That's essentially what Andrew Symonds' record looked like before the 2003 World Cup. Symonds had made only 2 small 50s in 50-odd ODIs, one when he was promoted to open vs Zimbabwe. Definitely NOT saying Smith = Symonds, but I'm guessing that's the idea. They think he's one for the future and are willing to use him basically as a specialist fieldsman in the meantime. Watson's presence means that it doesn't matter who plays at #7 as long as they can bat a bit.
You are right
He didn't do particularly well last night, but no one else really did either. If you eliminate Mitch's no-balls then his RPO would have been about 5 - only McKay was better.
Badly needs his lower order batting though, and preferably someone to have the balls to move either he or Lee up to pinch hit when Australia are really struggling. eg. in the 15th over there last night, Forrest gets out - why not send Lee/Johnson out to attack the bowling PP? Not earthshattering if they get out and it might change the game.
Because SOMETHING needs to happen in that middle order to get England's bowlers off their length. Australia was actually LUCKY last night because England speared so much down leg side - that was the only way Australia were scoring for a while. Finn in particular was just hammering on his length and no batsman could really do anything about it. Would love to see someone come down the wicket for a ball or two at him, make him change something. Forrest trying to drop the ball at his feet for a quick single 10 times in a row is NOT working.