Adambery, Andy M, and Statto were all backing Rashid last year. You also indicated support. Greg has indicated that Rashid would be the obvious candidate in a 5-bowler attack, but (quite reasonably) puts Swann in ahead of Rashid as a specialist spinner (though this is itself a change of heart).

Our problem is not so much Rashid as the balance of the side. I am adamant that ANY 'A' side should include two spinners because we want to know the next two in line for a TEST spot. I'm not interested in the 4th best seamer or the 4th best middle order batsman... I'm interested in which TWO spinners will be lined up to tour if Panesar is out of the side for next winter.

That's (to me) what WAT 'A' sides are about: showcasing those on the fringes of the Test side.

Now... if someone wants to argue that Rashid would miss next winter's tour if Panesar were injured that's fine... but I doubt anyone can make that case, especially as Rashid was the 3rd spinner for LAST winter!

Rachael: You are exaggerating the support for Rashid last year.

Look at you own polls which give no support at all for Rashid. Also Rachael you should not be "adament" that "ANY 'A' side should select 2 spinners, when the selectors have given their verdict.
To hang on for more support for a lost cause like you have is wrong. And when selecting the WAT A Team it matters not a fig who's in line for a Test spot,(WE pick out A Team on current form) and Rashid thus far is NOT, so please don't mislead the thread.

We should go back to last year when the side was picked, and that did not include 2 spinners.

I will argue that there is no hard evidence that Rashid would take Panesar's place if Injured, and probably that spot would go to Swann.

Rachael given you position that a 4 man attack is the right way forward, to be clear - you don't agree with 5 man bowling attacks.

Then to ask us to choose 2 seamers, and 2 spinners us ludicrous, 2 spinners are only used in exceptional circumstances.
And that meant at the beginning of our selection process, not months later when the goal posts may have moved.
Because if we go down that road, we could select a larger pool to choose bases on current (now) form.

__________________
Ern

Right, well I withdraw my support for Rashid to be in this year's team and push for Swann to be the sole spinner.

So.. we now have Adamberry, Statto, Andy M and myself supporting a side including Swann (as a spinner) AND Rashid (as a batting all-rounder who also bowls) so that we have a side ready to play on any pitch, anywhere in the world, and so that we are showcasing the best available batting all-rounder who can offer the holy-grail of leg-spin as well as the best finger-spin bowling all-rounder who can bat.

Greg (quite reasonably) would support the notion of Rashid supporting Swann on any pitch that might warrant a supporting bowler who can turn the ball (I am inclined to say any decent wicket outside of NZ and SA)... but wonders (not unreasonably) whether we are picking a side for all conditions (including Ind, Pak, SL & Bang, plus Aus grounds like Adelaide and the SCG, several WI grounds and an increasing proportion of Eng. grounds, incl. Lords, the Oval and Old Trafford).

We also have Ernest, Pie Chucker, Collyisamackem wanting Swann as a spinner but no all-rounder / 5th bowler, based (as far as I can tell) on a conception of Rashid as a specialist spinner rather than a multi-dimensional player who (aside from standing up to be counted as a senior bowler with 412.2 overs and 46 wickets ina season at a very tender age) scored 790 runs at 46.47 in the season we're considering (and ended the season rated the 7th most valuable player in England in the PCA ratings.

I'm quite prepared to go with the flow if we have a clear concensus in favour of doing Rashid a grave dis-service... but what I'm NOT prepared to do is allow the bullying approach of those currently railing (without coherent argument) against Rashid to let us overlook the well reasoned support Rashid has received from Adamberry, Statto, Andy and myself.

ps. My inclination is to pick ALL WAT 'A' sides with a view to a series encompassing one seamer's pitch (as most commonly found in SA or NZ, but including a bouncy Perth track or the Headingly of a generation ago), a pair of classic pitches that take seam bowling early on but wear nicely by days four and five (say the SCG and Old Trafford) and (last but not least) a classic Indian / Sri Lankan turner, on which seamers offer next to nothing.

That's bang out of order and all you're trying to do here is select your personal side - who's bullying? I, like those amongst us who have expressed a feeling of Rashid not being ready for the side, have stated my opinion and that is that Rashid's bowling is not yet good enough even for an all-rounder - in the CC Bopara (for example) exceeds his average and we all know how effective a test bowler he is.

There's no 'coherent argument' to you because the only one you will deem so is your own.

Well, my normally solid support is on shaky ground here. Whilst I don't mind the idea of Swann & Rashid in the team, I'm more than happy to go with the majority on this one as Rashid is one of the few players that I have NEVER seen play. As a result, my unusually unwavering support for those players that I back is very wavery on this one. Certainly any support that I have for Rashid would be insufficient foundation to meet modern planning regulations!!!

Now this style of argument (about the bowling, not the "readiness") I can accept... but I'd like to see some counter-argument to the case made last autumn (repeated earlier in this thread) that he emerged last year as Yorkshire's senior bowler: Note that the guy bowled 412.2 overs in 15 matches means he was trusted throughout and never really protected...

Next 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 he also scored 790 runs at 46.47).

I'm quite prepared to see arguments for someone else having done more to merit selection as a batting all-rounder... but whilst I find the notion (for example) that Bopara might have made a difference with the ball in the recent Lords Test rather far fetched... I clearly recall one Geoff Boycott rueing the fact that Michael Vaughan (with plenty of runs to play with) couldn't turn to leg-spin on a pitch where good batsmen could play finger-spin all day without worries.

Well, the fact that he was Yorkshire's "senior bowler" says more about Yorkshire's bowling stocks, doesn't it? An average of almost 40, and an ER of nearly 4 an over, doesn't make for a particularly impressive record. A frontline spinner should do better. Tim Bresnan, for one, had a better bowling average for Yorkshire (I'm not sure how he did with the bat) but given that the batsmen being talked about here had excellent seasons, I think the bowling should take precedence over the batting.

I'd never countenance that sort of return from either a seamer or a finger-spinner... but Shane Warne went for 3.38 and Rashid went for 3.83... and the difference in strike rate is from one every 8 overs to one every 9 overs: that's comparing to one of the greatest leg-spinners of all time.

At the end of the summer, the England selectors decided he was 1st reserve for the winter tour. They sent him on the 'A' tour so that he got bowling in match circumstances instead of (as Anderson did for so long) just hanging around with the Test side... but had Panesar picked up a major injury then the line up for a 2 spinner pitch WOULD have included Rashid.

That quite clearly constitutes a solid case for being showcased in an 'A' team intended to showcase fringe players / rising stars, then marginalising him for the 6th most marginal batsman we can think of (after the likes of Hildreth and Horton) would strike me as rather odd.

His SR is in fact 61.8- that's a wicket every 10.3 overs. It's still not bad, but as a frontline bowler, taking only 40 wickets in 15 matches really isn't good enough IMO. It should be well over 50, and preferably over 60 (4 wickets per match). I can see his case for selection for 2007, due to his batting feats, but if he gets in, it won't be for his bowling.