WAT England A 2006 selectors wanted

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

To say that he should not get selected for the A team because he has struggled initially at Test level, but players like Mascharenas should get the nod, who will never play for England, will make this years A team as ridiculous as last years!!

Who is the outstanding player in this crew?

Name				 Mat Runs	Ave	 W	Ave	Ct St Dis Team

 AD Mascarenhas		12	402 22.33	35 23.02	 4 -	4 HANTS WAT JWM Dalrymple		 10	557 32.76	24 39.54	 3 -	3 MIDDX ENG A/ODI AGR Loudon			 9	336 22.40	21 38.38	 6 -	6 WARWICKS ENG A/ODI TT Bresnan			 9	246 20.50	27 29.07	 4 -	4 YORKS ENG A/ODI RJ Sidebottom		 9	182 18.20	22 35.22	 3 -	3 NOTTS WAT CE Shreck			 7	 10 2.50	38 24.71	 3 -	3 NOTTS
CT Tremlett			6	 48 9.60	24 22.20	 - -	- HANTS WAT

Look more closely at the bowling:

Name				Mat	O	 M	 R W	Ave Best 5 10	SR Econ Team

 G Onions			 11 312.5 58 1193 45 26.51 5-45 1 - 41.7 3.81 DURHAM
CE Shreck			 7 266.2 52 939 38 24.71 8-31 3 2 42.0 3.52 NOTTS
AD Mascarenhas	 12 328	 89 806 35 23.02 6-65 1 - 56.2 2.45 HANTS
TT Bresnan			9 246.3 45 785 27 29.07 5-58 1 - 54.7 3.18 YORKS
CT Tremlett		 6 183.2 39 533 24 22.20 4-43 - - 45.8 2.90 HANTS
JWM Dalrymple		10 310.4 47 949 24 39.54 3-29 - - 77.6 3.05 MIDDX
AGR Loudon			9 267.2 39 806 21 38.38 5-49 2 - 76.3 3.01 WARWICKS

What more could anyone ask of Mascarenhas? His batting is respectable. His bowling strike rate is very good rather than outstanding... but he has taken a shedload of wickets, his bowling average is the best of the lot, and bearing in mind that top Test crickets generally go for no more than 2.8 / over... it is worth noting that in contrast to the likes of Shreck and Onions... he was awesomely miserly.

Players should get their just deserts...and if that leaves the WAt 'A' side with Mascarenhas rather than Mahood then sobeit.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Players should get their just deserts...and if that leaves the WAt 'A' side with Mascarenhas rather than Mahood then sobeit.

But he will never play for England so what's the point of putting him in an A team. Mahmood is there already.

This is about selecting a team, all of whom could make the step to Test level if required, last year "we" selected Davies and Mascarenhas, who will never play for England, and Sidebottom, who will never play again!! So what's the point of selecting them?

Better to select based on potential rather than one outstanding season, and for me if Mahmood is not in our A team it would be a travesty.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

But he will never play for England so what's the point of putting him in an A team [...] This is about selecting a team, all of whom could make the step to Test level if required[...] Better to select based on potential rather than one outstanding season.

I don't think the England team should be picked on that basis, let alone the 'A' team: international places are the pinnacle of a strong domestic game and every player should take to the field in county games feeling they arein a straight fight for (and have an equal chance of) a place.

I appreciate that this is NOT a formula Fletcher would approve of as a means of strengthening England's Test side.. but I don't care: the heart of the English and Welsh game is county cricket and the likes of Mascarenhas, Ramps and Hick should be starting each season thinking they've just as much chance as (say) Collingwood, Cook and Bell.

[Collyisamackem]

I don't have much time at the minute but hope to contribute soon, but it's staggering to see that the leading English wicket-taking A-team candidate, with the fourth best average, this season has been totally ignored.

Sadly for Mark Davies, this season is a total write-off and I guess he is out of A-team reckoning for some time.

[Rachael]

I'm open to the case for Onions: I certainly think he's made a strong case. That said... so have Shreck and Tremlett....

Onions has played 11 matches to Shreck's 7. He's done well.... but Shrek has managed 3 5-fors and 2 10-fors, with a better average and economy rate and at a near enough identical strike rate. On basic stats, Shrek leads.... but I'm open to a case made on other grounds.

Tremlett has played just 6 matches this season.... but his average is better than the other two... and where their economy rates border on the diabolical (Shreck 3.52, Onions 3.81), Tremlett has taken advantage of his height to bring pressure to bear (econ: 2.90).

Make the case for Onions!

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by Vrock

What could be the reasons for English bowlers doing so poorly in the second division?

Probably because the batting paradises of Chelmsford and Taunton are in the Second Division. Also, the Oval and Northampton have been flat tracks this year it seems whilst the more 'challenging' batting wickets are probably in Division 1. This has probably pushed up the runs per wicket average in Division 2 and wrecked some bowlers averages.

Now, as for the other debates - I'm not a big fan of Mahmood at test level - its too early for him IMO. However, as Mike has reassured me that he meets eligibility criteria then I certainly wouldn't rule him out of contention. I would like to say that we should pick the 'best XI' on current ability AS MUCH AS potential. I cannot understand why FF slates Mark Davies as someone who'll never play for England (assuming he's not injured). Stats cannot lie to the extent that have been suggested. His control over line and length is second-to-none and he could easily fill a Vaas/Pollock bowling role in the future. Obviously, he's out of contention for this year. As for Mascarenhas, frankly I think he's a better bowler than Rikki Clarke and only marginally less sound with the bat. I've seen that Clarke has come back into form with the bat this year, but his bowling looks woefully inadequate to fill the 'all-rounder' slot. Mascarenhas looks to be a better option to my mind.

Other players to consider at number 6 - Ravinder Bopara. 5 wickets today against Surrey! Nothing but 'dibbly-dobbly' with the ball, but improving and although he's been a little short of form with the bat, the potential is there for all to see. Possibly a bit like New Zealand's Ross Taylor?

[greg]

Sorry but there is no way that anybody can convince me that Mascharenhas will play more international cricket than Bresnan.No matter what Mascharenhas has done this season his chance has gone as he has performed better in the past and still been ignored.Bresnan has already been picked for the one day side and is clearly in future plans as a possible number 8 in the test side.

Also having seen Shreck play minor counties i have to say he must have improved an awful lot from those days.

[Collyisamackem]

Originally Posted by Rachael

On basic stats, Shreck leads.... but I'm open to a case made on other grounds.


Make the case for Onions!

You can't seriously ignore wickets Rachael, 45 of them at 26.8 in 11 games in your first full season of playing regular games is pretty good in my book, especially when nobody else has managed it in that season. It's like Alistair Cook coming in, averaging highly and bagging tons then getting selected for....oh hang on there!

Brett Lee isn't the most economical of bowlers but he takes the wickets which is what is required of him, though before anyone starts I'm not equating Onions to Lee. Anyway, say we take three seamers, Tremlett, Shreck/Mahmood and Onions - I think Graham has every chance. For comedy value we could also select Phil Mustard at 11, he's mostly a six-and-out not-at-all-serious batsmen, but what about this for a tasty wicket one day?:

Jaffer (Cake) c Mustard b Onions.

I'm serious though, the top wicket take and one of the leading averages is a very strong contender in my book, Durham or not.

[admin]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

But he will never play for England so what's the point of putting him in an A team. Mahmood is there already.

I think it's dangerous to second-guess whether someone will or won't get a Test tryout for England.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

This is about selecting a team, all of whom could make the step to Test level if required, last year "we" selected Davies and Mascarenhas, who will never play for England, and Sidebottom, who will never play again!! So what's the point of selecting them?

I don't entirely agree with your view of what the WAT is all about. I think the team could include players who have already played some Test matches. These players have obviously been identified as potential Test material ie Plunkett, Mahmood. I think the WAT could also include county players who we think could have a Test future but are still waiting for their first call-up. Finally, I think the WAT team could also include players who are most deserving of a Test tryout based on their exceptional form in first-class county matches. These type of players have worked very hard to realize their ambition to play Test cricket and just because they don't bowl at 90 mph doesn't mean they should be overlooked for a Test tryout. To be honest, I'm rather annoyed at seeing young bowlers picked in the Test side because they can bowl quickly only to see them bowl waywardly. Mahmood has promise but how many matches of ordinary performances must we endure before he delivers consistent performances?

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Better to select based on potential rather than one outstanding season, and for me if Mahmood is not in our A team it would be a travesty.

I think the WAT team could be a mixture of outstanding players and players with potential but still need development. Each selector will have his/her own view about that which should make the team debate very interesting. I think both Mahmood and Mascarenhas deserve a place in the side. Mahmood has loads of potential whilst Mascarenhas deserves a tryout based on three consecutive outstanding seasons.

[flanflinger]

Admin,

I am ok with that, where I feel the problem lies is picking purely on statics and averages, having a bowling attack made up of the four bowlers who happen to have taken the most wickets, regardless on what pitch they have played on.

I am concerned that we can just look at the averages and take a view based on that, without actually having seen the bowler bowl or the batter bat.

Last year we omitted Plunkett, despite the fact that those who had seen him bowl (like me) claimed that the stats did not tell the whole story, and that he had potential beyond the figures, he was later selected by England and IMO performed well. But we excluded him.

I think we need to find a place for Mahmood, and if we don't and only go for guys who have performed in the Championship only, then we could miss out on selecting one of the most deserving candidates.