My error: Rashid (as you note) took a wicket every 61.85 balls... whereast Warne took one every 52.56 balls. Considering that the latter is an all time great... that strikes me as pretty damn impressive.

As for your stat of bowler taking over 50 wickets in the season... just check through the stats and see how many actually managed that: see Competition Averages - Averages - Stats - ECB

Bowlers toiled in 2007, and batsmen flourished. Rashid took more wickets than most... and that's in a side with the likes of Gillespie (53 wickets), Hoggard (32 wickets), Gough (37 wickets) and Bresnan (34 wickets): getting a stack of 5-fors is tough with colleagues of that callibre!

With all that said... I fully support your view that his batting feats are central to his appeal: he may not be sustaining it THIS season... but last season he was right up there at the top of the Division One averages: Competition Averages - Averages - Stats - ECB

Right, we have a couple of issues here and I think we need to pull our fingers out and make some democratic decisions and get this side finalised. If I had my way I would like to get this done by the scheduled end of the second test of England v SA (2008!).

Firstly, are we going for an XI or a squad of XIII? My poll: Should future WAT A-teams be selected as a squad?

is currently 7 - 6 in favour of a squad. We need to get agreement on this ASAP.

If its a squad i cant see there being too many stumbling blocks, in fact we could probably settle on the XIII 5 minutes after agreeing to selecting a squad.

If we select an XI the major stumbling block is the selection, or otherwise of Rashid. I really cant see there being any other insurmountable issues.

Rachael, you have done a great job in promoting the merits of Rashids selection but now I think it comes down to a simple democratic decision from the selectors - is he in the team or not?

So, my proposal is that we decide on the squad issue by Sunday and then aim to have a team selected by the middle of next week.

IMO, to make voting on the Rashid "issue" fair only the people who have taken part in selecting the team thus far should have the vote and if need be some of the selectors could be PM'd if they haven't been involved in the recent discussions.

Come on people lets sort this out, it wont be too long until we are debating the 2008 a team!

__________________
Mark.

Rachael again you are stalling, not only that, you are IMO you are being condescending to Colly, while trying to isolate me by breaking up the counter arguments against the inclusion of Rashid to suit yourself by saying you don't accept "readiness" as a counter argument.

I will explain, it is NOT up to you to say whether "readiness" is an argument against Rashid being included last Autumn (or not). I don't really care if you accept it or not, IMO a players readiness to be selected is good enough for me.
Also you blatantly disregard the polls you published when the results did not go your way, there was no support for Rashid in those polls THEN.
We must judge Rashid were we left of in the Autumn, Rachael I ask that you stop 'Filibustering' and let us get on with the job of selecting a team.
My charge of unreadiness by Rashid stems from an e mail I received from Yorkshire in August 2007, this I used as an argument then - and should not be disregarded by attempts to make that argument outdated - we should have had this settled last Autumn.
This is a copy of the e mail I received from Yorkshire CC August 2007:-
My point was that is a player needed to be "shielded", then he was not ready for Test cricket - and therefore would not be eligable of the WAT-A Team.
This argument was good in August 2007, and I believe it unfair to drag sit out the issue for months, hoping the negatives will go away - we could do that with every player.
I have published the proof that even Yorkshire CC did not think Rashid ready for the spotlight, let alone Test cricket - this info I posted on this forum August 2007, and was available at that time.
Other than that - Rashid has NOT IMO and that of others, proved that he is better than our preferred choice last fall (Swann), with a not brilliant wicket to match ratio, and a less that good econ rate.
To compare him with Warne is pointless, as he is obviously not in the same league, and Warne has took his wickets at Test leven - not at county level.

__________________
Ern

I can accept the idea of a squad (full stop). But I can't then go on and support the idea of selecting the team AGAIN from a squad, we had the selection procedure last fall, so I can't see why we should cave in just to give Rashid another chance. The polls spoke for themselves.

When I voted reluctantly for the squad system, I was under the impression that we would be selecting a rather than a team. I will still support that - but if we select a squad then go on to select a team from that squad - them I withdraw my support for the squad system.

__________________
Ern

Sorry Ern, what I meant to say was that we should have the selection process, either a squad or an XI finalised by next week.

As far as I'm concerned if we go for a squad we pretty much have our XIII. We just need to decide if thats the way we want to go.

If we decide to go for a straight XI is Rashid in our out?

At the moment we are just going round in circles.....

__________________
Mark.

If we pick a squad of say 15 players, to be used as a pool - Then I will support that.

If we go for the best X1 players plus reserves, then I could not support that because it would in effect mean we would be starting selecting the team all over again. To me the side was picked last fall. Read the polls and threads. The side was picked bar dotting the I's and crossing the T's.

I take your point, but we did that last fall - what's the point in going over old ground?. Rashid was not selected then, so why should we open old arguments?. One reason against Rashid is the e mail I published above. Rashid was not ready in 2007, Yorkshire admitted they were "shielding" him, so why should we think he is ready?. other reasons include he is not a good enough all rounder (YET) to keep out of the side either a specialist bat, or bowler.
I will support Mark's compromise of a squad, but only a squad.

I will support finishing the selection precess based on positions in the fall of 2007.

I will not support a best X1, with reserves making up a squad - and then selecting a team from such a squad. In effect that would be just the same as choosing a new WAT A Team, and just disregarding the selectors wishes in 2007 - the arguments would remain the same.
I am prepared to be flexable as far a a squad is concerned. Or sticking with the wishes of the selectors 2007, but no further as far as I am concerned.

__________________
Ern

That was my interpretation of how the squad system should work. The best 13,14,15 players should be picked. I cant see the point either of picking an XI and then having reserves.

I agree, apart from we are still having endless debates if Rashid should be in the XI.

__________________
Mark.

I do think of the WAT XI as a squad rather than as a team: it's the players you'd expect to be added to the Test squad in the event of a run of injuries. As such you are looking for cover for all positions:

3-4 batsmen
2-3 seamers
2 spinners
1 gloveman

That's showcasing specialist players on the fringes of the Test side... leaving us scope for free-choices: perhaps for batsmen who bowl, for bowlers who bat or for a so-called wicket-keeper-batsman (aka backstop).

Sadly, the spirit of showcasing promising and deserving players seems to get rather lost in some of the arguments in this thread, with (to me rather spurious) concerns about the balance of the side and whether players are "ready" - we're picking XI players to showcase depth and variety of talent... so we need to think as selectors of an exhibition side (picked for what they may go on to do), not of a Test XI (picked with more of a focus on short-term / medium-term results)!

Thats all well and good but if you are going to pick a batsman who can bowl he'd better be a good bat in the first place like, say, Kallis as opposed to say, a Ramps. Ditto for the bowling with Broad being a good example - a decent bat but lacking in test class as a bowler.

As for the keeper situation this has been debated endlessly (and will continue to ). In modern cricket the keeper has to be able to bat and average 35+ in test cricket, surely our A selection must recognise that fact.

If a player is not ready how can he be on the fringes of the test side??

__________________
Mark.

I don't think any teams apart from Sri Lanka have any 'keepers who average 35- and even Sri Lanka are now starting to play Prassana Jaywardene. I think a 'keeper has to be able to contribute with the bat (which I suppose means an average of 27-28ish) and be good with the gloves. Prior, even though he averaged 40-odd with the bat, was dropped because he wasn't a reliable catcher, and his drops were costing England.

In any case, Prior's the only one in recent times who has averaged 35+, but he's played too many tests and is therefore ineligible, and I haven't heard of anyone else being spoken of as a 'keeper with the potential to average 35+.