The handling of Australia’s stand-in captaincy for the upcoming Test series against India could have dire consequences for the future.
The extent of Michael Clarke’s hamstring injury hasn’t yet been confirmed, but already there has been a mountain of speculation surrounding who will be skipper for next month’s Gabba Test.
Brad Haddin and Steve Smith are the names being spruiked, but the selectors and coach Darren Lehmann must tread cautiously.
Smith has cemented his spot in the middle-order, but at 25 he still has a lot of cricket in front of him and much to learn.
While the New South Welshman has excelled when given the opportunity at state level and in the Big Bash, national duty is a different kettle of fish.
Throwing someone into the deep end with just 22 Test caps to his name is a tough ask at the best of times, but Smith’s proposition is different. Smith is the future.
The captain of Australia is often referred to as the second toughest job in the country behind Prime Minister. The pressure of the nation’s captaincy could prove too much for Smith if he isn’t mentally ready, in turn affecting his primary job in the team – making runs.
It wouldn’t be the first time poor management on behalf of the national selection panel has scarred a player, you only have to look at Phil Hughes.
The left-hander was Australia’s most promising youngster since Michael Clarke. His career started with a flurry in South Africa, but quickly soured when he was booted from the team during the 2009 Ashes in England.
In his 26 Test career Hughes has been dropped five times, hardly a show of confidence from the selectors. How could Hughes possibly perform knowing he could be shown the door at any moment?
The NSP has shown an inability to handle these situations effectively in the past. Prematurely anointing Smith the captaincy at the Gabba could be the selectors’ biggest blunder yet.
Brains of a bimbo (Atgm)
Guest
Siddle shud captain the side if smith isnt ready
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
It wouldn’t be the first time poor management on behalf of the national selection panel has scarred a player, you only have to look at Phil Hughes. The left-hander was Australia’s most promising youngster since Michael Clarke. His career started with a flurry in South Africa, but quickly soured when he was booted from the team during the 2009 Ashes in England. A more factual sentence would read: The left-hander was Australia's most promising youngster since Michael Clarke. His career started with a flurry in South Africa. but quickly soured during the 2009 Ashes in England, resulting in his being booted from the team. He has had his chances and may well deserve/get another but lets not forget he was dropped for poor form, was told to go away and tighten up his technique and on the evidence I have seen he has not achieved this.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
It's not the opinion I have an issue with, champ. It's using spurious information masked as fact. It's the rhetorical weakness. It'd be fine if it was 'I think that Hughes' loss of confidence, possibly stemming from being repeatedly dropped, resulted in his poor test record.' That's absolutely fine; it's the 'evidently' that I have an issue with, because it is not evident. It's opinion. This is an "opinion" site, yes, but that doesn't mean one should just write any old thing and hide behind the shield of "opinion". I'll relate a little paraphrased quote: "an intelligent man is only entitled to an opinion insofar as he can argue towards it." p.s. Keagan, if you read this, it is not necessarily targeted at you. Your article was fine. This is just a common issue on this site (and many others) and it annoys me; people putting forward all sorts of rubbish as fact and then justifying it by saying 'oh well I'm entitled to my opinion,' as if that's some sort of defence.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
I think in an ideal world you'd like Smith to have another year of just being in the team before awarding the captaincy to him. But let's face it, we don't live in an ideal world. Who are the alternatives? Haddin is injured himself and not exactly in great form anyway. Plenty of argument to say that he should be making way for a more in form wicketkeeper anyway. Watson would be the other serious contender, but I'm not sure what would be achieved by giving him the captaincy. One of the impressive things about Smith is that pretty much every time he's had a challenge thrown his way he's stepped up and dealt with it well.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
Er, that's why this is an opinion site. All the author has done is taken some facts and ventured an interpretation. Fine to disagree with the interpretation, but if you take away that ability this site wouldn't exist!
Sideline Comm.
Guest
There you are making the assumption that Hughes' poor form is a direct result of low confidence. It's possible it is, but not a surety.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
You're assuming…and despite Hughes having some pretty reasonable durations in the Test team.
Keagan Ryan
Roar Guru
More so the handling by the selectors. It will be their decision to pick Smith. Their handlings of Hughes in the past were the example of how poor decisions can impact the individual. Hughes' confidence is evidently hampered as a result of his constant chopping and changing
handles
Guest
Or alternatively, the four test series could prove invaluable to Smith as experience, and a great opportunity for the selectors to see if the responsibility affects him positively or negatively. If he is the most likely to succeed Clark as captain, then I think this is an ideal opportunity for a trial. The opportunity to be captain for a series and then have time to consider how things went, how you would improve in the future is invaluable.
Edison Marshall
Roar Pro
It's all but locked in that Brad Haddin will captain the side so you don't have to worry about Smith Also the Hughes argument is not comparable. It's his own shortcomings that have gotten him in hot water. Has all the talent and technique but doesn't have the bottle to be completely honest.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
I do not see the how the comparison this article makes between Smith being captain and Hughes being in and out of the team is a valid one. Is the pressure of the test captaincy really comparable to the pressure of scoring runs in the test team? If it is then Smith, having scored runs in the test team, should be fine for the captaincy. If it isn't, then the reference to Hughes is not relevant. Be more careful with your comparisons, Keagan. It is a serious logical and rhetorical failing point. I agree with the premise of the article though. I would like to see Smith made VC under Haddin for this series, to gain experience.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I agree, though I think Smith should be named VC after this summer instead of Haddin, presumably it'll help prep him for the role.
jamesb
Guest
A big fat NO to Steve Smith as captain. Just over 20 months ago, he wasn't in the first test side against India on the Indian tour. Now people want Smith captain.....please. Smith is a future captain without doubt. But at the present time let him continue to cement his place in the side and let either Haddin or Watson captain the side.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Phil Hughes can't have been dropped five times. He's covered for injury once for Kat and once for Watson while they were the established opening pair, but that's hardly a case of him being dropped when they returned to fitness. I wish his sob story would not be made out to be so much worse than it really is. I feel in two minds about Smith, it feels a bit early but on the other hand, I'm pretty sure he could do the job well and I can't see how it would scar him if it was only for a brief time. These lads are tougher than you think.