Without knowing the background to this I would say the decision needs to be made on whether the team is going to be picked on performances and criteria as at the end of the 2007 season, or whether the winter's performances are taken into account. Whichever way it goes could alter the 11 or 13.

__________________
Steven

My word! The number 21 bus has just gone past the Kirkstall Lane end and would you look who this is? He hasn't been seen on the international stage for nearly 2 years. Oh, look CMJ - there's a pigeon! Sorry, where was I? Oh yes, its the Phantom Ram!

Welcome back, Rammy.

Thanks Andy,

I am not sure if I am more surprised that I remembered my sign in details (I actually had to look for my David Capel articles to remember my log in name) or the fact that I am remembered on here!

__________________
Steven

I would choose,

Edwards
Horten
Joyce/Carberry
Sales
Bopara
Mustard
Swann
Broad
Ali
Tremlett
Onions

I really don't see how when selecting 11 players only, we can justify selecting Rashid as well as Swann.

Swann I doubt anyone would disagree could not be left out, so why would we put a spinner all rounder in place of a specialist batsman?.

__________________
Ern

I doubt Rashid would get into an XI. In fact looking at the polls etc, general consensus would suggest he wouldn't....

He may scrape into A XIII though as a second spinner/ allrounder. As his performances have shown this year he still has a long way to go. I also doubt on his performances so far this season whether he would even merit discussion for the 2008 team.

__________________
Mark.

I agree - I have scoured the polls, and remember the discussion at the time.

What the future for Rashid holds who knows, IMO Yorkshire have not handled him that well. I e mailed them last season asking for an e mail interview for WAT articles forum - and got a reply Yorkshire were keeping him away from all interviews at that time.
He was shielded for all such interviews, IMO they should have been hardening his to the realities of real cricket.

In England there is no need for 2 spin bowlers, when seam is shown to be the most effective - in particular when one is a leggie all rounder keeping a specialist player out.

__________________
Ern

We have more than a dozen contributers involed in the WAT selection. Thus far none (as far as I can tell) have put forward a credible argument for excluding Rashid.

Yourself, Pie Chucker and others have worried about whether Rashid is "ready" yet... but that's not any of our business: as 'A' team selectors, our role is simpy to judge whether a player has performed well enough to enter consideration and whether the promise a player has got merits elevation over rivals. It's then up to the selected player to answer questions about his "readiness".

In terms of criteria that mattter, such as promise... I can't see anyone disputing Rashid's inclusion: he was in the 2006 side (with huge backing), and was 1st reserve for the senior Test side this winter - no other England prospect is as much talked about as Rashid.

On the performances last season (the other criteria that really counts) Rashid's merit as a candidate cannot be faulted: his season with the bat was simply outstanding... and he bowled his socks off. No one else came close as a batting all-rounder - something appreciated by adamberry, Collyisamackem, flanflinger, Statto and engssmoothcriminal - five of the keenest county-cricket followers on this board, and all contributers whose judgement carries a lot of weight with me.

No one seems to doubt that this puts Rashid in the mix for the final XI as (at least a) no 7 batsman and as a 5th bowler. The remaining concerns all seem to relate to the balance of the side.

My own preference is for a 6-7-8-9-10 of Rashid, Mustard, Swann, Broad, Tremlett (giving huge batting depth). Add in Onions (or whoever) at no 11 (and recall Bopara's inclusion in the top 5) and that seem to me to leave excellent bowling depth as well.

Others have argued, instead, for Ambrose at 6, with Rashid at 7, strengthening the batting at the expense of the glovework: I find that a credible argument even though I don't agree.

Last but not least there's the predictable Ern line criticising the balance of the proposed side because the 5th best bowler is a leggie... but the argument leaks worse than a collander as we're talking about an 'A' team rather than a Test side: we want to showcase the players who are on the fringes of the England team... including the backup for Swann... and not just the next seamer off the bus after Broad, Tremlett and (say) Onions.

When someone actually comes back at me with an argument about Rashid's level of performance last season (with bat as much as with the ball) or about Rashid's promise (on both fronts) then we can have a debate... but no-one has done that in any meaningful manner at ANY point in the ENTIRE selection process (quite possibly because Rashid's 2007 season did actually silence his doubters).

I could say that no contributor has made a credible argument to me to make me consider his inclusion worthwhile.

I agree but there should be a lot more to selection than promise.

And that shows how poor this current England management are. A test place at that time would have put his career back 3 years. His bowling is not yet at county standard, let alone test standard.

That may have been the case but his bowling simply wasn't good enough to merit selection as a first spinner or even an allrounder. I see you have selected 2 spinners but in reality the only time you would ever play 2 spinners would be if the WAT England team were playing in the subcontinent. On just about every other wicket only one spinner would be needed and if you were playing at say, Perth you probably wouldn't even pick one spinner. Thats why I feel we need a squad and in that case I would agree to Rashid being the 13th member.

See above, If this were a match being played in India then that would possibly be acceptable.


I'm not sure how you can debate stats . The stats show that simply Rashids bowling wasn't good enough to be classed as an allrounder and even less so as a second spinner. As for his batting his average may have been decent but I'll need a lot of convincing that there isn't a more worthy candidate based on batting stats alone.

__________________
Mark.

-----Originally posted 1st Nov. 2007; -----

Adil Rashid has been one of the outstanding success stories of 2007: the PCA ratings make him the 7th most valuable player in this year's County Championship!First look at how his batting shaped up against that of his illustrious (mostly Test playing) Yorkshire colleagues:Rashid held his own in comparison with Younis Khan... one of the most successful Test batsmen in the world (with a Test average of 48.98).

Now look at his bowling return for the season:Note first that despite his youth and inexperience... he's been their senior bowler this season: the 40 wickets is awesome... but check out just how much Yorkshire relied on this youngster: 412.2 overs in 15 matches means he was trusted throughout and never really protected.

Compare Rashid's season with those of a couple of other leg-spinners... including the newly resurgent Schofield, whose "Excellent domestic performances in the 2007 season saw him called up for the England Performance Programme in the winter of 2007-08" and who "was rewarded for his success in 2007 with a new two-year contract at Surrey"...Sure... Warne obviously came out better... but considering the comparison is with the greatest exponent of legspin that the world has ever seen... Rashid's figures stand up to comparison (especially as his home wickets were in Yorkshire... hardly known for being receptive to legspin, especially in this of all seasons).

----- Also posted months ago -----

Who said it should be a choice between the two? The one could bat at 4 or 5 and would unlikely to turn his arm over even if selected... whilst the other is already both a better batsman AND a better bowler than Flintoff was at the same stage in his career.

Edit: In 1998 Flintoff played a full season (15 games). His 22 innings produced just 591 runs at 26.86 (where Rashid, this year, managed 790 runs at 46.47). He also managed a whole 624 balls (as compared to Rashid's 2474 this year). He took 6 wickets at 52.83 where Rashid managed 40 wickets at 39.45.

That was the year of his Test debut: 2 home Tests.

Move on to 2001 (the season Flintoff started with 9 Test caps to his name) and Flintoff is still not doing as well as Rashid has just done: his 14 matches saw him bag 686 runs at 31.18 with the bat and whilst he managed 1473 balls (60% of Rashid's workload) he bagged about half as many wickets at a near-identical average (19 at 38.73).

After that season, Flintoff was considered good enough to tour (and play) in India and then in New Zealand.. and he retained his place for the subsequent home series against Sri Lanka: on the basis of a less convincing year than the one Rashid just had he established himself as a Test regular.

Now... Rashid bats at least as well.. and where Flintoff just added more of the same to England's seam-heavy bowling, Rashid offers a bowling style that England have sought for years and has just a couple of other slow bowlers for competition.

Rashid is at the very least ready for an 'A' side: in a perfect world he might get the chance to get more experience before getting a run in the Test side... but it's not a perfect world and England lack alternatives: if he bowled seam-up to the standard Flintoff did in 2001 he might well get another few years to develop... as England don't really need a 5th bowler now so long as Panesar remains fit (as there's no chance of HIM getting hit out of the attack).


----- End -----

On a different point... quite aside from the fact that the classic balanced side (and the ideal balance as discussed last summer by commentators including Boycott and a number of former Aussie Test players) is three seamers and two contrasting spinners... the WAT 'A' team balance should be with a view to showcasing talent... and we'd do better to showcase Rashid (who is quite clearly an England prospect) than the 4th most peripheral seamer after Broad, Tremlett and someone like Onions.

I'm still not fully convinced by those batting stats. Although the average was good 790 runs with 4 not outs isn't great.

Vote here and we may eventually be able to get the 2007 england team sorted.
Should future WAT A-teams be selected as a squad?


As for the "classic" balanced side........ No successful international team has used that "model" over the last 30 years. If you had Warne and Murali at your disposal then that's different but the fact is most teams don't and I didn't realise we were selecting a side to go back in time and play in the 1960's .

As I've said any WAT- a XI needs to be able to play on any surface and you wouldn't want to play a spinner at a fast bouncy Perth wicket or say at Leeds in May. In the subcontinent you would probably want to play 2 spinners.

__________________
Mark.