As much as your argument for Sales vs Shah can be very much promptly turned around, I am currently thinking that the first side Rachael suggests above is the one which gives us the greatest chance of consensus in selection. We all have our strong favourites who may be excluded, me for example wanting Shah, Onions and even Chopra to start with, and definitely not Mahmood, but we have to make concessions and I think everyone has done that.

Let me, here and now, throw my weight behind that side: Compton, Newman, Yardy, Joyce, Sales, Dalrymple, Foster+, Rashid, Broad, Mahmood, Tremlett.

Nice post Colly and congratulations for getting one more 8/11 than me, you did that by sticking to your guns.

Looking at my own score of 7/11 - I am happy with that because I did not want to select Dalrymple even though he was always going to be a popular choice.

Also I was sticking with Ed Smith who I feel should have been given another full England chance, let alone being selected in our WAT England A Team.

The very fact that Ed Smith is eligible is testimony to the fact that he was never given a decent chance.

I think justice is done selecting Mahmood as we would not have had another chance.

__________________
Ern

Personally I just feel the rest of you got it wrong!!

Having said that when you consider that Shah, Tom Smith, Davies and Doshi were in my 11, all of whom got fairly close to selection (and IMO should have been selected over Sales, Foster, Rashid and Tremlett!! - I am prepared to concede on Compton ) So I was not a million miles off

Anyway - when do I get England A Selector under my name, or do I lose that as I was so off this time!!

The Xi who got initial nominations but haven't made the provisional XI reads as follows:Of that lot... Mascarenhas, though perhaps destined to be the 'nearly man' if Test cricket, has grounds to feel the most hard done by (having had a remarkable season)... Doshi has grounds for complaint (he did OK, and it's damn hard luck that an attackingleg-spinner came and stole the headlines given that England qualified versions are even more rare than quality left-arm seamers) and Shah has cause to feel the most unlucky (as one vote the other way might have seen him make the XI).

Davies, Tom Smith and Onions can console themselves that they must already be firm favourites for next year's side... and the rest - well, I'm not convinced they should have been nominated anyway

Blame me for Rashid as i championed his cause much the same as i did with Panesar last year.

I seem to be the spin selecting specialist,i just hope Rashid is as effective as Panesar has been.

All have got a title, yours ff is "WAT England A Selector-2005."

__________________
Ern

There are half a dozen players waiting in the wings should there be call ups from the A team for injuries to the Ashes squad. Colville managed to pry two names out of Academy Director Peter Moores. Rashid and Lawson.

True, and I think it's a cert that there will be call ups to the Ashes squad, I really can't see Simon Jones or Vaughan lasting the Australia tour - if they manage to start.

__________________
Ern

Sorry, I should have made it clear I was interested as to why Ernest had implied the use of all three as bowlers.
On that basis we could moan at most counties for playing four or five spinners.

And another thing Ern;
we are in 2006!

__________________
"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose."
- Ayrton Senna

Rashid is a specialist spinner who can bat and Dalrymple and Yardy deserve their places on their batting alone.The fact they turn their arms over is a bonus.

Should we have not bother to pick Bell and Collingwood alongside Flintoff in the test side as all 3 can bowl as that is a similar trio who bowl pace/seamers?