The successful losing tour | Thebigtip

Australia's just completed two Test series in India had more positives than negatives to come out of it for the tourists. Despite Shane Warne whinging, yet again, about Ricky Ponting's capataincy to spinners and the perennial criticism of Geoff Lawson, there is a lot for the national side to be excited about leading into the Ashes series.

Much is being made of Australia's slide to 5th in the Test Match World Rankings but the question has to be asked in all seriousness, were the Australians ever expected to win this series?

The Aussies have dominated world cricket for 20 years and only once in that time have they won in India. How on earth, when the side is rebuilding, are they supposed to beat legends of the game like Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxmann, Sehwag and Dhoni?

Instead of criticism, the team should be applauded for how close they got. The First Test was one of the epics in the longer version's history and literally went down to the last over with both sides thinking they could win. The second match was a little easier for the Indians but they had to fight hard on the fifth day to reach a sometimes tricky target.

What these matches prove, even with an "underperforming" side, is that Australian cricketers still have the steeled culture to never give an inch to the opposition. This is a massive positive for a side low on confidence. If they can win an early match in the Ashes series, very possibly by this time next year the Test Side could be sat amongst the elite teams again.

To become world beaters again the side has to tinker somewhat with a few things and get some match play inconsistencies out of their game. The batting overall was adequate in this series without being electric. The top three of Watson, Katich and Ponting contributed over 600 runs but the big worry was the middle order of Hussey, Clarke and North who were well short of 300 runs between them. The vice captain was terrible with only 35 runs in his 4 innings, this is a far cry from his amazing Test debut in India of 151.

It must now be time for Phillip Hughes to be given a role somewhere in the middle order. He may have opened all his life but it is a little insulting to him to think as soon as he is removed from the top of the order he does not know how to hold a bat anymore. In any case, an apprenticeship similar to Ricky Ponting's at the start of his career may not be a bad thing.

The other, slightly negative factor, is that out of the 9 scores over 50 made by the Australians, only 2 were converted to centuries. When Australia was at the top of the pecking order it was a common occurrence to see three centuries on a scorecard, now it is three half centuries. If they are good enough to get to 50 they should go on to a hundred at a much better rate than two from nine.

But there were three extremely positive aspects of Australia's batting. Ricky Ponting rediscovered some form and his last innings of 72 was his most fluent since Cardiff in July of last year. Shane Watson had a stellar tour and really cemented himself as one of the best opening batters in the world. And the surprising positive was Tim Paine's assurance at Test level - his concentration powers was a highlight for the purists and should give the selectors a welcome headache when the choice between him and the talented but brash Brad Haddin is made.

On the bowling front Nathan Hauritz has created a lot of negative press. Ricky Ponting's captaincy to the spin bowler has equally been challenged. But there are a couple of points to these issues.

The first is that no matter what a captain thinks, if a bowler runs up and delivers he is also agreeing with the field set. Maybe if Hauritz diasgrees with field placements he should throw the ball back to Ponting and say 'I am not bowling until I get a proper field'. Plenty of bowlers have done it, so Hauritz should too if he is unhappy, otherwise he is responsible as well.

Secondly it must be said that Hauritz faced an unphill battle from the get go. Not only was he against the best players of spin in the world, he was doing it alone. India, with two specialists and three part time options bowled just under 300 overs of the slow stuff. Hauritz and some hopeful stuff from North, Clarke and Katich bowled 119. This is the single biggest reasons why the Australians lost the series - the selectors erred and they needed a second specialist spinner.

Back home Steven O'Keefe was ripping through South Australia and though it is not in Australia's nature to have five genuine bowling options (discounting Watson as a batter first and foremost) he should have been in the side to help Hauritz. Selectors are there to select winning sides not good looking ones, O'Keefe could have done just as well as Hussey with the bat, much better than Clarke and potentially scored as many runs as North. If the selectors were that worried about the batting they should have played Steve Smith who was actually in the touring squad.

Of the paceman, it was pleasing to see Johnson grab five wickets in the first Test and although Hilfenhaus did not get the rewards, his efforts were similar to Michael Kasprowicz's when Australia last won in India. Bollinger did well at times in the first Test, though workload injuries saw him pull out of the second match. But in his place came another Test debutant, Peter George, who in a tough initiation to international cricket, can walkaway proud of his efforts.

The Australians should be pleased with most of their achievements in India this time around, it is the hardest place on Earth to win a series and when an understrengthed and low in confidence side performs to a high level it bodes well for the immediate future.