Should England pick Luke Wright for the first Test?

Posted by

Luke Wright looking like he's about to speak with a lispProbably not. We don’t see Luke Wright getting a great many more runs than Ryan Sidebottom and we don’t see him taking many more wickets than Ian Bell.

We quite like him, but bouncing around like a giddy dog does not a Test cricketer make. It would be good if it did, because there aren’t enough animals in Test cricket and the odd dog would address that, but it doesn’t.

Luke Wright is not a bad batsman and not a bad bowler. For us, that doesn’t get him in the eleven – no matter how desperate England are to balance their side.

Plus his mouth’s weird and it freaks us out a bit.

20 comments

  1. Think the Bell analogy should be used with his batting. Don’t think Bell will score any more runs than Wright, so may as well stick Wright in at 7. At least Wright doesn’t look like he’s shitting himself whenever he’s batting. Better than playing 6 batsmen, or having Broad and Swann at 7 and 8.

  2. Can’t see how he deserves to be in the side at the moment. I have howevere, seen significant improvement in his batting technique and if this contiinues then he coulb be a genuine contender for a test place.

  3. I can’t take Luke Wright’s face seriously. He just looks like he’s immature. Not the hallmark of a test player.

    He’s also a bit of a Jermain Jenas (sorry, football reference). Jack of no trades, master of none.

  4. Daisy describes his look as “beaky”.

    Which makes me think of Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich.

    Which is a long way from the image of a test cricketer.

    But you never know………..

  5. two Watsons would have been too much to live with. thankfully he’s not quite as irritating as the original. mainly because he sucks. ass.

  6. It’d be easy to dismiss him as a jack-of al trades and master of none but for the fact that England have no master to replace him.

Comments are closed.