As I said.. the rules allow players with fewer than 8 games if they were absent on international duty. This is the only reason Mahmood is eligible (having only played 4 matches all season) and ensures Rashid's nomination is legitimate: he was absent on International duty from Wednesday 26 July 2006 to Wednesday 9 August 2006 - the duration of 3 Test matches

This is a point noted by Greg in response to Ern's fears: Greg noted "Bear in mind he would have played more but for international duty [...] isn't that the same reason we are using for Mahmood anyway?"Please wait for the full published results of the confidential poll on this matter Ernest: I do not have the exact pecking order for Collyisamackem or Flanflinger (and have no results from Wanderer) but we already know Flanflinger wants all but Tremlett and Collyisamackem wants all but Mahmood - and that means the results are as follows...

Tremlett: 9 for, 1 against
Broad: 8 for, 2 against
Mahmood: 6 for, 4 against
Smith:6 for, 4 against

I will publish the full breakdown in the morning (by which time I hope to have the final few results).

Rachael, that exception to the rule applies to international duty with the senior side. It can be international duty with the national one-day side or Test side. That's why Mahmood qualifies on that rule.

In the confidential vote we was given 3 names in order of preference.

This is like a system of PR, using a single transferable vote.

What I would like to know is - why did we need a confidential vote, if as you say above "The official WAT England 'A' 2006 thread now contains a full listing of everyone's preferred XI".

That must mean that Mahmood gets in by 7 - 4 out of 11 votes out of the completed listings, or am I missing something?.

__________________
Ern

Let me quote your own rules:When the question of Rashid's qualification arose Greg made a plea for unusual circumstances:As chair I judged that these were "exceptional or unusual circumstances": you might have judged differently if you had been in the chair but that was my judgement and I'm prepared to defend it.

Please note: adjusting the figure was backed by ALL NINE SELECTORS INVOLVED IN NOMINATING THE SHORTLIST.

I remember rule 3. below was expanded because of Paul Collingwood's situation. But I made that allowance based on the fact that he was gaining experience with the national senior squad.
I have also said:
This is exactly what you're trying to do with Rashid - pick a talented U19 player based on potential rather than whether he could actually perform well at A level. I think I'll close the site down in disgust if you even dare suggest that Rashid should be selected in place of Mahmood. Mahmood has earned a place on merit far more than 18 year old Rashid.

I'm now just waiting on Collyisamackem before publishing the resuts and can confirm both polls are VERY close.

On a seperate note: VRock submitted his team shortly AFTER I published everyone's teams... but he has been actively involved through the pre-selection threads. Do we have any objections to him being included in the poll?

On the spinner front, if I am confused why Doshi is not on the short list, and why Rashid is. I would not want Rashid in the team, at this stage (will need to play a lot more cricket IMO) so as there was no Doshi option I would prefer to have Yardy and Dalyrmple as spinners and play 4 front line seamers..

As a Surrey fan, who has watched a huge amount of Doshi over the last two-three years, I have been very impressed by his control, but his best attribute is his temperament, and for a spinner that is often a critical factor. I would have him as a back up spinner to Monty and Gilo, over the very raw Rashid.

I am also a bit annoyed that Davies is not in the running while Foster is...

Foster 720 runs at 42.41 (only 1 hundred) and 68 dismissals
Davies 1002 runs at 38.61 (3 hundreds) and 63 dismissals

Although Foster has the better average and has taken a few less dismissals, it is disappointing that he is not in the running...

Sorry if I am repeating arguments, but have been away!!

Both Doshi and Davies made the initial shortlist and were amongst the 22 names to come up for discussion. Each found favour with 3 contributers... which is a credible start but down on the support for Rashid and Foster.

I'm keen to get a provisional XI together and then put it up for challenges: for those purposes Rashid and Foster were clear enough favourites to win the wicket-keeper and spinner contests. That said, I'm personally quite happy to see things go the other way: I was very much in two minds on each position... and if anyone else is of like mind then those selections could possibly be overturned.

With that said... Foster should probably be in Aus ahead of Jones and Rashid brings great balance to the side as well as offering a brand of attacking leg-spin (strike rate: 43.2, 5th best in divison one amongst bowlers with 100+ overs to their name) which strikes me as more valuable than Doshi's gentle SLA finger spin...

Add in Rashid's batting (he got his debut as a batsman following three centuries in a single week for Yorkshire's second XI) and unlike Doshi and Panesar he strikes me as already being a contender for England's no 8 spot - and already a better bet in that spot than Plunkett!

Personally, I'd not be surprised to see the England Test side end next summer with a first choice XI reading 6. Flintoff, 7. Rashid, 8. Read, 9. Hoggard, 10. Harmison and 11. Panesar.

Much as I admire your optimism, I would be very very surprised if that was a Test bowling attack, in England!! Maybe in India or another part of the sub-continent.

If Jones and or Anderson are fit, I would imagine that it would be very unlikely to happen, but even they were not fit, I would guess that Mahmood, Plunkett and Broad would be the first choice.

If Jones or Anderson were unfit I'd expect England to be playing Flintoff at 7 and Read at 8 ahead of Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar.... or else Giles to be back at Panesar's expense so that Flintoff could move to 6 (which is what might happen anyway if Anderson or Jones return: Fletcher seems exceedingly reluctant to play three frontline, non-batting seamers plus Panesar!

Rashid would certainly have to be batting VERY well to get into the side ALONGSIDE Panesar... but on the other hand... with Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar to do the donkey-work, Rashid's leg-spin would off just as welcome a "something different" as the reverse swing of Mahmood... and I just can't envisage the selectors thinking Plunkett or Broad will add much to Flintoff-Hoggard-Harmison (they might play instead of one of the above, playing ALONGSIDE is just piling the heap deeper - more of the same).