Embarrassed skipper Steve Smith makes a strong case to show he’s the man to salvage wreck

STEVE Smith has been smothered by an Australian set up that has more chefs than ingredients but following Hobart he finally has the chance to lead the team his way, writes Richard Hinds.

HOBART, AUSTRALIA — NOVEMBER 15: Steve Smith of Australia looks on after Australia were defeated by South Africa on day four of the Second Test match between Australia and South Africa at Blundstone Arena on November 15, 2016 in Hobart, Australia. (Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)

IT is little wonder Steve Smith is having problems asserting his influence on the bumbling Australian Test team.

Forget about trying to impose a strong presence as captain.

It is a miracle he can breathe.

Smith was targeted by some after Australia’s humiliating performances in Sri Lanka and, particularly, on home soil against South ­Africa — although his head was just one of many to be impaled on the pitchforks of the angry mob.

Chairman of selectors Rod Marsh (now decapitated), high performance manager Pat Howard, coach Darren ­Lehmann, batting coach Graeme Hick, Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland ... anyone who had strolled past Australia’s nets was in the crosshairs after the Hobart debacle.

That there is such a large herd of scapegoats in some ways takes the heat off Smith.

The blame has been spread as thinly as the butter on a gymnast’s toast. Thus the captain has avoided the personal pressure that, quite literally in the sad case of Kim Hughes, ended in tears.

Australia has so many supposed leaders, if you threw a buck in the sheds it would have no idea where to stop. This helps explain the team’s dismal plight. Or at the very least why the captain, who might normally be expected to save the sinking ship, has as much control as the cabin boy.

After the Argus report in 2011, Cricket Australia put layers of “support’’ around the Australian team. This new bureaucracy was intended to enhance the performance of the captain. Now it seems to have smothered him.

You need only spend a short time around the Australian team and observe the passing parade of empowered officials to gain the impression there are more chefs than ingredients. No doubt there is a flowchart stating who reports to whom. But Howard, Lehmann and — until his departure — Marsh all had a strong, visible presence among a swollen support crew.

Whether or not he is still the right man for the job, Lehmann’s influence is justifiable. As Bobby Simpson ruled the roost until the reluctant leader Allan Border found his feet, there is something to be said for having an experienced coach shepherd a relatively young and inexperienced leader.

But in Smith’s case the line between a captain being wisely counselled and being infantilised by loud and conflicting voices has been crossed. Harking back to the “simpler days’’ in Australian cricket when the captain ruled the roost can be dangerously misleading. Similarly, to dismiss sports science and other specialties ignores how they are successfully deployed by other teams and sports.

Yet the strong and articulate presence of South African captain Faf du Plessis did put Smith’s role in a flattering light. Even as a stand-in, du Plessis’s leadership clearly entails far more than just tossing the coin and setting the field.

As an accused ball tamperer and prickly competitor, du Plessis is not popular with some. But Steve Waugh didn’t suffer RSI from cutting birthday cakes in the opposition rooms either.

Those who advocate Smith’s replacement with the more publicly robust David Warner argue the incumbent has neither the strong personality of Ian Chappell nor the tactical savvy of Mark Taylor.

But in Hobart despite — or, actually, because of — Australia’s ignominious performance, Smith gave the best indication yet he has the strength required for a job that has seldom been more challenging.

In both Australia’s innings, he set an example with the bat, albeit one his teammates were unable to follow.

Significantly, in his post-match press conference, Smith discarded the media-trained cliches and talked candidly about the team’s “embarrassment’’ and his personal frustration.

It seemed Smith finally felt emboldened to emerge from beneath the executive pile and speak his mind. Consequently he sounded like a leader, not merely a cog in a large malfunctioning machine.