Alex Fair.
IT'S a sad reflection on Michael Clarke's leadership that his decision to move up the batting has been a reactive one.
It is a move that he should have made as soon as he was handed the captaincy.
No.3 is the position that you want your batsman to be at.
It is also a position that requires a player that oozes leadership and can adapt to any situation.
Think Justin Langer and Ricky Ponting in the modern era.
Clarke is well and truly in that category.
It would have been the early move that saw Clarke declare the team as ``mine''.
Failing that, when Ponting retired he should have moved up the order to give it some stability.
The warning lights would have been blinding when Mike Hussey retired, that this stability was needed in this batting order, but he still chose to ignore them.
Solid Test totals are built from the top four, not from five and six.
The fact it has taken this disaster in India for Clarke to realise this is a black mark on his leadership.
Whether it was ego, the fact he could save the team from 3-50 rather than 1-50, or just simple comfort in that position, he should have put the team in front of himself a long time ago.
It might be too late to save the Indian series, but it could be a defining move in being competitive in the Ashes.
Clarke taking the fight up to Anderson, Finn and Broad early on might be the only way we can get that little urn back.
For that series in England, getting some experience down the order to help with the tail should also be high on the list if Clarke goes up.
I have written in the past that George Bailey would be the perfect man to take Mike Hussey's place and I stand by that.
If not Bailey, then Brad Haddin, be it as a batsman only or replacing Matthew Wade, might be the way to go for a short-term solution.