Agreed,but why mention Schofield?

I thought he had a better season that that, he could bat - I think he made a 50 for England.

I also thought he had done better with the ball, I stand corrected.

Edit: Schofield did make a 50 for England, also his strike rate in county cricket is 62.4, not bad for a spinner.

Also his overall bowling average is 195 wickets from 76 matches @32 is not that bad.

Also his overall batting average is nearly 30, not bad over 76 matches.

I still think Swann is the better selection though long term.

__________________
Ern

I agree that Rashid shouldn't be selected at the expense of Swann and the only possibility of selecting Rashid will be at the expense of either a middle-order batsman or one of the openers. That scenario would depend on whether we agree that Rashid deserves his place in the side ahead of a specialist batsman and whether we agree that the chosen keeper is good enough to bat at #5.

For instance, if one of the openers was dropped, who would that be and which middle-order batsman do we agree is capable of opening? If we can't find a suitable stand-in opener then we'd have to drop a middle-order bat. But is that fair? The middle-order contenders all seem to deserve their place ahead of Rashid. Shah, Carberry and Sales all seem to be automatic selections. I couldn't honestly find a case to drop any of them just so we can include Rashid. My feeling is that it might be easier next year to get Rashid into the team when the likes of Shah and Sales may not be qualified for selection. With an abundance this year of good middle-order bats the only option I feel to get Rashid into the side is to drop one of the openers provided we can agree on a suitable stand-in opener - possibly Shah. No case could be made for Carberry or Sales to open. If we don't think Shah could be a success as an opener then Rashid can't get into the side as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure what gives you the impression that we are over-run with middle order batting options here: Shah's case towers above the case being made by anyone else... in that he's both widely rated in terms of talent AND is backing his case up with great performances. He's followed in the pecking order by Bopara (current flavour of the month)... but and with them, the strong candidates end.

No other uncapped middle order batsman seems to me to be even close to an England debut.

Sales sails on but doesn't appear to be even on the radar as far as an England place is concerned. He's apparently well down the pecking order from Bopara (who seems certain to get a role in the England setup sooner or later despite some lingering concerns that he's just a bits and pieces player with a strong temperament).

Has Carberry made a significantly stronger case than Hildreth? Or than his team mate Michael Brown? All are credible... but none are looking as likely to get into the England setup as Shah does (this year) or as Joyce did (last year) or as Bell did (however long ago it was that he burst onto the scene).

Rashid seems to me to be far more likely to get a game in the near future: should Panesar be ruled out for a few games with injury... he could even play in the forthcoming Tests in Sri Lanka... and his inclusion alongside Swann in our side would offer the team perfect balance (as Gooch's preferred "two contrasting spinners and three contrasting seamers" has long been the elusive dream of discerning selectors, captains and coaches).

Let's be clear on one thing. Some players may seem to be ignored by England management, eg Newman, Keedy and Sales, but we are selecting players on merit - not whether they are flavour of the month by the England coach or selectors. Put that argument away. If that was a major consideration then why don't we simply base our selections on players who have recently played in the England A team or England Lions? Why don't we just follow England management's lead instead of being a credible, independent alternative?

Rachael - with respect we are selecting a team - not a squad.And with that in mind we can't selecet two spinners, and there is no guarentee that Rashid would come good with the bat.

We don't have the openers to drop as Mike suggested we 'could' do, I would not like to see Shah opening for an England side.

To drop a middle order batsman just to place Rashid in the side would be folly, what can Rashid possibly offer that Sales or Carberry or even Shah should not be selected.

Rashid will get his turn next year, I can't see any was that he can be fit in - we should not IMO drop an opener as that is a specialist possition, as is a middle order batsman, and no way can we have two spinners in a team that would not just play on the subcontinent, but on pitches in England (in summer) and the hard pitches in Australia.

I just can see a place for Rashid this time round, as much as I would love to see an English leggie.
Swann has earned his place, so that possition is not IMO up for grabs.

__________________
Ern

I'd never advocate slavishly following the whims of the national selectors... but Flanflinger and others have constantly noted (quite rightly) that having the potential to get an awful lot better matters at least as much as convincing us of merit on current form. That's not to say that we should pick kids on hunches over proven performers... but that Shah (for instance) makes a stronger case (because of the room for improvement that has been noted by England selectors) than Sales (whose solid returns have never led selectors.. or indeed many others... to really talk him up as a player destined for Test cricket.

I've just looked up a Surrey game from this summer in which Harbhajan and Schofield, between them, bowled 120 (60%) of Surrey's overs. Looking further... how about this game: 08 Aug 2007 Sussex v. Warwickshire Yup... Saqlain Mushtaq one end, Mushtaq Ahmed the other... and a few overs from Wright and Yardy to mix things up. Oh... and in Sussex's second innings.. Louden and Troughten, between them, bowled half of Warwickshire's overs!

I'm quite sure I could also find examples of recent Aussie matches involving two specialist spinners.

I'm not suggesting that two spinners are an absolute necessity for an 'A' side.. but let's not kid ourselves - a captain with a pair of contrasting spinners who could bowl in tandem and have both shown they can take wickets throughout the season is a lot better off than a captain with just one of those slow bowling options.

This comment is a complete contradiction. By noting that selectors have left Sales out in the cold and using this as justification for dismissing his credentials and claims for selection to the WAT team is proof that you are being influenced by the whims of the national selectors. How can you possibly think that Nick Compton is more deserving of a future England career than David Sales? Let's see if Nick Compton has a batting average in first-class cricket of 41.6 after 171 matches. Owais Shah has a first-class batting average of 43.0 after 181 matches. Sales is not far behind that which makes him an automatic choice for this year's team irrespective of what the England selectors think about Sales.

Surely the thing to be influenced by is not "selectors" but the informed judgement of the coaches, captains, players and observers who have followed the careers of all of the players, who in many cases know the players personally and who have a sophisticated enough grasp of batting to make a sound qualitative judgement about a player's potential at Test level.

I'm not suggesting we throw out all the stats... but it's important to note that the differences between (say) Sales and Shah go BEYOND mere stats, to note Shah's perfect stillness at the crease, low grip, exceedingly quick hands and relative ease against even the best bowling... and to note that he seems to have that bit of extra time, when playing his shots - that he has the game to not only make the step up... but to be a little bit special.

We might still argue for Sales: we did last year. We might suggest that despite Shah's greater talent we have reservations. What we should NOT do is ignore the informed judgement of the many informed observers who know the game of both men... and most especially the informed judgement of the national selectors, academy folk and so on - most of whom are in the roles they have got specifically because they are widely regarded as rather good at making such qualitative judgements.

What we do need to do in taking on board any enthusiasm for a player is be clear about what, specifically, attracts: we do need to recognise that some coaches are more taken with attitude and "character" than with technique and class... that some have an obsession with batsmen who look to dominate, with extreme pace or with players being "multi-dimensional" - something that comes up every year with glovemen (where enthusuasm can be for glovework despite the batting, for batting despite the glovework and - in the cases of Jones, Nixon and Prior - for little more than what they bring to the dressingroom, their noise levels behind the pegs and well... um... yes... pass.

Ive argued against plenty of players who have been "in" with the England heirachy: what I hope I've never done is ignored the reasons WHY a player is "in" with the England heirachy.

Seeing as this is the last thread Ive contributed in, can I offer
Denly
Horton
Shah
Hildreth
Sales
Bopara
Ambrose
Swann
Broad
Tremlett
Ali/Davies (see bowling thread)

Shah and Sales pick themself as far as I'm concerned, Hildreth is progressively improving and is a top class fielder as well. The last slot I was torn between Rashid, Bopara and Patel, all of whom could be in the side but as a middle order batsman I consider Bopara the leading candidate. If the team were to play on a turning pitch then by all means select one of the other two, who I have no doubt would be more than capable at A-team level.