Compton Was Treated Unfairly..........But

Let me start by saying I am completely biased. I am a Yorkshire member, I believe that Joe Root has a long career opening for England and finally I believe that it was right and proper to drop Nick Compton and move Root up to open.

Yet I say Nick Compton was treated unfairly!

Let us go back to the tour of India. Two uncapped openers had been selected for the tour, and one would be partnering the novice captain. We had the experienced pro who had just come off the back of his best season ever, a truly incredible domestic summer - that suddenly lifted him from journeyman status to on the verge of a test cap. We had a young lad who had scored some big runs (though in Div2) and was being selected due to the potential those in and around the selection panel could see.

Once in India they selected the more experienced player to open with the skipper. There was no huge amount of evidence to support either case - and I actually believe that Compton was the sacrificial lamb. Rather than throw the golden boy into the deep end, they decided to give him a little more time. However I am firmly of the belief that their long term plan was always to have Root opening come Ashes time. Out in India Compton did OK, well enough to retain his spot. Root meanwhile was brought in for the last test and looked a ready made test player. He was added to both limited overs formats and suddenly the younger lad was playing for England at all formats.

Come the NZ tour England still needed a middle order batsman so root was retained here, yet I am convinced that the plan was for him to open in the return fixture at Lords. Back to back hundreds scuppered that plan as Compton secured his spot for a while longer. Yet these hundreds seemed to actually build up very little credit for him with the selectors. They could not drop him, but they wanted Root at the top of the order. For the selectors the new season fitted their plans perfectly. Compton struggled for any sort of form, and come the Tests was resembling a rabbit caught in the headlights. Finally the selectors were able to do as they wished.

So I believe Root is the right player to be opening, but due to their desire to ensure this happened, the selectors never really gave Compton any fair chance to compete for the spot. With Root having scored a century in his 4th go at the top of the order they are very unlikely to move him down again (and would be sill if they did). this means that Compton will only get another chance if their is a gap at the top of the order. Whilst he is the "first cab on the rank" for one of those spots, he is unlucky that the possible spot will be in the middle order - either due to Kevin Pietersen's fitness or Bairstow's technique.

Compton is a middle order player, so should be in line for Bairstow's place if he fails to deliver, or Pietersen's place if he is unfit.

Nice unbiased post by the way.

Stella wrote:Compton is a middle order player, so should be in line for Bairstow's place if he fails to deliver, or Pietersen's place if he is unfit.

I would argue he was a rather dour middle order batsman, who had to leave Middlesex to get any success. It was batting at 3 for somerset last season that saw him suddenly hit an incredible vein of form - so I would perhaps say he shoudl be the cover for Trott as well as the openers. For the 4/5/6 positions the selectors seem to like someone with a few more shots. As James Taylor is playing for Sussex against the Aussies I guess he would be top of the queue for genuine middle order.

Well, he was rather a dour opener who looked like he could get bogged down to easily, and that's why he was dropped imo, and not totally for a run of poor scores. He was slightly unfairly treated, but never looked likely to triumph in test cricket.

Stella wrote:Well, he was rather a dour opener who looked like he could get bogged down to easily, and that's why he was dropped imo, and not totally for a run of poor scores. He was slightly unfairly treated, but never looked likely to triumph in test cricket.

I have to agree with you. It was unfair because they had no intention of letting have a long run, but in the end we have a stronger team. Still feel sorry for the lad, and understand his frustration.

Will be interesting to see if Bairstow gets longer. Like Compton, he's not looked that competent, although a little more positive. But for a dodgy incorrect call in the first innings, his place may well have been under scrutiny.

The impression I got from talking to various people was that Compton was unlucky in the sense that it was an ashes year, and that had England been playing any other side after New Zealand he would have been given more time. I don't think there was ever this design to get Root up the order by the ashes, but certainly a view that he would open eventually.

As it was, I just think there was this gut feeling with Compton from the very start that he was an honest tryer, but not quite good enough. His two centuries, let's not forget, came on some of the flattest wickets imaginable.

Unfair? Possibly, but life at that level is not meant to be fair, it is meant to be about picking the side which gives you what you think is the best chance of winning.

Mike Selig wrote:The impression I got from talking to various people was that Compton was unlucky in the sense that it was an ashes year, and that had England been playing any other side after New Zealand he would have been given more time. I don't think there was ever this design to get Root up the order by the ashes, but certainly a view that he would open eventually.

As it was, I just think there was this gut feeling with Compton from the very start that he was an honest tryer, but not quite good enough. His two centuries, let's not forget, came on some of the flattest wickets imaginable.

Unfair? Possibly, but life at that level is not meant to be fair, it is meant to be about picking the side which gives you what you think is the best chance of winning.

Totally agree, especially about the timing of back to back Ashes series.

Compton was given the chance and after 9 Tests his overall record was not good for a Top Order batsmen (31.93).  Could he have been given more of a longer go? Yes, I think he could have, but with Root impressing the coaches on and off the field, Compton had to make it impossible for them to take his position from him. Unfortunately for him he didn't and it now appears that he will have to wait for an injury or a serious loss of form in the top 3 for him to get his place back.

Bairstow is under pressure as well but he is getting more of an extended run due I would guess to a gut feeling from the selectors, that they see him as an eventual replacement for Prior and more importantly at the moment there is no obvious competition for his place at the moment.  Should Taylor replace KP for Old Trafford and score big, Bairstow's position will come under serious pressure.

DM

I think there are another couple of considerations that are going Bairstow's way:

1 - His age and level of experience. Suggests there is more room for improvement than with Compton
2 - That he has produced at least a couple of encouraging innings in really pressurised situations, suggesting that there is good ability between the ears.

OK, if Taylor produces in the next match, he can put pressure on Bairstow, but that is a much more 'like for like' comparison in terms of experience than is Compton.

When Nick Compton and Joe Root were originally picked for the India tour, I had argued for young Joe to open along with Alastair Cook. I was a bit surprised to see Root at 6 after he was kept out of the first 3 tests. The innings he played substantiated a lot of what I read about Joe, and his performances in the ODIs that followed the test series proved that he has a more rounded game than what Compton had.
Yet by the time the English summer started, I believed that Root should stay in the middle order, not because he is incapable of performing well at the top of the order, but because he fixed a big problem in the England batting lineup that they have been dealing with ever since Paul Collingwood retired. Root provided serious quality at that troubled number 6 position and Compton was hanging on to that opening position just about. The one thing in his favore was that he usually managed to see the new ball off though he didn't score too many England couldn't have gone on too long without their opener scoring some big runs on a more consistent basis, but I thought Compton should at least get a couple of chances in this Australian series before a call could be made on his place. But the English selectors decided to stabilize the side before the Ashes, they moved Root up the order, and on a more daring move, brought Jonny Bairstow to that number 6 spot. Compton's atrocious series against New Zealand, aand the runs Bairstow managed, particularly the partnership he and Root put together in the 2nd game I believe was the clincher. Root, as expected, has started producing the goods at the top of the order, and Bairstow has done an adequate job at 6 so far. Bairstow's abilities with the gloves and on the field, and his age are factors that might give him a longer run than what Compton got. I don't see Compton coming in for a middle order position. James Taylor, if anything, has more reasons to argue that he wasn't treated all that fairly by the selectors, and if there is an opening in the middle order, it has to be him coming in. Eoin Morgan, Ravi Bopara, Ben Stokes, are all ahead of Compton in my book for a middle order position. But if there has to be any replacement for the top 3, Compton will be my first option.
A bit unfair on Compton, but understandable I would say.

The part I find harsh is how long were players like Bell and Bopara given to show from when they were out of it, a good 2 or 3 series usually. Everyone also banged on about Bopara's 3 centuries against the West Indies when tbh the team wasn't that great. Compton scored back to back hundreds against another side who weren't of great quality.

Would like to think Compton was ahead of Bopara for a call up and think he definitely would be ahead of Stokes, think they view Stokes as a 1 day player if anything.

it's been undoubtedly unfair to Compton....the end justifies the means though.

Bopara wasn't even given the whole ashes after his West Indies heroics... so less than a series. Again had it not been an ashes series I think he'd have survived and played the final test also. There has always been something about Ashes series for England which equates to being more proactive/knee-jerk with team selections.

Bell was admittedly given a lot longer, but Bell is obviously a different quality to Compo (no disrespect intended to the latter who is obviously a very good player).

Team sporting success is dependent in part and always has been upon the right selections being made. Whilst many of us have sympathy for Compton, few (if any) appear to suggest that the wrong decision has been made. That surely is the most pertinent aspect.

Consider briefly this past example from another sport. Jimmy Greaves reflecting years later on being left out of the England team that won the 1966 World Cup Final for the more workman like Roger Hunt:
"I always knew we would win the World Cup. I just never thought it would be without me."

An unfair decision by manager Alf Ramsey? Probably. The wrong decision? Never.

compo has not shwon anything to suggest he is nothing more than a good opener. he is not a middle order batsman. You need a better SR and range of shots for that..

Good replacement- never long term.. compo in a way is unlucky due to us having quality in this day and age- he would have got in to many previous teams.. but not today!

At the end of the day, the selectors job is to do whats best for the team, if that doubles up as whats best for the player, or fair, great. But the two ideas arent mutually inclusive.