*Official* Warm up Matches Discussion

[Howe_zat]

I'm happy with the Compton decision. He just hasn't convinced as test player and his strike rate is incredibly slow (34) even for a test opener, a real momentum dragger.

Nah, that's not an issue at all. He played on some horrendously slow pitches in India which didn't suit him at all, but he put on good opening stands and was actually very valuable. And then in NZ he hit hundreds on what was generally an awful tour for our batsmen.

I agree with the selection to an extent as he seems such a limited player, but there's really no beef to be had with his Test performances so far. There's certainly nothing to suggest Bairstow has performed better at any level up to now.

 

[Expressway76]

There's certainly nothing to suggest Bairstow has performed better at any level up to now.

Agreed. Bairstow is most definitely in the "unconvinced" category too.

 

[Cabinet96]

I agree with the selection to an extent as he seems such a limited player, but there's really no beef to be had with his Test performances so far. There's certainly nothing to suggest Bairstow has performed better at any level up to now.

This is the key thing. I really wish the media would stop portraying it as Compton v Root. Both were previously in the test side, and Compton has been dropped to accommodate Bairstow at 6. Root v Compton is also makes it seem less favourable to the latter than Bairstow v Compton.

I don't lik the decision for a few reasons. First of all, at the start of the year, England clearly thought he was the best man in the country to open the batting in tests. That was a decision justified by a weight of runs in County Cricket for a good two or three seasons, with the most recent a particularly successful season for Compton. Since then he's played five tests, averaged 30 and scored two tons (no England player has scored more incidentally). Is that really enough to justify dropping someone you thought was the best man for the job just four months ago? That they think it is, shows a lack of authority in their decision making. Yes not being stubborn is beneficial, but going back on your thoughts so quickly is also a bit worrying. If they only ever had him chalked in as a part time opener, while Root settled in in the middle order, then that's a totally different kettle of fish altogether. But I still don't like that. If they have done that, then they've basically plucked a guy out of County Cricket who was making runs for fun, and put him in expecting him to not go great, thereby harming his confidence and probably screwing over any chance he'll ever get to become a test cricketer.

Which leads on to my second point. Compton is probably past the age where he can go back to County Cricket pile on runs again and push for a place a year or two later. Therefore by dropping him now it's pretty much straight up the end of his career. With Bairstow it's different, because he's always young enough to be on the fringes, and he was always going to be the reserve batsman if anyone got an injury during the Ashes, which lets face it, is hardly unlikely. If that happens now, what do they do. Surely they can't bring Compton back after straight up dropping him? So you're left with a total newbie coming in to play an Ashes test match.

And thirdly, Compton

 

[Howe_zat]

Which leads on to my second point. Compton is probably past the age where he can go back to County Cricket pile on runs again and push for a place a year or two later. Therefore by dropping him now it's pretty much straight up the end of his career. With Bairstow it's different, because he's always young enough to be on the fringes, and he was always going to be the reserve batsman if anyone got an injury during the Ashes, which lets face it, is hardly unlikely. If that happens now, what do they do. Surely they can't bring Compton back after straight up dropping him? So you're left with a total newbie coming in to play an Ashes test match.

This is all pretty spurious. It could easily be that Compton has been told he has to play at least some county cricket to start making runs again this summer. And it does make sense to bring him back if JB fails - they're trying the risky option first and saving the limited option as plan B. I don't know if that's what they're doing, but it's not absurd. Remember Jonathan Trott was 28 when he made his debut in the Ashes 4 years ago, and Compton is 29. He's hardly decrepit.

Sure it could be the end of his career, and if so I'm not going to be too upset to see him go, but for all we know it's a much more agreeable arrangement.

 

[Woodster]

I suppose it can be considered a kind of proactive move in dropping Compton ahead of the Ashes rather than be in the position we were when Ravi Bopara was chosen to bat at three and failed on a few occasions before they opted to change it. Perhaps they envisaged a similar pattern occurring with Compton and would rather nip it in the bud before it happens. I would have preferred we had given him the chance to stake his claim in the Essex game, I think it is a tad harsh to leave him out after one poor series (two-Test at that) but having seen him up close they obviously have serious concerns over his ability to perform consistently at the highest level. Would love to know the actual reasons, technical or otherwise, for his omission. From what I've seen him I don't think his overall levels of performance have been bad enough to get the chop, in India him and Cook seemed to develop a good understanding and with the character and skill he showed in NZ I would have thought it would have bought him more time.

The idea of Joe Root at the top must have been an idea the management have had their heart set on for a while, and the lad is so full of potential that you wouldn't back against him taking the Ashes by storm, but still feel Compton's been hard done to.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Would've had him playing in the Ashes ahead of Bairstow, especially since the latter hasn't played cricket for a few weeks.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

I assume this has been on the cards for a while so I'd love to know why they've had Bairstow carrying drinks around for a month. They commented on this more than once on TMS.

I still think England are a better team with Compton at the top than Bairstow at 6 and I hope he scores a stack of runs for Somerset.

In 05 when they dropped Thorpe for KP it turned out to be the right choice so we shall see.

 

[Cabinet96]

This is all pretty spurious. It could easily be that Compton has been told he has to play at least some county cricket to start making runs again this summer. And it does make sense to bring him back if JB fails - they're trying the risky option first and saving the limited option as plan B. I don't know if that's what they're doing, but it's not absurd. Remember Jonathan Trott was 28 when he made his debut in the Ashes 4 years ago, and Compton is 29. He's hardly decrepit.

Sure it could be the end of his career, and if so I'm not going to be too upset to see him go, but for all we know it's a much more agreeable arrangement.

Trott was 28 when he made his test debut, but it's kind off different with people making their debuts and people returning. Compton was a year older than Trott when he made his test debut, and will be 30 on Wednesday. Once you get the wrong side of 30, it's going to get pretty hard to have another shot, especially if the selectors didn't show much confidence originally when you weren't given a long run first time around.

Sure they can recall Compton is JB fails, but it will just feel like such a backwards move. They've dropped the dogged county journeymen for the young and exciting up and coming incumbent, and suddenly reversing that after the latter fails would just seem like a "oh ****, we ****ed up" move, and would seem like the move of a panicking side. Not to different to Rogers selection really.

My gripe is the timing as well really. Bairstow will probably be a top test batsman for England but there's really no need to rush things. These next tests are 100% now focused and 0% future focused, or at least they should be IMO, and going with Bairstow is the risky option. I wouldn't really mind if Compton had a meh couple of series, i.e. averaging 35-45 and they dropped him afterwards, as it could be a sign of building toward the future, but I just don't think that needs to be done now. Of course, they're probably not at all thinking of the future an just think JB is a better batsman than the Compdog, but it's an unnecessary risk to take IMO.

 

[Pothas]

Where they bat is important though, as I said earlier I would rather have my weakest batsman at 6 than at the top. The not rushing thing argument is something I don't understand either, everyone seems to assume that Root is going to move up the order at some point, how long are we supposed to wait? Think this is a bold move, rather like picking Root in the first place was.

 

[Spark]

Sam Sheringham @samsheringham
Australia team v Somerset: Cowan, Watson, Khawaja, Hughes, Clarke, Haddin, Faulkner, Siddle, Lyon, Pattinson, Starc

if that's any guide for the first test side i'm going to be really, really annoyed

 

[Tangles]

I hope it just means Cowan and Watson are batting off for the other opening spot. Would be a mistake to include Rogers and then not play him in the test. I sure hope Faulkner is no where near consideration at 7 with Haddin at 6.

 

[Spark]

but seriously look at that ****ing top four. look at it.

 

[Spikey]

if that's any guide for the first test side i'm going to be really, really annoyed

fkg marsh and lehmann


this seems weird though, afterall

Inverarity has revealed something of his plan for running the squad through the county matches. Of the six available pace bowlers, three will play at Taunton and the rest will charge in at Worcester. Among seven available batsmen, five will play in each fixture, and two will have a match each. This leaves the sixth place in the order open to most conjecture, and it may yet be filled by any one of Usman Khawaja, Shane Watson, David Warner, Steve Smith, or even Brad Haddin, should the bold option of four bowlers plus Faulkner be entertained.

The Investec Ashes 2013 : Lopsided Australia in search of balance | Cricket News | Australia in England - The Investec Ashes | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Tangles]

The bold option. Since when is stupidity bold? How about picking the best 6 batters plus Haddin and 4 bowlers. The battings not strong enough to bat the Haddin at 6 so we can experiment with yet another bloody bits and pieces player at 7.

 

[Maximas]

Can't Faulkner just come in at 8? He is a pretty damn good bowler, and he would fit well into a 4 man pace attack at Trent Bridge if the pitch permitted. I don't think that will happen though, and it probably won't given Graeme Swann managed a 10 wicket haul at Headingly earlier in the season and Lord's also turned. It's a shame that Faulkner is a bowling all-rounder, because that makes him a bit of a useless commodity in the squad given we have several seamers.

 

[Cabinet96]

but seriously look at that ****ing top four. look at it.

I'm not a fan of Faulkner at 7 either. Maybe if Watson isn't in the team, then I guess there's a case to be made for him, but I just don't like it when Watson is already there. Especially with that top four.

Anyway, hopefully with regards to that side, they feel Rogers and Smith have already had enough batting time in England this year, so want to give the rest of the batsman in the squad a run.

 

[Spikey]

The bold option. Since when is stupidity bold? How about picking the best 6 batters plus Haddin and 4 bowlers. The battings not strong enough to bat the Haddin at 6 so we can experiment with yet another bloody bits and pieces player at 7.

Brettig is a Faulkner fan. So that explains that.

I stand by my original thoughts on Faulkner's selection, in that I don't see how he plays and it doesn't really piss me off.

 

[Spark]

I'm not a fan of Faulkner at 7 either. Maybe if Watson isn't in the team, then I guess there's a case to be made for him, but I just don't like it when Watson is already there. Especially with that top four.

Anyway, hopefully with regards to that side, they feel Rogers and Smith have already had enough batting time in England this year, so want to give the rest of the batsman in the squad a run.

i really ****ing hope this is true. i don't mind the faulkner thing insofar as they seem to be giving everyone in the squad a crack (with one obvious exception), and it's better to play faulkner in the first tour game than the second if he's not gonna be picked (imo) but that's predicated on him not being picked...

 

[Swingpanzee]

Heavily disagree with the inclusion of Rankin. Should've tried Tremlett instead. If he fires, he along with Jimmy and Broad (hopefully) can spell serious trouble for Australia.

 

[wpdavid]

I assume this has been on the cards for a while so I'd love to know why they've had Bairstow carrying drinks around for a month. They commented on this more than once on TMS.

I still think England are a better team with Compton at the top than Bairstow at 6 and I hope he scores a stack of runs for Somerset.

In 05 when they dropped Thorpe for KP it turned out to be the right choice so we shall see.

This one also reminds me of Finn being dropped for Tremlett in the last Ashes, despite the former's decent figures. That was a brave decision rather than working on the basis that Finn had 'done enough' at that stage.

I do have some sympathy for Compton though. I suspect that he's less than impressed that he's been overtaken in the pecking order for a middle order place whilst having to play all of his test matches as an opener. It maybe won't be the end of his test career. Given KP's fitness and maybe his appetite for all this after the winter, Bell's unconvincing form for most of the last 18 months and the fact that Bairstow is barely proven, there may well be a vacancy in the middle order at some point in the next 12 months.