Daniel Brigham: Lucky Luke Wright
October 8th, 2009 by Daniel Brigham in England, International, Test cricket
Has there ever been a selection more wrong? Not when it’s Wright.
The England selectors have obviously seen something promising in Luke Wright’s two fifties and seven single-figure scores from his 25 ODIs to pick him in the Test squad for South Africa.
He had a good Championship season for Sussex – averaging 48 with the bat and 34 with his bowling (which is much-improved) – but that’s it. Nothing more than good. He does look a bit Australian, but sometimes even that’s just not good enough to play for England. He’s also billed as a quick-scoring entertainer who will win matches for you in a matter of minutes. This has yet to happen.
It’s hard to see where he’ll fit in the Test side. He’s not good enough to bat in the top six – which could be just one Colly buttock injury away from happening. Pushing him down to seven would mean he would form part of a five-man attack, a balance that Andy Flower appears to favour. But will Wright really do a better job than Stuart Broad at seven, especially as that frees up a spot for a specialist bowler?
Australia made the mistake of bringing an extra allrounder rather than another specialist batsman to the Ashes, and England have done the same here.
Here’s my team for the first Test:
Strauss, Cook, Bell, Pietersen, Trott, Prior, Broad, Plunkett, Swann, Anderson, Onions
Daniel Brigham is assistant editor of The Wisden Cricketer
Posted in England, International, Test cricket | 10 Comments »
October 8th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
So you are better qualified to judge Luke Wright than Marcus Trescothick?
http://tinyurl.com/ycc45xe
October 8th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Ben, you’re right. Everyone having exactly the same opinions is the way forward!
October 9th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I definitely think Ben’s right. I also completely agree with Daniel Brigham’s comment.
October 10th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
It’s cos he looks like Watson.
I can’t think of any other reason.
And good grief, most of Oz don’t want Watson in the test team.
So that fits as well.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
You English have an obsession with allrounders don’t you Dan? All these ex-players turned commentators want Broad to be ‘the all-rounder’. In the 90s your allrounders were not good enough and yet you kept on selecting them. It’s like an addiction. Here in Australia I have cringed watching our selectors search for an allrounder to match Flintoff. If you haven’t got an allrounder good enough pick a sixth batsman or fifth bowler. Please.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Spot on Queenslander, I believe the selectors have a history of doing this as well.
More recently they went round County Cricket trying to find the English Adam Gilchrist to open the batting in the ODI team.
If the players don’t exist - which they don’t - just decide on the make up of your team (5 or 6 batsmen, etc) and go with them.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Mr Brigham, don’t u think the following two changes would make this team more balanced? Sidebottom and Collingwood in place of Onions and Plunkett. Collingwood can’t be the sacrificial lamb everytime. Drop Trott if you have to! I agree that he had a great debut, but that doesn’t make him an automatic selection bypassing Collingwood’s years of experience and loyal service to English cricket. Moreover, Colly’s form has been excellent in the Champions Trophy and he can bowl at least 10-15 overs a day and more often than not, pick up a couple of wickets, especially if it seams around.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I am 16 years old and love cricket but i completely agree with R.Sen about Collingwood. His years of experience and determination add another dimension to a lackluster England middle order. There are many examples of this determination, more recently at Cardiff in the first Ashes Test. If England had lost that test do you honestly believe we would have won the ashes? I certainly don’t. I also agree that Luke Wright has definitely not done enough to warrant a place in the test squad. This is another example of the England selectors looking for a young guy that will set the world alight. He isn’t that guy. He’s out there, but it is not Luke Wright. England need to wait and nurture the up and coming talent that is available to them from County Cricket before they are going to become the best Test side in the World.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:52 am
R. Sen
I would rather see neither of Collingwood or Sidebottom in the team. Neither are matchwinners. While I appreciate Collingwood’s match-saving abilities, he will never win a match for England. Jonathan Trott already has, and deserves to retain his place.
As for Sidebottom, he is a deadly bowler when bowling at 90mph, but he doesn’t seem to be able to manage this without breaking down. Any slower than that and, while he does tie up and end, he won’t take wickets.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I’ve blogged before that I like Wright - he’s got chutzpah - and sometimes self-confidence beats talent. If only Owais Shah ( a far more talented cricketer) had Wright’s chutzpah. I doubt that he will make it as a Test cricketer though - but then I thought that about Colly (Average: 42.44 in 93 innings HS:206). So what do I know? Good luck to him - might be good on SA wickets if he gets a chance….