Due to the current inability to select England's 2007 side and no agreement on a proposed squad, should we select future a-teams as a squad of XIII or XIV (to include a reserve keeper)?

This would stop the arguments about "the balance of the team" and would allow a team that could perform in all conditions from Headingley to Perth to Calcutta......

__________________
Mark.

I've voted yes, but I think that a "best XI" followed by reserves to make up the squad is the best idea (as we did for the Australia XI). But at the same time, it might be difficult if we try to select a team for a country such as West Indies, in which the teams only play 5 or 6 matches a year.

But having a first XI with reserves is the best solution, as it identifies the very best players for that season, but also allows for "horses for courses" type situations. If it's a squad, then I favour a XIV rather than a XIII.

Thats a good reason for having a squad. Surely we have to pick a team to play on any surface anywhere in the world.

__________________
Mark.

I will have a think on this before voting p_c.

The problem is we pick a 'WAT-A Team', not a squad. I would vote for a squad for this year due to the exceptional circumstances (it is very late), and see how we go from there.

I have no objection in principle to a squad, rather than a team being chosen - but not a first 1X and reserves, that would not work.

__________________
Ern

I see your point but the team could be the squad and a final XI comes from that squad if you know what i mean.

I agree with that, I'm not too keen on reserves either, we should pick the best 13 players. i.e Best 2 openers, best 4 middle order bats, 4 seamers, 2 spinners plus 1 keeper. My reasoning on having a squad is to cover all eventualities. A squad would enable a strong XI to be picked wherever in the world a game was to take place, because surely we should be picking a team that could in theory play (and compete) anywhere in the world. A squad would also end arguments about the "balance of the team" because that would depend on where in the world team was playing.

Perhaps this is something we can all discuss over the next few days to enable us to decide which direction we will take with A-team selection. hen we can get England's 2007 side finalised .

On a secondary note a squad could also help end stalemates in selection i.e Rashid. He would probably get into most peoples squad, but would only get into Rachaels XI

__________________
Mark.

It's a good suggestion and worthy of trialling. We can always revert back to the original "best XI" system if the "squad" system fails to come up with a balanced side in all conditions.

__________________
Administrator

I have voted yes to pie_chucker proposal - in truth I liked the first system better, but if this change means we get a team. - 'Amen' to that.

But I do not vote for Rashid at all, but will not oppose his being is say a 13 man squad.

I believe that we can always revert back, if this system fails because of silly compromises.

__________________
Ern

My concern is that we stick to a core of players based on replacing Test players:

Openers (at least two)
Middle order batsmen (no more than three)
Glovemen (at least one)
Seamers (at least two, probably three)
Spinners (at least two)

If we expand BEYOND such numbers we should NOT go beyond the 3rd middle order batsman or 3rd best seamer or 2nd best spinner: to do so gets us into players who are so marginal as to be unworthy of inclusion.

If we go beyond XI it should be with more than one discipline to offer: a batsman who is a great slip fielder and who can take gloves if the wicket-keeper is injured, or who bowls (seam or spin) or a bowler (seamer or spinner) who can bat at 8.

Of course... this year's batsmen include Bopara (who can bowl seam and can field exceptionally) and the likes of Broad and Swann (both no 8s)... so the squad should not need to be much (if any) bigger than the XI.

It will have to be Rachael if you want Rashid, because I doubt you will find much support for 2 spinners. And I also doubt selectors will choose the untried Rashid over Swann.

Don't forget Rachael we have all seen the seamers dominate against New Zealand, so with respect why would we want to select a bowling attack with 2 spin bowlers.

I think in all the polls there was not enough support for Rashid, and even with a squad we might want another specialist bowler/batsman.
But I am also not against a run of between a two spinner/2 seamer attack, against a one spinner/ 3 seam attack.

__________________
Ern

I actually trialled this during the last New Zealand selection process. It worked well at reducing the length of the thread, but then the NZ process doesn't involve so many selectors.

Also, in terms of realism - if these teams were to be selected for a real tournament, then a squad - not a team - would be required.