Perhaps I'm used to attacking and aggressive captaincy decisions. Smith has been reported as saying he wanted to bat India out of the game, thus why they resumed batting this morning. That would have been fine if Australia had come out and scored an additional 50-100 runs in 15 overs, because that's all it would have needed. But instead, they wasted 2.5 hours (an entire sessions, albeit rain interrupted), seemingly waiting for Marsh to crawl to an undeserved century -- and after that 2.5 hour wait, Marsh ran himself out on 99. Well worth jeopardising a definitive result in the entire match.

In order for Australia to have won, they needed to keep India in the game, trying to win themselves by chasing the runs hard. They don't have Shane Warne to conjure wickets anymore, and haven't done for a while now. Clarke understood that which is why he's been so aggressive in his declarations in the past, to dangle the carrot in the oppositions faces, keeping them interested.

Quote Originally Posted by Jenk021
I find it hard to fault Smith as acting captain, I think he did rather well for his first go round and i do see him as the next captain of Australia
Smith IS the captain. He's #45. He's not acting captain. He's not a stand-in. If Cricket Australia wanted that, they'd have given Brad Haddin the reins. But they didn't -- they've officially handed over control to Smith, and if this is a sign of things to come, then we're in for some boring cricket.