Newman seems to be out of favour so is there anyone else but Jefferson to open the innings with Wagh?
3 Bell
4 any of Shah, Afzaal, Sales, Hitdreth, Smith etc?
5 Pieterson
6 Collingwood?

First thoughts on a top 7.....

Bell is a given.. and is clearly capable of batting ANYWHERE in the order. Bby common consent he's currently penned in at 2 or 3 (statto initially mentioned 4 / 6 but now suggests 3).. but I submit that he's got just as much potential for stiffening the middle order at 6.

Pietersen is a 2nd given... but with less consensus on his best position (3, 4 and 5). He batted at 4 in India.. and I really do feel that 4 is as low as he should go: this guy may not be 100% my cup of tea.. but he's shown the class, stamina and concentration to play big innings.. and looks to be capable of playing a Hick like role at 3.. behind Bell and WAgh.. but if we want Bell at 3 then surely a Vaughan like role at 4 makes more sense than a Thorpe like role at 5!

Prior played on the last 'A' tour at 5. Marsh, in his debreifing at the end of the tour, virtually dismissed him as a 'keeper (a verdict seemingly since passed by is county and country)... but suggested his future was as a promising Test bat and stunning outfielder: in a change to my initial XI I submit he goes at 5 in our order as well.

1. Wagh
2. Bell / Jefferson
3. Bell / Pietersen
4. Pietersen / Afzaal / Smith
5. Prior
6. Bell / Afzaal / Smith / Hildreth / Collingwood / Gidman
7. Wallace (wk)

Is that a broad enough framework to work from?

Big call that, ern, given that all 5 of us had Lewis in our XIs and only GW had Harrison. You're determined to break the longest thread record.

I see some discussion about the top order has started but without reference to catching and fielding. Just to let you know that I will be taking fielding and catching into account as far as balance is concerned.

Blimey, that was quick, before I had time to post my reply.

1. E.T Smith (Kent)
2. M Wagh (Warks)
3. WI Jefferson (Essex)
4. Chilton (Lancs)
5. Troughton (Warwicks)
6. Martin Jenkins (Sussex)
7. Wallace(Glam)
8. Carberry (Kent)
9. Mahmood(Lancs)
10. Harrison( Glam)
11. Tremlett (Hants)

My two definates were
Wallace (you need a keeper and he's broken records)
Carberry
it looks like most people think the top seven will have similar names; I'll not argue about positions.

__________________
I have a dream.... (Martin Luther King)

Hi Richard, I'm afraid Chilton and Troughton didn't appear on any provisional squad selected by GW, Statto and myself. Those lists are on page one of this thread. Can you pick two others from that list, please? I'm not taking anymore automatic inclusions. I should have taken them privately and released them once they were all in as I fear the later submissions could be effected by the earlier ones. Wallace still has a 50-50 chance of getting the nod but we'll wait and see.

Hi mike I am back,
Got to be honest I am not happy with the bowling, only 2 FM, that was why I wanted to keep Mahmood, anyway he is history.
I went on the Glamorgan web site to have a look at Harrison, and he is only medium pace, sorry GW but we could do with a bit of life.he is only the same as Lewis.

So what I suggest is being that we need another faster bowler than Lewis, we

a) Pick K Hogg from my original 11,

b) Let GW pick a med fast from the list,or yourself.

c) Pick a squad of 13 players, that way GW gets Harrison.

Ern

I would abide by the rest, but no inernational team takes the field with only two quickish bowlers IMHO, and 1st change only being medium pace, or any other ideas?

Glamorgan site says he is RMF and cricinfo says he is RFM. Isn't RFM slightly quicker than RMF and both quicker than medium? Anyway, Franks and Mascarenhas are also RFM based on cricinfo.

Well if that is the case,I would be happy to go along with GW's selection of Harrison, along with Mascarenhas and Franks,it would seem to be more of an attack, if you can oblige.

Not sure which is the quicker, but hardly anything in it.

Ern.

I apologize for giving misleading facts about GWs selection Harrison, I was in a real push this morning, and I picked the wrong Harrison, there is a young Adam Harrison who is only medium pace, quite right mike, I stand corrected.

It's that obsession with pace coming out again Ernest: no matter WHAT pace Lewis bowls at.. he bowls it so well that he gets results - surely that's better than a bowler who bowls faster and doesn't? If we've got Franks OR Harrison to take the new ball with Mascarenhas.. then the principle 1st change seamer should ideally be a bit different anyway.

I'm more intersted in the quality and balance and complimentarity of the bowlers than anything else.. and it seems to me that in terms of quality... Lewis is right up there: Mahmood (23 43.91) will testify that you don't get 57 div 1 wickets at 25.26 unless you are very, very good.. and it's not like he's turning in figures like those of Ormond (48 37.50) or Martin Jenkins (29 37.31).

If we're looking at the div 2 bowlers... the stats are as follows:

It strikes me that Mascarenhas and Lewis are the classiest two bowlers.. followed (some considerable way back) by Harrison and Franks (much of a muchness in terms of stats, perhaps offering different actions): these last two strike me as the two who should be fighting over the final place in the attack.