Compton would represent a step backwards in policy, an inch or two forward on Carberry and a complete waste of time.
While I am not all for Stokes' inclusion, at least he's the right kind of player England should be looking at in terms of age and rebuilding.
Alphabetically it might seem like moving from Carberry to Compton is one step more towards Cook, but therein lies the only sense of progression towards a Cook. If a 30+ year old isn't already established in the line up, and more than just currently selected like Carberry, then England shouldn't be looking at trying to make them into a regular.
I mean do you not realise how sad sending out an SOS to a 30 year old nomark to come to the rescue sounds?!?!?!?!? Especially one who was rightly discarded, mouthed off publically and has proven nothing. Might as well go all out and call gRamps out of retirement
What is it with England? Bell and Pietersen tossing their wickets away, Swann retiring so mr average Monty Panesar steps in as if he's even the here and now fix let alone a long term solution.
If England are going to call anyone in it should be Bopara or someone 25 or under. They put all their not so fresh eggs in one basket, stuck with the same base spine for quite a few years against top sides and rubbish alike instead of looking to the future.
England are in serious danger of going back to the dark old days of scratching around for players that saw the likes of Watkin, Watkinson, Lathwell, Blakey, Ed Smith, Afzaal, Hamilton, Benjamin, Clarke, Wright, Headley, Gallian, Yardy, Saggers, Rhodes, Reeve, Pattinson, Giddins, McGrath, Illot, Igglesden, Hegg, Irani, and yes, even Compton and Carberry could be included as a sign of the coming times.
While England may not be chop and change so much any more, doesn't mean their selection policy re replacements for retirements and injuries isn't as bad if not worse than before. I mean really, recall a player who never made it, was dropped etc, what would that achieve? Closure for all those who think paw ickle Nicky was hard done by, but a disaster pending and I trust the ECB have more sense than to swallow pride for someone who's done nada, zilch, zero, NOTHING to warrant such (relatively) drastic action.
There's a performance squad around somewhere, not the worst idea in the world but it is if not utilised properly with the right players of the right age and a willingness to tap that resource and not just pick a name out of a hat, or keep going back to past players that never made it.
In terms of this series, England need to shore or is it sure up the batting, Root to open as a batsman who can fill that role, has time on his side, and isn't a step backwards, then bring in a batsman for Stokes as the side doesn't need someone to bowl tidily with no real threat of tearing through a side or even making a hole in their batting, and whose batting average is 2/3 made up of a hundred in a losing cause with attacking fields and nothing left at stake.
Out of the four innings Stokes could have batted, he's made 14 runs @ 14.00 1st innings, 19 runs @ 9.50 2nd innings, 18 runs @ 19.00 3rd innings and 148 runs @ 74.00 last up with England holding feint hopes of saving two Tests. Ever time he's had a chance to make a telling contribution when the Test is being decided, he's made 1, 18, 14 and 19 - woohoo! Just what a number six should be scoring - NOT!
And decent enough bowling, for a part-timer perhaps. His average in the mid-40s makes him look a way better all-rounder than Root whose bowling average is 53.67 - and that is lacking any sincerity, Root is cheaper, maybe not posing quite the same level of wicket threat, but considering the relative roles and Stokes getting to bowl more, I'd say there's not enough in it to carry Stokes as a batsman let alone a would be all-rounder. They'll be picking Wright next, he offers a little with bat, a little with ball, not a lot overall.
And while Bairstow has made just 31 runs in this match, wtf is he not above Stokes in the batting order? In fact I'd suggest all having them performing two roles does is exhaust them enough that neither offers sufficient with the bat, all Stokes did was pick up one wicket (SR 90) whilst conceding 1/4 of the runs give or take while the other seamers took nine wickets at an SR of 37.
I can see completely now the point in picking an ineffectual bowler come all-rounder, when you're taking wickets it lulls the opposition into a false sense of security and they give their wickets away to the rest of the bowlers. All it actually does is ease pressure, would be better just to give Pietersen and Root a spell if the bowlers need a rest.
)
