ON the day Australia fields its least fearsome Test combination since Ian Chappell and company put on Kerry Packer's pyjamas, one of Chappelli's great truisms resonates.

As captain - or in this case, selector - you're obliged to do what your opponent would least like to confront.



It's a logic impossible to flaw.



Which makes it all the more unfathomable - and unpalatable - to watch Steve Smith chosen as Australia's No.5 batsman to face India in Mohali.



And while social media is awash with theories pertaining to New South Wales and homework-gate, let's try to take the higher ground in assessing why this decision stinks.



If Brad Haddin can be flown from Australia to replace the injured Matthew Wade, presumably we could have arranged a suitable third drop in time - not a failed all-rounder who's a good bloke, a top fieldsman and anything but the great white hope he was painted out to be on Test debut in 2010.

INDIA v AUSTRALIA MATCH CENTRE

Because, as many will argue about Shane Watson - including at least one selector earlier this summer - if Smith is incapable of bowling for Australia, his batting simply doesn't warrant Test selection.



There are no fewer than 22 batsmen in the Sheffield Shield - who aren't either ineligible or already in the Test team - who have scored more runs than Smith this summer.



So we're picking a youngster and giving him a chance, you say.



Then how do you explain Haddin over Paine or Hartley?



We're going for bowling variety?



No we're not - he's bowled a grand total of 15 Shield overs this summer and taken one wicket.



He's being rewarded for stellar T20 form?



Can't see Brad Hodge in the selection frame.







































Selectors are telling us Steve Smith is the third best non-opener - who haven't been naughty boys - we have in Australia.



Please.



Ask emerging batsmen Joe Burns or Alex Doolan, suddenly in-form veterans Chris Rogers, Cam White or Callum Ferguson, or even pace-bowling all-rounders Trent Copeland and Ben Cutting - who all have more runs and (bar Copeland) better averages than Smith.



On no level does this make sense.



Even if you want to argue that if he's picked in the touring squad, he should see game time.



And this doesn't even take into consideration a bloke called Ricky Thomas Ponting who, oh by the way, hammered a third Shield century of the summer today against Victoria and is averaging almost 90.



If you're trying to tell me Ashwin and company would rather bowl at Ponting than Smith, I think I can hear Ian Chappell giggling from here.