You can tell that after 3 ODI's against Canada and Bermuda that were not even televised? Findlay has played every match since that innings against Australia and has done diddly squat and looked amateurish as well.
I can tell that based on him being barely above average in one of the least competitive first-class tournaments in the world. I'm not saying he will never become international class, but it's virtually impossible to justify that he is international class based on so little. There's much more to strongly suggest that he is not.
I have seen both of them bowl and I believe they are the future of West Indian fast bowling.
The selectors agree with you, and that's helped us uncover gems like Adam Sanford while the likes of Amit Jaggernauth may never receive half the chances. There's talent in the fast bowling ranks in West Indies, but the young bowlers who actually know how to bowl tend to be spinners. Talent doesn't win you Test matches.
Basically, I don't agree with picking every talented fast bowler, because I don't believe that fast bowlers will revive West Indies cricket. Good bowlers are the key- fast or slow.
I am willing to take the risk of them being manhandled in one game as they will learn a hell of a lot from playing against England.
Getting hit about for hours by Test batsmen only really teaches one thing- "you need to bowl better". That's something they:
1. Should already know, via common sense;
2. Should learn to do in domestic cricket.
Btw neither of them were manhandled against Sri Lanka on a painfully slow pitch in Guyana.
Roach's 0-108 (27 overs) could've been worse, but it's extremely poor all the same. Dawes was better, admittedly, but did most of his bowling when the pitch had worn a bit.
I'm not opposed to one or the other playing, but both would be a bad miss for West Indies 'A' IMO. We don't want to play the tourists into form, like we did with the SL tour match you've made reference to.