Shah is averaging just 36.26 this season: that compares poorly to Yardy, who often (impression, might be wrong) bats at 3 in the same division and averages 46.76... and is actually little better than Dalrymple's figure of 32.76. I'd open to arguments that the stats are misleading... but my impression is that Shah's season needs presenting and explaining in detail if it's to look compelling!

That said.. I'm inclined to rate Shah's 36 average as on a par with Afzaal's 48, Solanki's 47.5 and Sales' 46.5: the difference in division makes preferring the latter tough.

On the spinner front... I'm not sure Dalrymple really counts as more than a second spinner: to date he's generally been regarded as a batsman who bowls rather than as a frontline spinner. If he plays at six that allows either four seamers or three seamers and a proper spinner... and as not even Shah has made a compelling case for inclusion (and as seam bowling options abound) Dalrymple at 6 is tempting...

To Colly and Rachael,

Why when we are doing an A Team do we need to have Dalrymple - he did ok in the Pajama stuff, but A Teams are breeding grounds for Test cricketers.

__________________
Ern

Good point.That is why i have mentioned Adil Rashid who is surely a future test player though i will understand if he is overlooked for this years team due to lack of experience.

I think his international experience gives him quite a strong case. If he has the temperament to bat and bowl well in ODIs then I think he deserves consideration for our A team for the longer form of the game.

Rachael - I don't think Yardy bats at three for Sussex, he bats at 5 as far as I remember. Shah bats at 3 for Middlesex and has an outstanding county record for the past few seasons, not just this one, and he also has a test appearance in which he scored 88. I think this gives him a lot of merit for a spot in our A team as well, as he has already given us a glimpse which tells that he has a good chance of doing very well in test cricket. I think you would be harsh in ignoring his career record and performance against India. I think you tend to be too quick to say somebody has not made a "compelling" case for inclusion, especially when you ignore their presence in last yea'rs A team, their overall record and a test appearance made only 6 months ago!

I didn't mean to appear dismissive of the case for Shah: at the very least the fact that he's constantly in the frame for Test caps suggests he's got something going for him. i would highlight the downside though: playing Shah at three and then some sequence like Joyce, Yardy, Clarke, Foster and Dalrymple would leave just three bowling slots.

To complicate matters further, we currently have Mascarenhas making an almost unanswerable case for playing at 8...

Answered only by his batting average this season, which is very similar to Liam Plunkett's career average - and some have said on here that Plunkett wouldn't be a good enough number 8. In other seasons his bowling average has been higher and his batting average also higher, so has his batting declined in favour of his bowling?

If I were forced to choose I'd go for Shah over Dalrymple and a better bowler lower down the order. However, since Dalrymple and Mascarenhas are similar in terms of being all-rounders (with Dalrymple having the superior batting average and Mascarenhas the better bowling average) then I believe they can compete for a spot, possibly at 8 with three main seamers (9-11) backed up by Clarke, Yardy and Dalrymple/Mascarenhas. Or, if you think that's too much batting and not enough bowling, leave both out and go for more of a one-discipline bowler.

Why hasn't Sales been included in this discussion? I selected him in my team on the other thread and if you take a look at this latest scorecard you can see why. He made 96 at nearly 4 runs per 6 balls faced against decent bowlers: Z Khan, Kabir Ali, R J Sillence, R W Price & G J Batty.

__________________
Administrator

McGrath of Yorkshire has averaged around 60 in a poor team so he should surely be included in the shake up.

Anthony McGrath doesn't qualify due to age - over 30. WAT qualifiers must be under 30.

Mike... can you explain not wanting to advance DAlrymple as far as the shortlist? I appreciate you might argue in favour of others at that stage... but do you not consider him a serious contender?

You have only advanced 4 names: are you suggesting that these are the only real contenders for spots 3-4-5-6?