Luke Wright

Thought he deserved a mention, for hitting the fastest ever Australian domestic T20 century off 44 balls, great effort by him.

There's another Luke Wright???

Well done, Luke, that is an impressive century!!

On his day he is fantastic, unfortunately those days are far too few and. Well done today though.

fantastic stuff from luke wright

Go on Lukey, Luke, Luke!

I might be biased but he is a huge talent and was misused by England. Especially bowling wise.

He was given loads of chances in every position. He simply didn't have the quality to be successful consistently at international level: he struggled against genuine pace and even more so against quality spin. He didn't have the nous to knock the ball around and get off strike when struggling. Mentally he wasn't tough enough.

A good county basher, but no more than that.

Wright was constantly made the scape-goat for England tho, if he made a good score (such as against the WIndies) then it was followed by complaints he didnt score even more.

With the ball I think he could have done a good job for England

I agree he could have bowled more.

I don't think England ever knew what to do with him TBH, but in part that was because, well, he wasn't very good. IMO

His batting isn't good enough to hold down a proper batsman's spot, and he didn't bowl enough to be considered a proper all-rounder either. Decent T20 player, because in T20s quick 20s and 30s can be enough, and he offered a decent bowling option as well as being a good fielder. Put together some important partnerships (with Morgan mostly) in our victorious T20 campain.

I would still pick him in our T20 squad. With Stokes' finger as bad as it is, we're lacking an all-rounder. He's useful in T20s and still could play a role for us.

With the amount of T20 players we've used this year, due to injury and experimentation, our first choice XI isn't obvious. It could well be:

01 Kieswetter, 02 Hales, 03 Pietersen, 04 Morgan, 05 Bairstow, 06 Buttler, 07 Patel, 08 Bresnan, 09 Swann, 10 Broad, 11 Dernbach

But that only gives 5 bowling options, 6 if England pick Bopara over Bairstow.

Having Wright in for Bairstow could be an option, with Patel's position being flexible between 5 and 7.

Picked as an allrounder but hardly ever bowled. He was misused but was he really good enough.

I agree he had quite a few chances and didn't quite perform often enough. If his bowling isn't going to be used much there are better batsmen.

As a bowling allrounder he is better than Ravi tho, batting allrounder I think its tighter but Ravi probably just nicks it.

I'd go the other way around, Gregers. If we're talking about T20.

Bopara has done surprisingly well as a T20 bowler as late. Wright was always a trier, but didn't take many wickets.

Batting wise, I'd take Wright every time in a T20. Ravi's SR is under 100, at least Wright will try to accelerate.

i would agree with m@tt, if were starting to drift off the run rate having someone like Wright is always handy. I do like Wright as a bowler but Bopara offers something different and it seems to be effective.

I think people forget just how bad he was for England, the majority of his games he didnt contribute with bat or ball.
Despite his repuatation and abilities to hit these runs at club level his strike rate isnt any special either.
Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 4s 6s Ct St
ODIs 46 35 4 701 52 22.61 785 89.29 0 2 62 18 17 0
T20Is 30 25 2 355 71 15.43 283 125.44 0 1 33 11 10 0

Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10
ODIs 46 36 1020 863 15 2/34 2/34 57.53 5.07 68.0 0 0 0
T20Is 30 11 156 219 6 1/5 1/5 36.50 8.42 26.0 0 0 0


Those are not the stats of an international number 6/7
I can undertsand why he was consistently selected, but its pretty obvious why the selecters gave up on him in the end too. Definatly a case of the Ramprakashes with him, hes done it all at domestic level but was a flop on the big stage even in succesful teams.

Pretty special innings there, but he did score 25, 16, 9 , 0 27 , 1 in his Twent20's prior to that and has only taken one wicket in 5 games for Melbourne so far.


Dont go kidding yourselves that he should be playing for England. He'll never be an 10 over bowler in ODIs, and he'll never be a good enough bat for number 6. His nickname of Luxury is about right, obviously it would be great to hve a guy who once a season puts in a match defining score like that ...trouble is you have to carry them the rest of the time. 3 fifties from 60 bats for England is poor even if you make excuses for him being a finisher, and the last of those came in 2009. Of course theres a few handy small blasts of runs at the end in his career too, but far more faliures.
Distinct lack of big contributions with the ball too, excuses of being underbowled aside hes never taken more than 2 wickets in a game for England.

IMO wright never settled because everygame he was shifted up and down the order, some games he bowled 10 overs some games he didnt bowl...he wasnt given a defined role and therefore everytime he went out there he didnt know what he was doing....he can do a job in the t20 side but his odi chances have sadly now gone.

cricketfan90 wrote:IMO wright never settled because everygame he was shifted up and down the order, some games he bowled 10 overs some games he didnt bowl...he wasnt given a defined role and therefore everytime he went out there he didnt know what he was doing....he can do a job in the t20 side but his odi chances have sadly now gone.

Exactly my thoughts cf.

Had England turned around and told Wright he would be the t20 opener and bowl an over or two most games then I'm sure he would have done better. Being 1, then 7, then 3, then 8 etc really hurt him

Simply wasn't quite good enough. A decent cricketer in all aspects, but not what England are looking for.

He opened for quite a while, and slogged a few in one of the early games before teams realised he couldn't play short quick bowling or spin. In ODIs he was always a late order hitter, and never very good.

Got to agree with PSW and FoF. Not international class.