'Every facet of Smith's game, from the lumberjack's square cut to the jumpy little dances, suggested a burning desire to succeed'

BEYOND THE BOUNDARY

Quiz question: Who has made more runs for England than any other player under 37? You may wonder if we're talking about Tests or one-day internationals. Either: it's the same person.

Here's a clue. He wasn't picked for the winter tour, not even as one of the umpteen replacements. And when the squad for the Texaco Trophy is announced on Friday he will almost certainly be left out again.

The answer is Robin Smith. We can't quite call him the forgotten man of England cricket, because there are so many other candidates for the position. (In batting order: Moxon, David Smith, Robinson, Maynard, John Morris, Blakey, Capel, Newport, Jarvis, Small, Benjamin, Childs...) But none of the others has a world-class record. Robin Smith does.

In 53 Tests, he has a batting average of 44.30. The only current England player who can beat that is Graham Thorpe - with 44.31.

In 64 one-day internationals, Smith averages 40.32. If we discount irregulars like Bailey, Barnett and Whitaker (these forgotten men - you can't get away from them), the only player who can beat that is Mike Atherton, with 42.05.

Atherton has appeared in only 22 one-dayers, having been labelled Not A One-Day Player. The folly of that judgement is now clear, but it was the received wisdom until Atherton became captain. These days the received wisdom is that Robin Smith Has Lost It.

It's true that his standards have slipped. Up to the end of 1992, he averaged 50 in 36 Tests. Since then, he averages 33 in 17. But every dog has its off day, and Smith in his lean spell was making more runs than many England players at their international peak. In those 17 matches, he made two centuries - the same as Graeme Hick in his whole Test career.

The last time England played the West Indies, Smith made 175. His critics, who evidently include Ray Illingworth, might say that it was on a flat pitch - the one on which Brian Lara had made 200 more than that. But it doesn't matter what the pitch is like when you're facing Ambrose, Walsh and a total of 593. A big hundred in the Caribbean is a rare feat. That one was the highest for England against the West Indies in 20 years.

Then Illingworth took over. Smith got the feeling he was on trial, and played like a novice. The runs didn't dry up altogether - against New Zealand he made 78, 6, 23 and 13 - but he was dropped for the visit of his native South Africa.

He therefore missed the one series he was most looking forward to. In their anxiety to avoid sentiment, the selectors also steered clear of sense. If there was one attack likely to play Smith back into form, it was the South Africans, with their pace, hostility and lack of the slower, wilier stuff that brings out Smith's inhibitions. It's hard to imagine him doing worse than his replacement, John Crawley, who made 59 runs in the three Tests.

To add insult to injury, Illingworth echoed Keith Fletcher's view that Smith's game had suffered from his business interests. To those close to him, this just didn't ring true. Even to those less close, every facet of his game, from the lumberjack's square cut to the jumpy little dances, suggested a burning desire to succeed.

Not that being dropped is necessarily a bad thing. Smith needed a winter off. He had another operation on his bad shoulder, trained hard, lost weight, saw more of his wife Kathy, son Harrison (three) and baby Margaux, and led a supporters' tour to Perth. (This was put on by his own company, Judge Tours). By discarding him, the selectors had made him spend more time being a businessman.

He has started this season moderately - 12, 77, 15 and 75 in the Championship, and nothing much in the B&H - though it is only in England that a man who has been a Test match-winner finds himself judged by what he achieves in a few chilly encounters in a competition that should long since have been abolished.

If Smith's name comes up at this week's selection meeting, it will only be because of the doubt about Hick, who has a cracked finger. There is a resounding irony here. Smith and Hick have much in common. African origins, prosperous homes, prodigious childhoods, instant success over here, and a real feel for their adopted country. Both are fearsome hitters whose physical power is accompanied by an incongruous vulnerability. Neither is seen as a possible captain. They get on well: in The Cricketers' Who's Who, Smith lists Hick among the players he most admires.

The difference is that Hick took to Test cricket like a duck to dry land, and although his average has now inched up to 35 he remains a nearly man, an under-achiever; whereas Smith looked the part the moment he came in against a rampant West Indies in 1988.

Oh, and Hick is an automatic selection, while Smith, still only 31, is out in the cold.