Australia, India 2014: Steve Smith captained to minimise chance of losing, not to win, writes Ron Reed

STEVE Smith, world cricket’s newest Test captain, walked off the MCG secure in the knowledge a major mission had been accomplished.

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA - DECEMBER 30: Steven Smith of Australia reacts in the field during day five of the Third Test match between Australia and India at Melbourne Cricket Ground on December 30, 2014 in Melbourne, Australia. (Photo by Scott Barbour/Getty Images)

STEVE Smith, world cricket’s newest Test captain, walked off the MCG secure in the knowledge a major mission had been accomplished.

Australia had reclaimed the Border-Gavaskar Trophy — last seen disappearing in the maelstrom of a 4-0 humiliation in India last year — regardless of what happens in Sydney next week.

DAY FIVE: INDIA DENIES AUSTRALIA VICTORY AT MCG

CRICKET CONFIDENTIAL: JOHNSON’S UNPLAYABLE DELIVERY

AGAR INTO TEST SQUAD FOR SYDNEY

DHONI RETIRES FROM TEST CRICKET

Smith had led Australia to a win and a draw in his first two matches in the hot seat vacated _ temporarily or permanently remains to be seen — by Michael Clarke, and his relentless run-scoring had done more than anyone else to achieve that.

So he is entitled to take a bow.

He has made a tremendous impression in a very short time, becoming a crowd favourite much more quickly than Clarke did.

However, a sizeable quibble entered the equation as this entertaining match petered out into a draw with four overs left.

As much as the bottom line could be construed as a positive from the captain’s perspective, the inescapable fact is he had a mountain of leftover runs — more than 200 — when he ran out of time to force the issue.

It is difficult to dispute he left his declaration too late — by a considerable margin.

As it slowly became clear he intended batting India completely out of the match before he was willing to try to win it, the strategy was the only topic among puzzled onlookers and commentators.

He had his supporters among hard-nosed old players from the “never give a sucker an even break” school, especially given so much aggro had been involved throughout three testy Tests — but there came a point where even they mostly conceded the tactic had become a disappointment.

How much criticism should Smith wear?

Declarations are a bit like beauty — in the eye of the beholder.

Bill Lawry once told vice-captain Ian Chappell he intended setting the West Indies 900 to chase, whereupon Chappell suggested he ask someone else for advice or approval.

Lawry settled on 735, won by 382 and had the last laugh.

It is easily understandable Smith would have been nervous about surrendering the hard-won high ground with the possibility of losing not only this match but the next one, which would have brought everything undone, including his new-found reputation for the Midas touch.

But he was playing to minimise his chances of losing rather than maximising his opportunity to win, and in this era where cricket is more than ever an entertainment product, that was disappointing.

If he had set the tourists 50 or so fewer off another 10 or 12 overs, the risk would have been minimal — and even if he had lost after what would have been an epic chase, Smith would not have been criticised by anybody.

Hopefully, this wasn’t an accurate insight to the mindset he will carry forward as the holder of Australia’s most revered sports job.

It is also to be hoped he was totally in charge on Tuesday, a question worth asking when it looked like coach Darren Lehmann actually waved the batsmen in. Clarke, who is always prepared to take a risk to win, was also nearby.

India’s veteran captain, MS Dhoni, didn’t exactly set the game alight either, declining to take the new ball and bowling without a slip to Ryan Harris, who, as well as he batted, is a tailender.

But this was an opportunity let slip by the Australians. And for Smith, a matter of live and learn.

[e-mail]

Twitter: @Reedrw

Originally published as Australia, India 2014: Steve Smith captained to minimise chance of losing, not to win, writes Ron Reed