Usman Khawaja, Alex Doolan, Joe Burns, for instance.

But can anyone truthfully say that they are certain to do better than the current players? Would George Bailey, Shaun Marsh or Chris Lynn really outperform those who are there?

It is shameful that, this season, no Sheffield Shield batsman has bettered Ponting – a man who retired because he believed he could no longer cut it at international level.

That none of these players has emphatically staked their claim speaks volumes of the country’s lacklustre talent pool.

It’s the same story with the spin bowlers. Despite his below-average results so far, Nathan Lyon still looks the best spinner in the country.

It must be asked though: why hasn’t he improved since joining the Australian team?

One positive that can be gained from this series is we can now unequivocally confirm Xavier Doherty and Glenn Maxwell are not Test-class spinners.

Steve O’Keefe has his supporters and is a more likely prospect than either of those two, but would he have run through India’s batting line-up?

Likewise, Fawad Ahmed could be parachuted into the team as soon as he becomes an Australian citizen.

The way things are going, any Russian pole-vaulters or Armenian weightlifters might find it easier to get a baggy green than an Australian Olympic tracksuit.

Thankfully, the fast bowlers have been encouraging when conditions are suitable. A core group comprising Siddle, Pattinson, Mitchell Starc, Jackson Bird and Pat Cummins is promising, provided they can stay fit.

Perhaps some final world-class performances can be squeezed out of Ryan Harris, Mitchell Johnson and Ben Hilfenhaus as well. Another positive to cling to, perhaps?

The role Shane Watson fills within the team is key to all this. Is he an opener, all-rounder or middle-order batsman?

As Gideon Haigh and Jarrod Kimber pointed out recently, the selectors must compute several different team combinations depending on what Watson feels like doing in any given match.

It could be argued that his bowling has been more valuable than his batting during the past two years.

Since March 2011, he has taken 19 wickets at 27, compared to 605 runs at 25.

His career stats read 62 wickets at 30 and 2558 runs at 36. It’s been two and a half years since his last Test century.

Statistically, it’s not hard to see where his strengths lie at the moment.

At the moment, the selectors are obsessed with all-rounders. Watson’s self-imposed ban on bowling has meant that alternatives have to be found.

However, Watson is the only Test-class all rounder in Australia – meaning the alternatives are actually weakening the team. Furthermore, his recent performances as a specialist batsman have not warranted a continued place in the team.

If he was picked as an all rounder batting at six, Watson’s hitherto frustrating half centuries will be more valuable and he will be able to have a more meaningful break between bowling and batting. In theory, the team would be at its most balanced with this arrangement.

If there is a positive that can be taken from this dire tour of India, it is that public expectation is now at its lowest since the retirements of Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist et al.

The selectors have an opportunity to decide on a team and stick with it.

No more experiments and no more compromised preparation. Like Mickey Arthur, they can draw a “line in the sand” and choose the best team available as much as possible.

The public may accept defeat to a superior opponent if the best team available plays as well as it possibly can.

Maybe this is too optimistic. Perhaps I’m no different to the defeated athlete clutching at any positive straw within reach.

Sometimes, though, hope is the only thing to keep us watching.