Looking through the thread I'm struck that you could end up with the following side....

1. Ingram
2. Redmond
3. Taylor
4. Ryder
5. ?
6. Hiini
7. Mills
8. Elliot
9. Scott
10. Aldridge
11. Patel

A seam attack of Aldridge, Scott and Elliot with Hiini in support looks decent enough... and to be honest you've got so much batting in that side that you could throw an 18 year old in on "potential" at 5 and not worry about it.

One thing: if there's a promising young spinner around... how about moving Hiini, Mills, Elliot, Scott and Aldridge up the order to free up a space at 10/11?

Jeetan Patel is easily the best young spinner Rachel. I think its been said before but in NZ conditions (which the team plays in half of the time) you would almost never play two spinners.
Having said that (and having not seen much of the current domestic crop as its rarely on tv here) Nathan McCullum is one of the better prospects, however he is also a top order/opening batsman.

It's an unconventional balance... but the following side would appear to offer a great depth to the batting, a stunning range of bowling and at least two alternatives for the senior side for everyone except 'keeper...

1. Ingram
2. McCullum
3. Redmond
4. Taylor
5. Ryder
6. Hiini
7. Mills
8. Elliot
9. Scott
10. Aldridge
11. Patel

By my reckong the following includes 3 opening bats, 3 middle order bats and 4 seamers, 2 spinners and a great blend of youth and experience: the batting goes down to 9 and no captain or coach could really complain about the options available to him no matter what the pitch!

McCullum had a pretty mediocre season with both bat and ball though, and really doesn't deserve to be in this team - and certainly not as an opener. It may be harsh to say it, but I think his name gets him more credit than his ability deserves.

Looking at spinners elsewhere, Schaw is supposed to be a decent prospect as a leg spinner (not enough games yet); Astle offers a part-time leg spin option and is a better bat than McCullum and also look out for 22 year old Mark Houghton who made his debut for Wellington this year - taking 3 wickets with his left armers. He can also bat decently from what I've heard.

That said, a team with Elliott at 8 and Scott at 9 is pretty much in keeping with the type of team that Bracewell likes to put out - Scott's batting ability is not dissimilar from Kyle Mills or James Franklin, and Elliott provides a similar quality of batting option to Vettori. You'd certainly do well to bowl that side out twice over four days. However, only 2 proper seam options, and only Aldridge as an opening bowler is not really good enough. Gillespie should be there to accompany Aldridge with the new ball, Elliott & Scott as 1st change and Patel to spin. Ryder, Taylor & Redmond/Astle can provide partnership breaking bowling if necessary.

Gillespie should surely not enter the discussion: if he leaks runs at 3.5 an over in domestic cricket in the seamer-friendly conditions in NZ he'd be going at 4.5 or 5 an over in Test cricket. Aldridge, Scott, Elliot and Patel all appear more accomplished... and with Hiini in support the bowling looks fair even without McCullum.

That said.. with McCullum out of the running I'm back to a 10 man side!

ps. Aldridge 2.84, Scott 2.49, Elliot 2.6, Hiini 2.77, Patel 2.30 - none will be as economical in Test cricket... but at least the captain will have the confidence to throw them the ball knowing they can put the ball in the right areas - Gillespie's 3.49 is schoolboy rubbish given seamer-friendly conditions!

Does Mark Gillespie meet the qualifying criteria? If so he would be a certainty i would think. Did we even discuss the quick bowling prospects?

The issue with Gillespie, Rachael, is that he is a player who steps up to the big occasion. Looking at his club record in Wellington Club Cricket, you wouldn't have expected him to play First Class as much as he has. Similarly, looking at his First Class record, you would expect him to get belted in One Day Internationals.

However, he stepped up to play the Aussies in the CB Series and The Chappell Hadlee and performed brilliantly for the most part, not haemorraging runs as expected, taking a few key wickets and also providing some very interesting batting.

Could the same principle apply to test cricket as it seems to have done throughout the rest of his career?

Now, as for eligibility - Gillespie has not played a test and is under the age of 30 (27) and is eligible. I think we had a brief discussion (and no vote) on the seamers and people were happy to go with the opening combo of Aldridge/Gillespie (there aren't any other decent opening bowlers who are eligible it seems). I would feel pretty worried if Elliott or Scott were to open the bowling. These guys are first-changers; they could go for plenty and totally waste the new ball.

On the top of page 2 of this thread we decided he was eligible, and I can't see much of a reason why we shouldn't include him; Rachael I can understand your point but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be included. His average is impressive and his strike rate is as well - better than Flintoff and Harmison in first-class cricket in fact. Okay, so I shouldn't really compare to other quick bowlers in a different country, but...

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

So if Gillespie was to be chosen we're looking at either

1. Ingram
2. Redmond
3. Taylor
4. Ryder
5. Hiini
6. Mills
7. Elliot
8. Scott
9. Aldridge
10. Gillespie
11. Patel

or

1. Ingram
2. Redmond
3. Taylor
4. Ryder
5. ?
6. Hiini
7. Mills
8. Elliot/Scott
9. Aldridge
10. Gillespie
11. Patel

I'd be a little worried about the batting depth if Stu Mills was coming in at six. I think for Wellington, Elliott comes in ahead of Mills, but once again, I'd question whether Elliott is really a number six (much as Flintoff is not a number six)

I'd be more inclined to go:

1. Ingram
2. Redmond
3. Taylor
4. Ryder
5. ?
6. Hiini
7. Mills
8. Elliot/Scott
9. Aldridge
10. Gillespie
11. Patel

Although one of Scott and Elliott would be right to feel a little unfortunate to miss out. Also, have we settled on Redmond as opener #2?

This side has the solidity of Ingram at the top, the flair of Taylor and Ryder at 3 and 4.... Methinks we need a strong technical batsman at 5.... someone you can rely on to hang around with Taylor and Ryder at the other end... someone like a Papps? Hiini at six is more of an accumulator as well, so maybe Hiini could be at five and then a more rounded batsman at six, capable of batting to the situation.

In terms of bowling options, Aldridge & Gillespie open - which looks pretty strong. Elliott/Scott and Ryder would be first and second change in seaming conditions, Patel 2nd change otherwise with Hiini, Redmond and Taylor providing additional bowling. That looks pretty strong in the bowling department to me!

So, if we're happy with Redmond to open, that leaves us with the middle order batsman to choose and a very tough choice between Elliott and Scott.

Also, as a side point, who takes the captaincy reins (Matthew Bell had them last year). Ingram, Elliott or Aldridge probably have the most experience, but I'm not sure that any of the players we've chosen have captaincy experience??

EDIT: To Rachael.... Yes, Gillespie's economy rate is poor compared to the other options, but have you also looked at his strike rate? I'd expect his strike rate to be better than all of the other bowlers (possibly excluding Aldridge). Economy rate on its own is not the be all and end all, you need to be able to take wickets as well and Gillespie is most definately a strike bowler.