Well I can see where GW is coming from, but looking at your tables, all the big cities are in Div1(the big guns), the London clubs ect, and with respect Harrison has not been bowling to the likes of surrey,kent, Midddlesex,Warwickshire ect, it's a fair jump.
Next year will be a good test for Div2, Lancs have good players, see if they can clinb back out.

Hall I though was OK, but I think he was signed on the basis of one series in which he shone, a lot was expected of him,Bickel well???

Seems to me that with 5 different XIs submitted.. Bell and Pietersen are unanimous choices... along with Lewis and Keedy.. and that Mascarenhas is almost unanimous. I'm happy that they are the 1st names on the teamsheet.

In terms of the 2 picks... I'm not sure that there are ANY that don't affect the balance of the side (keedy's a weak bat.. Pietersen's a very aggressive bat).. but I guess Wallace (almost in Prior's league with the bat, staks better with the gloves) and Wagh (I guess it's him or Collingwood and for me, Collingwood (who doesn't strictly qualify) would be out of keeping with the nature of the side).

Hi Rachael, I'm not permitting the wicketkeeper to be an automatic choice because it is an all-rounder position which could effect the balance of the side. If you think Wagh should be in then can you be a bit more definite. You just don't seem definite about these players who are supposed to be automatic choices. You can also choose players who have already been chosen if you think the remaining players would effect the balance of the team.

After Rachaels post I am confused, is Collingwood eligable or not?

This is what I said in an earlier post. Since he made it into a couple of provisional squads then he is eligible for the WAT XI.

I'm not sure where we are going on this 2 choices thing: the choice of spinner.. between Keedy (VERY promising spinner, no 11 bat) and Batty (promising spinner, no 7 bat) is hugely significant in terms of the balance of the side.. and yet Keedy has been accepted. Pietersen is so aggressive he pretty well precludes the selection of a second aggressive batsman, and his bowling negates the case for a second specialist spinner (say Keedy PLUS Batty). Bell's the strongest batsman in the field.. but his bowling plus that of Pietersen might be enough to mean there's no case for a 5th bowler or bat-bowl all-rounder (say Collingwood).

I don't see ANY straightforward, implication-free choices here.. but if I have to pick 2 then I'll plump for openers: Bell and Wagh are the only two on offer I find credible.. as Hutton is too young, Solanki looks questionable even in the ODI arena, I'm completely unconvinced by Newman (just doesn't look good enough) and I know very little about Jefferson.

I think Keedy has been a popular choice in recognition of the fact that we have a relatively weak bowling line-up to choose from and he is an experienced wicket-taking spinner. Batty is not even in the picture as no-one chose him in their XI. As you rightly pointed out now that Pietersen is selected is he going to be Keedy's support spin bowler or do we also need Swann or Blackwell in to offer a stronger backup spinner?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Hutton is too young" as he is 27 yo compared to Bell at 22yo. I'll put Wagh into the WAT XI but his form against the top sides is ordinary as is Shah's. It's all very well making your average look good by boosting it against the weaker sides but it is your performances against the top sides which count with me. Anyway Wagh gives us another bowling option.

This then is our core group of players to build the rest of the team around looking for balance.

Pietersen - Mike,
Bell - GW, Rachael
Wagh - Rachael

Keedy - Mike, Ernest, Statto, GW,
Mahmood - Ernest
Lewis - Statto,

Seems to me that we need to decide whether Pietersen will be our only other spin option or do we add Swann or Blackwell to the side? Wagh can also bowl some right-arm off-break as can Pietersen.

We also need to complete the bowling attack. How much bowling do we want to give Bell? He's right-arm medium pace.

1. Wagh
2. Jefferson
3. Bell
4. ??
5. Pieterson
6. Franks / Blackwell / Collingwood / Gidman / Swann
7. Wallace / Prior
8. Mascarenhas
9. Mahmood
10. Lewis
11. Keedy
Does this seem a reasonable start point with the definates in bold?

If Bell isn't used as a fouth seamer and Pietersen is Keedy's backup then the bottom 5 might look something like:

1. Wagh
2. ??
3. Bell
4. ??
5. Pietersen
6. Prior
7. Franks
8. Mascarenhas
9. Mahmood
10. Lewis
11. Keedy

So we need to answer these two questions to move on:
Is Bell our fourth seamer?
Is Pietersen our second spinner?