I recently saw a headline suggesting Cricket Australia wants Steve Smith to come out of ODI retirement for the 2027 World Cup. Whether that’s true or not, it raises an interesting discussion. If it is being considered, I’m not convinced it’s the right move.

For me, the biggest reason is simple, World Cups work in four-year cycles. Those four years are important. It’s the time to build a squad, give players opportunities, learn from mistakes and develop combinations that can win a tournament.

It doesn’t always go to plan, and Australia’s ODI form certainly hasn’t been where it needs to be lately, but there’s still time for this group to grow.

Could Smith still play? Absolutely. He’s shown in T20 cricket recently that he can still perform at a high level. Talent has never been the issue. But I don’t think that’s really what this conversation should be about.

The question is commitment. He’s most likely happy in ODI retirement and more focused on Test and T20 cricket leagues.

Would this discussion even be happening if it were any other player? I doubt it. If someone retires from ODI cricket, then wants to come back just before a World Cup, I don’t think Cricket Australia would be talking about rolling out the red carpet unless their name happened to be Steve Smith.

In my view, if you want to play in a World Cup, you should earn your place throughout the cycle just like everyone else. Be there through the tough tours, the highs and the lows, and the series that don’t always grab the headlines.

That’s where this becomes bigger than one player.

We’ve already seen some senior Australian players unavailable for ODI series against Pakistan, Bangladesh and others because of scheduling or workload after franchise cricket. Every player has their reasons, and I understand the modern calendar is full of T20 cricket. But should the best players be able to pick and choose when they represent Australia?

I’d argue no.

Leadership isn’t just about performing when the big tournaments come around. It’s about setting the standard every time Australia plays.

When I was part of the Australian team, nobody owned their position. You never felt comfortable. You knew there was a cricketer scoring runs or taking wickets in first-class cricket who wanted that spot you played in. That pressure kept standards high. You couldn’t afford to take your foot off the pedal because selection was never guaranteed.

Maybe the game has changed. Maybe player management is different now. But I still believe the Australian baggy green, or any Australian shirt, should never be something you fit around your schedule. Commitment has to come first.

I actually feel for the players who have committed to those difficult tours. The ones who have travelled to Pakistan and Bangladesh and other ODI tours that seem of less interest.

They have put in the work and are trying to help build this next Australian ODI side. Imagine being one of those players and hearing talk that someone who retired could potentially walk straight back into the team because of their reputation.

Does performance still matter? Of course it does. Australia has to pick its best team. But there also has to be faith in the players you’ve invested in.

Australian cricket is clearly in a transition period. It isn’t always going to be pretty. Young players will fail before they succeed, and the same goes for inexperienced players at the international level. That’s how great Australian teams have always been built. They learned together, developed resilience together, and created the bond that eventually led to success.

If Cricket Australia is already looking to the past for answers, what message does that send to the players trying to build the future?

For me, I’d rather back the group that’s been there through the hard yards than turn to a familiar name because of a little panic. That’s how teams are built, and more importantly, that’s how lasting success is earned.