Thus far we have got NOMINATIONS. We have had NO discussion. For starters, no one has yet offered a comparison of the glovework of the different 'keepers (and I somehow doubt that any non SA based contributer can choose a 'keeper without that info).

I suspect we will all be prepared to sign off on the following.. and that's about it:

1. Davey Jacobs
2.
3. Hashim Amla
4. JP Duminy
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. Thandi Tshabalala

Not as bad as it look as we only have four candidates for the 8-9-10 spots: prune one and we've got the majority of the side sorted.

As I said in my last post... my revised XI is basically the above with Peterson at 6/7, Mbhlati at 8/9/10 and whichever two of the speedsters get the most support filling the final bowling places.

n the absence of better arguments to the contrary I'm inclined to back the "Stephen Cook" nomination as opener - a vote of confidence in his technique is more than we have got for the others!

Rachael, I'm only willing to discuss the team further if you have a point to make about the balance of the side. You seem to think that including Peterson in the same side as Tshabalala is improving the balance of the side. Both are frontline spinners. We aren't picking a team to play in India. WAT A teams only allow for one frontline spinner and a part-time spinner or a frontline spinner and a spin all-rounder who can bat at 6. The other 4 bowlers are seamers including an all-rounder. The all-rounder may be a spinner. I don't mind that but Peterson is not an all-rounder who can bat at 6 like Morkel. Therefore, either pick Peterson as your spinner or Tshabalal but not both.

__________________
Administrator

Petersen has a Test average of 31.8... which makes him a no 7... which is fine if we're playing a Stewart-like no 6 batsman as 'keeper. This is why I think the wicket-keeper is critical: if there's a genuine wicketkeeper we can select (even if he's a no 8 or 9 bat) then fine... but if we are looking at someone like Kuhn (an opening batsman in domestic cricket) in the top 6 then Peterson at 7 becomes credible.

Note: Maty did say of Kuhn "Looks a massive talent, a keeper batsman who opens the batting and has the same sort of talent as AB De Villiers while being a better a keeper". Wanderer appears to be the only other contributer to this discussion with any first hand knowledge and whilst preferring Tsolekile it wasn't on grounds of ability, merely experience.

Neither of those with any first hand basis for comment have yet said ANYTHING about Harris!!!!

On the bowling front... our two authoritative sources both chose Mbhalati. Maty said "well he has the ability to be a right handful at time[s]"... choosing him as an opening partner for Steyn... and Wanderer chose him as an opening partner for Zondeki.

Paying due attention to the first hand input we've received I would be inclined to go with the following provisional XI:

1. Davey Jacobs
2. Stephen Cook
3. Hashim Amla
4. JP Duminy
5. ARNO Jacobs
6. Kuhn
7. Peterson
8. JJ van der Wath / Steyn
9. Steyn / Zondeki
10. Mbhalati
11. Thandi Tshabalala

What's really needed, of course, is for us to take the time to get more information from those who are best positioned to clarify our thinking on various positions.

Note: I'm not suggesting that only those with first hand experience can contribute here.. or that having first hand experience "trumps" all other considerations... but thus far, whilst I've read a fair few myself, I've yet to see much evidence from this sort of source in our discussions - meaning views that flesh out impressions gained through stats have particular pertinence... and that we need to take longer than usual over our discussions so as to assimilate this sort of input.

Rachael, you are trying to balance the side to include both Peterson and Tshabalala. In doing so, you've disregarded Harris and Tsolekile for the keeper and they are both more deserving of that role than Kuhn. Also Morkel deserves to be in the team ahead of either spinner. His first-class bowling average is superior to both spinners and his batting is in a different league to theirs. No other selector chose two spinners in their side because neither player makes a compelling case to be in the side at all. By playing a spinner either Zondeki or Mbhalati have to make way but I'd argue that both those players are more deserving of being in the side ahead of those two spinners. The only reason a spinner is being considered is to balance the side. Not because they demand inclusion as the best bowlers.

Let's here what the other selectors have to say about two spinners in the side.

__________________
Administrator

If that be so then fine... the process of team selection shoud, however, require arguments to be put forward in favour of each candidate... and thus far we have had nothing of substance on Harris (how is he with the gloves compared with the other two? Do you know) nor anything bar stastson his batting (has he got the technique to step up to the next level? If so, great, but if not then let's take that into accuont.

We only have two local inputs... one of whom rates Kuhn highly and one of whom rates Tsolekile higher as Kuhn might be "too green".Really: and can you point me towards match reports where aptitude for the longer form of the game is talked about? I had Morkel in my initial XI... but Wanderer then said "Albie Morkel: Not in the longer version of the game at the moment IMO".Let's also see what they have to say about Ontong as an all-rounder. He's a batsman cum spinner... and the verdict might well be that he offers more than Morkel OR Petersen.

Some of our contributers are not here as often as we are... so I suggest a week of contemplation before we resume this matter... at which point, should the evidence that emerges support your XI I shall have NO problem in recommending that we sign off on your selection.

Rachael, since we started selecting A teams two years ago I've reviewed the selection threads and changed the selection process in order not draw the discussion out to rediculously long lengths. With potentialy 10 A teams to pick it is impractical to generate 150+ posts for each thread. I remember introducing the system of PMing me two key players by each selector because the discussion couldn't agree on a few key players. This year, I've decided to streamline the process further by using the key players plus other players picked by the majority of selectors to propose a provisional side. I believe, it's more constructive and less time-wasting to discuss the balance of a side that includes most of the players the selectors generally agree on having in the side.

I'd also like to add that a selector may post a revised side that tries to balance the provisional side as well as possible and state reasons why the players he chose do balance the side. The selector must also take into account which players are more deserving to be included in the final XI. For example, when comparing two players of equal ability, the more experienced player is more deserving of inclusion ahead of the first year player.

Although, some selectors may have greater familiarity with the players under discussion I see no reason to give their selections extra weight. An outsider, using statistics-based analysis, is completely objective and is likely to pick just as good a team. I'm willing to discuss people's revised team's if they think their team is better balanced than the provisional side.

__________________
Administrator

Favouring expediency over effectiveness is a temptation for everyone in a position of authority... but in this case I see no great justification: most contributers are involved with just one 'A' team... and for them, the fact that nine other threads are all running alongside the one that interests them is completely irrelevent.

If you delegated the chairman of selectors role for each 'A' team then the need for expediency would diminish massively.

Whatever happens I see the discussion element as critical to (and indeed the best bit of) any selection process: we might be interested in seeing an XI emerge as a "final product"... but it's going through the candidates, finding out more about them and sorting through what each could bring to a team that is the real appeal of participation - from a discussion board perspective.... the process is more interesting that the outcome!

ps. I participated in the Pakistan discussions last year but skipped this year in favour of SA: those of us interested in more than one 'A' team will have to make similar calls if time does not allow participation on all fronts - I don't see that as a problem!

I don't mind others taking on the role of "Chairman of Selectors" if they understand the WAT selection rules. As long as they use those rules to provide a list of qualified players to start the thread. How they manage the selection process is up to them. In my case, I just don't have time to discuss every possible candidate for all 11 positions. However, I'm prepared to discuss the main candidates once the provisional side is posted.

__________________
Administrator

Okay, I've now read and studied every post in this thread and I think I have a better understanding of how this selection thingamyjigger works. I thought I could ONLY participate in this thread, and not other A teams, because I am clueless at to most of the other teams' domestic set-up. When new WAT A Teams are selected, I'll try to participate there as well...

Originally Posted by admin
Just to prove I'm a real saffie, I'd like to disagree with this statement

Wanderer, anyone can participate in or start an WAT selection thread whether you're familiar with the domestic scene or not. In fact, I encourage people to start a WAT selection for a country they aren't familiar with because the research you do will give you a better understanding of the domestic setup in those countries. I encourage anyone to start a WAT selection thread and act as the "Chairman of Selectors" to develop their own selection process.

Once the A teams have been selected we'll try to obtain interviews of some of those players via email. If anyone is interested in taking that role please contact me. That person will be responsible for creating a questionaire and contacting the player through their club or cricket board to send the questionaire via email to them.

I believe statistics reveal a lot about the ability of a player. If they didn't you wouldn't have the ICC Player Rankings which are compiled from statistics.

__________________
Administrator