Australia / Ed Hawkins / 22 December 2010 /

Ed Hawkins argues that The Apprentice is similar to this Ashes series and that Steve Smith should have been given his marching orders by now

In this house for the past few weeks, BBC television 'drama' The Apprentice has been queen to an Ashes series which is king. If I haven't been watching umpires stick their fingers up to crestfallen batsmen, it's been Lord Sugar and his deadly digit.

Aside from the fun one can draw from attempting rudimentary tasks in one's home in Apprentice style - arguing with my flat mate why I should be PM for the task of making the toast but accepting no responsibility whatsoever if it is burnt, while making it perfectly clear I'll take the plaudits if it is not - it is useful to know why the show and the Ashes are similar.

In The Apprentice it is a given that some waster will survive longer than he or she should. 'Should have been sacked weeks ago!' you will scream at the television, mumbling injustices into one's cuppa, then extolling the virtues of a candidate who has been cruelly denied.

If The Ashes was The Appentrice, Lord Sugar would be played by Andrew Hilditch, the Australia chairman of selectors, because of the latter's relish for banishing men from the dressing room - four so far. And if there was one individual who raises incredulity that he is still in the 'process' it would have to be Steven Smith. No, scrub that. How is he even in the 'process'?

The 'allrounder' is the classic Sugar favourite. Rough around the edges, plenty of cheeky banter and has pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. Self-made. Just like Sugar. One day, he may well be a million-dollar player but not at the present time. He is Stuart Baggs The Brand. But unlike Baggs he doesn't even have a pony that can do one trick, let alone a field full.

Sooner or later Smith is going to cost Australia a task. He is the candidate who stays in the background, trying to look busy and to not catch the eye of the assessors. Thanks to Australia winning the Perth episode, Smith has managed to survive anyone questioning his abilities or what he brings to the team.

That is lucky for him because it is precisely nothing. Smith bats at No 6 when it is doubtful he is good enough to bat at No 8 at Test level. He goes hard at the ball outside off stump, leaving a big gap between bat and pad. A recipe for disaster if the ball is moving around. In Apprentice terms that's like going into a pitch without knowing your costings.

By batting him at fourth down, Australia are effectively saying that he is the sixth best batsman in the domestic game. In terms of most runs scored in first-class cricket in this Australian season - not including England players - he is 27th.

Usman Khawaja, in the original first Test squad, has 611 runs at 61. Callum Ferguson, David Hussey, Shaun Marsh, Andrew McDonald and, believe it or not, Nathan Hauritz, have all outscored Smith this term and are more deserving of a spot.

This argument would be irrelevant if Smith had been asked to bowl a ball at the Waca. He wasn't and it is difficult not to feel sorry for him in this regard. But when that happened he became a specialist batsman exposing his record and technique to scrutiny. he came up short. If he is not bowling, then Australia are effectively playing with 10 men.

And a side with 10 men is not a particularly attractive betting proposition, especially when Australia are as short as [2.50] for victory in the fourth Test, which starts on Boxing Day.

Lord Sugar is a little bored of his famous catchphrase. "I'd like the flexibility to be able to vary it, to say 'Get out' or possibly even 'Clear off'." In Smith's case, both could quickly be on the lips of England's bowlers.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: