Broad with respect Mike showed he could bowl a line on his debut (In one day cricket), but IMO he is such a long way of being the finished article, we have to pick our best side to be credible,, and that should Include Mahmood who Fletcher thinks is good enough, also Tremlett has been in the England squad.

__________________
Ern

Exactly and England select their player with potential, not complete unknowns, or players not ready yet.

__________________
Ern

I wouldn't argue with you Ern. This could be a step too soon for Broad but he has bowled well in the A matches this year. At this stage, I prefer Tremlett and Mahmood ahead of Broad and the other seamer looks like a choice between Mascarenhas and Smith.

Foster is 26 and Sutton is 30. Foster has played 6 more games. He has a 200 to his name and has a higher career average that Sutton. Behind the stumps Foster 276/28, Sutton 219/10.

Players with potential: Smith, Broad, Tremlett, Mahmood, Onions and doubtless many others: all are well enough known (at least they are to anyone who actually follows day to day cricket rather than just international stuff).

Your other criteria is 'players not yet ready'... and the measure of that is control: until they have control the captain cannot risk tossing them the ball....

The only player who strikes me as "ready" (from the above list) is Tom Smith: he's the one who has been showing a capacity to bowl overs without 4-balls, he's the guy who has been racking up the maidens, building the pressure and rewarding the faith his captain has placed in him.

With any of the others you risk seeing them hit out of the attack. Recall what happened with Gillespie and Kasprowicz in the last Ashes series? Playing bowlers who cannot get through a season with an economy rate of <2.8 is asking for exactly that - to carry a passenger.

Onions and Broad may well be known in county cricket, but Rachael they are complete unknowns at International level.

If you have so much faith in Tom Smith being able to hold an end up without going for many must mean that we need a bowler such as Mahmood - and Rachael we don't have any other like his, even the great West Indies bowlers could spray it around at time, thing is they got wickets.

Rachael Mahmmod won't be eligible next year - he will be playing Test cricket for England, players like Broad and Onions will be a year on next year, and it would make sense to wait until them.

We don't pick Mahmood this year - then we will never get another chance, and that IMO would be so wrong as far as the WAT A Team is concerned.
Rachael without Mahmood this A Team will have no bite, and will not be credible IMO.

__________________
Ern

Rachael, your weighting your opinion far too much towards economy (control) and not enough on strike-rate (wicket-taking ability). Of the bowlers you mentioned earlier, Mahmood has the second worse economy but the best strike-rate. Smith has the 2nd-best economy but the worse strike rate. If a captain wants wickets he'd throw the ball to Mahmood before Smith. If he wants one end tied up he would throw the ball to Smith instead of Mahmood.

All the bowlers have acceptable strike rates: anywhere in the 45-65 range is very, very good. Just look at my post in this thread where I note the debut season figures for McGrath, Lillee and co!

Strike rates can vary enormously: so long as they are mid range they really don't matter and top Test bowlers vary enormously on this front. Economy rates can vary far less: sure, you don't have to be in the 2.4-2.5 range... but just about EVERYONE any good keeps below 2.8!

Just go back here to those McGrath, Donald, Lillee and Botham figures!

Ern, everybody on that list aside from Mahmood, the test certainty (and you have directly acknowledged as much above!) to whom I strongly object being in our A team in place of someone who is not a test cert, is an international unknown! Everyone here is blind to wicket-takers as far as I see, but so be it I guess.

I think Tremlett and Broad must be in, and Onions deserves, at least somewhat, to be recognised for his season. Putting Mahmood in our A team is simply money for old rope, but again if I am to be outvoted on this then that is fair enough.

As for the number 6 spot, I'm thinking of changing my opinion to Dalrymple. Clarke has been outstanding in terms of stats in the FC games, but Dalrymple has shown he has the goods in ODIs - unlike Mahmood though he is not a test certainty, or even possibly a contender yet, so I think he may deserve to jump in ahead of Clarke.

Colly we play by the rules - and the rules say that Mahmood has not yet played in enough Test matches to exclude him.

It is our duty as selectors to choose the best 11 possible, and being that Mahmood is available for selection it beggars belief that we would not choose him.

There will be other days for players like Onions and Broad, we have always played the rules strict on WAT on picking the A Team, and because Mahmood is likely to play Test cricket - that does not exclude him, also the fact the he is almost certain to play in the England Test side, makes it clear that we should pick him, he is thee most obvious choice IMO.

Also without Mahmood there is NO balance to the side, it will be a side of much of a muchness.

__________________
Ern