Critics are told to naff off, and for a while, generally do.

In the middle stages the legend himself realises that the winged chariot is about to run him over, and in the final stage, after the last few desultory innings, he goes. (See David Warner, this summer: after about three years of barking dogs and performances that were a shadow of the ones he delivered in his prime, admittedly interspersed with the odd master innings of yore.)

Smith, we know, has cricket in his bone marrow; he is known to practise cover drives in the showers, and does imaginary hook shots up the back of the bus on the way to the ground. Will he ever go voluntarily? Highly unlikely. So the ageing Australian cricket team will likely see a repeat of Warner’s stuttering end, the problem being that Australia’s next Test opponent is ... India, coming for a five-Test series in December.

One way or another, Smith will eventually go, either to far pavilions whence he came, or back to the middle order, thence to the far pavilions.

Who should replace him, I say, sooner rather than later?

I’ll have “The Obvious” for 100, please Tony!

Cameron Bancroft.

Did I get it right?

The most compelling reason for why to pick Bancroft is the sheer number of runs he has scored as an opener for Western Australia, in the Sheffield Shield, where his average is just under 50 for this season, higher than any other opening batsman in the country in first class cricket. Last season, he was averaging just under 60!

On the strength of those numbers, it was Bancroft who was in the frame to replace Warner when he retired last January, but the selectors went for Smith instead – and, as discussed, it just hasn’t worked. So why not go back to him now?

And there is another, more delicate reason to back to Bancroft. Look at Sandpapergate. We will never know the true ins and outs of what happened in that notorious affair in Cape Town, but of the three most intimately involved – David Warner, Steve Smith and Bancroft – it was only Bancroft who suffered serious career damage.

Both Warner and Smith were rehabilitated and went on with their glorious careers. Bancroft, the most junior of those three – but perhaps doing what he was told by senior players – was shortly thereafter opening the batting for Siberia. Yes, he did make his way back, briefly, into the Australian side, but when the runs didn’t flow early, he was quickly told there was a bus leaving in five minutes and to be under it – again.

None of this excuses Sandpapergate itself, which was a disgrace, and Bancroft was wrong to do what he did. But of the three he has paid far and away the heaviest price. But allow me to delicately float another reason why Bancroft should be given the benefit of the doubt and given another go.

There has to be some chance, yes, that he “took one for the team”?

Loading

The official line, of course, is that the Cape Town Three acted alone, in the book repository, and there was absolutely no-one else on the grassy knoll – not one other player in the team knew anything about it, officer, honest! I am told by wise heads that this is unlikely.

The point is that apart from one wry comment, Bancroft has stayed shtum, taken his lumps from the umps, got on with it, and scored his runs. Under the circumstances he would have every right to point fingers, raised hell, shriek about the unfairness of him having had to carry the can for the three of them – or even wider – but he never has.

He took one for the team.

The team owes him another go at opener.

Fire at will. See if I care.

@Peter_Fitz

More reading