Not acceptable. As I stated when submitting my initial XI "some I'm not certain about... but a starting XI worth a shot?": I entered this discussion with a view to learning about the players as I went along and have NO great reason for SEVERAL of my selections.

I'm signed up to this procedure with much same mindset as Maranello: I am going to listen to those with greater first hand knowledge and try and ensure the final selections are based on the soundest arguments... so let's here the case no matter how many votes have been cast.

Ps. let's also note that Kuhn only got my initial nomination because I suspected he might be a marginally better gloveman than some of the others and because openers seemed to be a problem area: I did NOT suggest he was a first choice opener!

pps. Initial nominations should be just that: ways of getting names "into the frame" - we ain't got as far as votes yet!

Wanderer, no need for apologies. As you are a keen selector I'll take the time to explain as many of the selection rules and policies as I can remember.

If you look at the make-up of real A teams they usually contain some veteran Test players who have lost form and been dumped as first choice by the national selectors, or they may have been injured or suspended and are using the A match as a warm-up or practice match. The WAT team doesn't consider players like that.The rest of the A team is usualy made up of fringe players and domestic rising stars (not domestic veterans). Those are the players WAT are interested in selecting for the WAT teams. WAT is not interested in established Test players making a comeback nor veteran domestic players, whether they be ex Test players or not. WAT is interested in raising the profile of young fringe and dometic up-and-coming players who deserve an opportunity for consideration at Test level due to the good form they have displayed (with emphasis on recent form and consistency). Experience is also an important factor and 18 year olds who have played half a season in their first domestic season shouldn't be considered, in my opinion, on the basis that they don't have enough experience and haven't demonstrated the consisteny required to take the step to Test level. That raises another point - the players selected for the WAT team should, whenever possible, be ready for immediate selection into the Test team. In otherwords, we don't consider a star of the U/19 World Cup because he has potential to play at the top level in 4 or 5 years. Each year players develop and improve their game so recent form, experience and maturity are the main considerations. Are they ready for Test cricket now or, if not, in the near future, if no other candidates are available that are ready now?

This gives weight to the fringe players who tag along as part of the squad and are near selection but are not considered regulars. So, one of our cut-off rules is that a candidate must not have played more than 5 Test matches. After that, they are considered to have had enough of a chance to either establish themselves or not. If they don't, and fall out of favour, then that's their misfortune. Maybe they didn't make the most of their opportunities. We do, however, bend that rule in exceptional circumstances. Sometimes, we consider a player was picked at far too young an age which made it difficult for him to compete at that elite level. That's not his fault and, if such a player, has clearly improved his game at domestic level and shown good consistency since his last Test he may be considered again for a comeback to Test cricket. Many players have made good comebacks after showing poor form in their first stint at Test level. (More to come)

__________________
Administrator

The above points explain a couple of our rules:

1. Candidates must have played 50% of domestic games in the current season unless their domestic season was reduced due to committments with the national squad for ODIs or Tests.

2. They must not have played more than 5 Test matches when the season is complete unless they are considered as an exceptional case ie a former Test player who only played a handful of Test matches at an early age before he was ready, mentally and skill-wise, to compete at Test level but is ready now to make a comeback.

The other main rule is:
3. He must be under 30 years of age at the end of the current domestic season. This rule is to eliminate domestic veterans.

That completes the rules. Only three rules to consider. The other area of consideration is the selection process. In the real world, there is a selection committee and a Chairman of Selectors. Those selectors may have their own agenda, such as loyalty to a region, or they may have favourite players. Since we can't meet face to face we have to make the selection process as simple as possible, otherwise, the thread could become enormously long and tedious to read. Therefore, I have implemented some ways to speed up the process. Firstly, as Chairman of Selectors, I post the qualified candidates based on the above rules. They include fringe players who may not have completed 50% of the domestic season but have played some internationals be they ODIs or Tests. I also try and list players with Test or ODI experience, or previous A team experience. This is to help identify the fringe players. The domestic stats are posted to identify the rising domestic stars who could be the next generation of fringe A players. From those two main groups the selectors post their first-choice XI in batting order. Once I feel we have enough selectors to come up with a good representative side I take the next step and ask the selectors to name two key players from their team who, they feel, must be in the final WAT XI. (more to come)

__________________
Administrator

The key players should form the nucleus of the selector's team. In otherwords, they are so important to the team that they can't be left out. They are PMed to me so as not to influence other selectors. This process helps me, as Chairman of Selectors, to find out which players are non-negotiable by the other selectors. All other players are negotiable by that logic. This speeds up the process considerably. Now, I post everyones key players and develop a provisional team based on those key players and other popular choices by the majority of selectors. While the provisional team, at this stage, may have everyones key players and majority choices, it still may not be perfectly balanced.

A balanced side should contain 5 batsmen, one of whom can bowl good part-time spin, a batting all rounder who can be used as a fourth seamer, a wicket-keeper and handy batsman (ie an all rounder), a bowling all rounder (like Pollock or Vaas), a frontline spinner, a couple of seamers (with emphasis on pace, bounce or swing). This is not the only balanced side. The variables largely depend on the batting ability of the keeper and bowlers. So, the last stage of the selection process is to tweak the provisional side to better balance it. This is where we are now on this thread.

I may have forgotten other relevant issues but I think I have covered most of the selection rules and procedures. Please let me know if you have any questions or want certain points clarified.

__________________
Administrator

Rachael, I'll reply to your quote by another quote about the need for pace: Full article. Rachael, as you can see, in Test cricket pace is a highly valued commodity. On a 5th day placid wicket medium pace seamers generally struggle unless they can swing the ball. Here are some comparison stats:
Clearly, the pace of Akhtar is getting him wickets in all conditions. So his pace will generally get him selected for matches on home pitches and overseas pitches - on all types of pitches.

__________________
Administrator

That's cute: you've completely misread the article you quote! The word "pace" is being sloppily used to indicate "seam" rather than "spin"... and if you take the time to look at the seven "pace" bowlers in the list... you'll find 5 of the 7 are actually.. quality medium pace bowlers not second rate speedsters!

Abdul Razzaq, Rana Naved-ul-Hasan, Mohammad Asif, Rao Iftikhar Anjum, Umar Gul are all medium pace bowlers: only Shoaib Akhtar (worth his place with the ball alone) and Mohammad Sami (a lousy bowler but with batting nous) are speedsters.

I rest my case for medium pacers with the thought that anyone really serious about their cricket can probably name just about every speedster of their generation that's ever been any good: we all know the 1990s saw Wasim and Waqar, Donald, Ambrose, Walsh and... well... of yes, that was about it. More significantly.. they were the great times, when world cricket experienced a glut: look around world cricket between that lot fading and the rise of Harmison, Jones and co... and you'll find just about no-one of note.

Lee is finally (after what seems like the better part of a decade) just about passable. Ntini is getting the idea. Akhtar is doing better still. Harmison occasionally finds a decent length. Jones has perhaps finally cracked lateral movement. Just possibly we're entering another "glut" phase.. but again... it ain't many bowlers in the entirity of world cricket.. and the list of second rate speedsters who really suck is far, far longer - Best, Edwards, Sami, Mahmood, Steyn, Malinga, Tait and the rest just ain't even close to the callibre of medium pacers liek Hoggard, Vaas, Rana, Pathan and their ilk.

I am quite sure we can find half a dozen medium pace SA bowlers who can do more with the ball than at least one of the trio of speedsters you've suggested (not that being better than Dale Steyn is hard: this guy's performance in English domestic cricket revealed his true worth).

I disagree with your interpretation of the article. It's saying that the factor of pace is likely to take most wickets. Not seam movement. There are some good seamers in that list but Akhtar and Sami will always be selected ahead of them barring injury. Test wickets generally seam a bit on the first day of a match but after that the batting is easy unless pace is employed to unsettle the batsmen. Seamers may still have a role to keep the runs down but they generally struggle to take wickets after Day 1 or 2.

Rachael, are you going to post a revised side or not? Choose you bowlers and let's get on with the selection process, please.

__________________
Administrator

As far as the article goes, I believe that "pace" is being referred to as ... pace.

Quote:

Pakistan's best hopes lay in pace and as a result has also recalled Mohammad Sami

I will edit this post once I have chosen my revised XI which I am currently in the process of doing.

My revised XI:

HG Kuhn
HM Amla ... there are no other openers that have had great seasons, Amla batting at 3 will see the new ball often anyway
JL Ontong
DJ Jacobs
MN Van Wyk
MJ Harris+ ... never saw him first time round.
JA Morkel
Kleinveldt
DW Steyn
T Tshabalala (bat at 10) - batting already quite strong for Peterson
M Zondeki

As far as having 3 speedsters, that would possibly be one too many in most cases, but having two is quite welcome as far as I am concerned. Ntini and Steyn were bowling superbly in tandem at points against New Zealand. And if one wasn't getting the wickets, the other one was.

Not true. Akhtar will get into the side if he's fully fit... but Mohammad Asif, Rana and Abdul Razzaq will almost certainly get the other spots. Sami was dropped on account of being hopeless and has been overtaken by ALL the others mentioned!

On the SA front... we need some input on the glovework of the wicket-keeping candidates. I'm not convinced any are naturals... and suggested Kuhn because he had less bad press coverage than the others: hardly a substitute for direct input.

If Kuhn isn't a good gloveman then we have a real problem with openers... as the 'A' candidates coming through strongly are mostly guys with a good eye and nice timing rather than the sort of discipline, technique and temperament that might allow them to fill the shoes vacated by Kirsten (whose retirement left SA ina hole from which they have still not recovered).

On the bowling front I favour two spinners: RJ Peterson as the all-rounder and Tshabalala as the specialist. My key bowler amongst the seamers remains Mbhalati. I suspect speedsters will get the other two spots and will await with interest the discussion fo the relative merits of the three obvious candidates.

To my mind the selection should be based on ability to do something with the ball (preferably swing) and control (whichever stands a most chance of bowling 2 poor balls in a spell rather than 2 in an over).

I've considered the revised teams of Wanderer and Vrock (Rachael didn't offer a revised team) and I've replaced Kuhn with Jacobs as Jacobs has opened for his club before and is more experienced than Kuhn having played for South Africa A.

Zondeki and Mbhalati are like-for-like as their stats are very similar. I have kept with Zondeki due to his extra experience (5 Test matches).

__________________
Administrator