I have to question that "awesome" remark. 40 wickets in 15 matches is ordinary for a front-line bowler. Also, his ER of 3.8 leaves a lot to be desired. He belongs in the squad if a squad is being selected (on the strenght of his batting), but a first XI?

Rachael - on your first point, look at the polls, Rashid has no support.

On your second point - we don't have to give a credible reason why Rashid should be excluded, it's votes for 'selection that matter', and Rashid falls short.

However I will give you a credible reason to exclude Rashid on this occasion.

a) Swann deserved the spinner spot.

b) Rashid is neither a specialist batsman or bowler, and would probably only get in the side as a first choice spinner if Swann was nor available.

3) It is not desirable to leave out specialist players to accommodate what is in effect a leg spin all rounder, especially in a country were seam rules supreme.

4) Leg spin bowlers fail in England, look at Salisbury and Schofield, England is not suited to bringing leggies to their full potential.

5) This matter over Rashid should not stop us putting a team together, the polls you posted show no majority for Rashid, and it's the poll that counts.

6) There is, and can be no case for Rashid taking Swann's place, and he would weaken the batting by excluding specialist batsmen, or bowlers if he claimed a bowling spot.

__________________
Ern

All of you know i am a massive fan of Adil Rashid but on last seasons performances he doesn't deserve inclusion in the side ahead of Swann and unless we pick 2 spinners you cannot have him in as a batsman as he batted outside the top 6 for the majority of the season.

In a squad yes,a team no.

I've no problem with Rashid batting at 7... but Rashid's batting LAST season was exceptional: he was (back then) making a very strong case as a batsman. Look through the batting stats in my previous post: we have no business arguing with them.

In terms of his bowling... he bowled almost as much as Warne (over 400 overs) and took getting on for the same number of wickets (46 to 56): a remarkable performance for such a young legspinner. I don't doubt for one moment that Swann should ALSO play... but that doesn't alter the fact that Rashid would bring more to the party than (say) Bresnan (who would just offer a lesser-version of what the frontline seamers would offer).

The support for Rashid is strong. Ern and Pie Chucker are, in fact, pretty isolated (if vocal) as detractors. He has been supported pretty consistently by Adambery, Andy M, Collyisamackem, Statto, me and yourself. For the last named see: here.

Rachael i admit at one point i wanted Rashid but that was me being blinkered,i had ignored Swann and the facts are that he had a better season than Rashid as a spinner,i changed my mind after being swayed by other peoples views.

Sorry if that is wrong.

I've no quibbles with you backing Swann as the premier spinner (as I do the same) or with you disputing Rashid's credentials as a specialist batsman (as he's clearly a very promising clean striker of the ball rather than a genuine long-term rival for Carberry or Hildreth).

On the other hand... I take it you would see Rashid as an automatic choice if the side is going to have a five man attack: his credentials as a batsman AND as a bowler are already better than Flintoff's were at the same stage in the Lancastrian's career.

That just leaves the balance of the side to sort: would you really be be uncomfortable with the depth of batting if the side read as follows:
Horton
Denly / Carberry
Shah
Hildreth
Bopara
Ambrose
Rashid
Swann
Broad
Tremlett
Onions

Swann at 8... Broad at 9... Tremlett at 10? That's a LOT of batting.

That side looks ok but i would always be loath to pick 2 spinners in England.If we were picking a side for a tour of Asia then i would always go with 2 spinners but not anywhere else in the world and Swann is ahead of Rashid for me.

No-one is talking about picking two spinners for anywhere. What we're talking about in ALL the 'A' team threads is showcasing fringe players... so we're showcasing the 'next best' players... and preferably the next two or more in line for ANY one position in the main Test side.

The side needs SOME sort of balance... but three specialist seamers and one specialist spinner form the core of the attack. Rashid's bowling, like Bopara's bowling, would be "extra": hopefully not essential given the abilities of Broad, Tremlett and Swann... but options that never hurt on any pitch and which would help on anything from Old Trafford (wear) / the Oval (bounce) through the subcontinent (turn) to Perth (bounce), Adelaide (turn) and the SCG (wear).

Don't be fooled anyone by this very clever bit of journalism by Rachael.

Flintoff had a horrible start to his career, even I could have matched that. point here is that Flintoff was warned to loose weight. When he did his career went upwards in 2004/05 that IMO Rashid could never dream
of.He will never bowl at 93MPH, and bat like Flintoff did in 2004/05 - he was phenomenal at that time.
The two aren't comparable.
Nice try Rachael.
Yes we at Lancashre had a very promising leggie who could bat at the highest level in Paul Schofield, trouble was he was selected for England at an early age, and his batting was better than his bowling,
Like Schofield all that Rashid show is promise, and I would say that Schofield was just as good in county cricket.
The problem with players like Rashid, Schofield and Salisbury - they will always be limited because England don't have the coaches to bring them to Warnes standard.
We must keep faith with the specialists IMO, and have a look at Rashid next year when he will have had time to prove himself, and let's select Swann as specialist spinner.
The problem with your side selected Rachael - it's packed with batting, with no real bite.

__________________
Ern

Two things:

1) The number of sticky threads in this forum is a joke, you only need a nominations thread and a discussion thread to get the balance of the side - or a maximum of 3/4 discussion threads (bats, bowlers, allrounders & keepers). The number of threads this year meant I simply wasn't interested as I don't have time to read them all.

2) Looking at this thread it's Rachael insisting Rashid must be in the side and everyone else saying Swann should be and Rashid shouldn't. Rachael, you're one selector, you're clearly being outvoted and you're blocking progress to the side being named.