Selectors' Surprise Could Prove Wright Move

Sorry, couldn't resist.

A sub-headline on the BBC Sport website declared Liam Plunkett's inclusion in the Test squad a "surprise recall", but the prize for biggest surprise of all surely goes to Luke Wright being handed a pair of full England whites.

To be honest, I hadn't even considered it as an option, and at first assumed it a misprint born of a desire to break news of the squad before anyone else. It wasn't, and I'm coming round to the conclusion, why not?

For a start, he seems to have replaced Tim Bresnan in the curious replacement-for-Flintoff-but-won't-actually-play role, which is fair enough. Bresnan had a weak West Indies at his potential mercy during his only two Test appearances back in May. He did fine, and has since impressed in 50-over cricket, but for a bowling all-rounder, he's failed to convince that his primary skill offers enough threat in any form of the game. Does Wright's?

It remains to be seen, and probably won't be answered during the four Tests in South Africa. Unless England are battered into changing the make-up of their side, this tour is likely to be fruitful only in terms of experience. The following tour of Bangladesh seems more likely for a potential debut.

He made the right noises, as anyone not named Chris Gayle tends to do, in an interview with Spin Magazine back in September last year, saying: "Ask any young cricketer what their dream is and I would still like to think that it is about playing Test cricket for England. For me, Test cricket is the ultimate goal."

Wright has yet to forge a relationship with the middle-ground in his 25 ODIs and 14 T20Is so far; he's been all or nothing. From big-hitting, high-pressure batting and tight and bright bowling, to the briefest of contributions, he's been in and out of the team, shunted up and down the batting order and used at the death here, discarded there, with the ball. Throughout though, he's shown signs he belongs.

He bowls at 85 mph, can swing the ball, took 21 wickets in eight Championship matches (div 1) this season, hits big when needed, but also has seven first-class centuries from 57 matches, and has shown glimpses of stickability in the 50-over game. He fields brilliantly too.

No doubt he'd relish the opportunity to play eye-catching innings for his country, without a constant battle against time, overs remaining, and the need to resort to the sort of innings-ending shot which saw him clean-bowled by Peter Siddle during his impressive 48 against Australia last Friday.

In a word, or four, he's worth a chance. And more importantly, I didn't end on a pun. Just couldn't find the Wright one.

CT Match 4 (v Aus): To Attack Or Not To Attack?

2/10/09 - Australia won by 9 wickets.

The mini-revival is over. Despite the impressive efforts of Luke Wright and Tim Bresnan, England lost this match because of their batting in the first 20 overs - during which they lost six wickets - and the inability of their bowlers to match the penetration demonstrated by Pakistan in skittling Australia in their final group game.

Bresnan's inclusion meant England entered the match looking a breakthrough bowler light. However, the brutal simplicity of his batting - in compiling 80 from 76 balls - was the major factor in his team posting a vaguely competitive score, even if it did seem about 40 runs below par.

Much debate centered around the approach of the top order, who tried to play with an attacking freedom which led to the loss of too many early wickets, despite runs flowing at a slick rate. They played their shots, and whilst few were reckless and the boundary found with refreshing regularity, the tactic did not appear to change despite the mounting wickets column. Was this the right approach?

I believe so. For a start, it worked against Sri Lanka, and - most devastatingly - against the hosts. It is also favourable when compared to the top-order's mindset at England's last major 50-over tournament, the 2007 World Cup. The cautious approach adopted by the top-order in that tournament hampered England badly. Such was the negativity and prizing of wickets-in-hand above all else, that against South Africa, in the Super Eights, England were 9-0 after 7 overs.

If going after the opposition early on works, it puts a team in a fantastic position to win a match. The same simply can't be said of platform-building defence and timidity.

Should England have adapted the approach as the wickets began to tumble? Possibly. Collingwood is usually ideal for that role, and maybe he could have consolidated for a few overs when he entered the fray in the 12th over. But he's in fine form, and understandably backed himself as he shot to 34 from 30 balls. His wicket was a huge blow, but he was pursuing a match-winning innings - an admirable, and, given his form, realistic mindset to be in.

Right tactic, poor execution. On Sky, Nick Knight - unsurprisingly in support of the positive batting - said he thought if England maintained the approach they'd win more games than they lose. That would be an improvement.

The Champions Trophy 2009

The ICC Champions Trophy kicks off today in South Africa. Weary England barely have time to breathe before their first match - Sri Lanka on Friday.

What is the Champions Trophy?

A mini, less-important World Cup, this year to be contested by the eight highest ranked ODI sides in the world. Contrary to popular opinion, that includes England.

Australia won the last tournament in 2006, and England reached the final in 2004, before losing in improbable fashion to the West Indies. The odds for those two reaching this year's final are not high.

Do England have a chance?

In theory everyone does, which is rare for a major international tournament in any sport. It's the top eight sides in the world, all of whom have been proficient in this format at different times. However, in practice it would appear we can cross England (and the West Indies) off the list of potential winners due to dire form, crass home ODI series scheduling and non-stop cricket for a core group of players. That said, whether they're recovering from defeat to Holland in the World T20, or demolition by Australia at Headingley, England seem intent on styling themselves as comeback kings. This would be their neatest trick yet.

Are they taking the right squad?

Seemingly not, although they were hampered by a squad submission deadline which predated Jonathan Trott's reintroduction to international cricket. The luxury of a post-Australia ODI series decision would have been ideal, but it gives the consistently average performers (Morgan, Bopara, Bresnan) the chance to snuff out a few question marks.

Who will win it?

Take your pick between the top sides in the world. South Africa have the local knowledge and will be fresher than most England players will remember being since their teenage years. Australia have some serious form behind them, and Pakistan are capable of literally anything - which could be good or bad - but I'm going for Sri Lanka.

Strong batting, led by Tillakaratne Dilshan, who's been unstoppable in one-day cricket for the past year, and thrived on the South African pitches during an explosive IPL spell with the Delhi Daredevils, is backed up by the irrepressible four Ms attack: Mathews, Malinga, Mendis and Muralitharan. England have practically no time to consider this prospect before they meet it head on. It's probably just as well.

It's a big tournament for...

Everyone - England are crying out for a new one-day hero - but Paul Collingwood and Owais Shah in particular. Collingwood has been a fine limited-overs player for England, and has usually managed to up his game when required in the past. This is one such time, as the burden of all-year-round cricket, across three formats, is starting to see his form slide.

Shah is in better touch than his scores in the NatWest series suggest, but his Benny Hill impersonation between the wickets and genuinely poor fielding must have put him in somewhere approaching last chance territory.

Who cares?

Well no-one usually, the Champions Trophy having been out-muscled in recent times by its bullish yet disorganised big brother - the World Cup. However, this year it's perilously close to actually meaning something. Recent 50-over World Cups have been woefully administrated, this is the ICC's chance to show lessons have been learned. Interest here - and in Australia - is likely to be fragile and entirely performance-dependent, but this time that's thanks to the ECB's late-summer flogging of both the format and the players, rather than the ICC.

The 50-over game itself has been taking a battering - from fans, commentators and players alike. England have done it no favours over the past few weeks - the rest of the world now have a prime opportunity to rectify that.

Sixth ODI (v Aus) Reaction

17/09/09 - Australia won by 111 runs.

England must now dip into the reserves of courage and character which served them so well between the Headlingley and Oval Tests earlier this summer, in order to avoid an unprecedented 7-0 series whitewash.

Set 297 to win - two less than their score on this ground on Tuesday - England folded meekly on 185 after 41 overs, leaving top-scorer Bresnan - who has shown glimpses of resolve with the bat this series - stranded on 31.

Anderson, subdued since mid-summer, returned to form with the ball (4-55) but all other positives were conspicuous by their absence - a fact that was not lost on Strauss, who has talked, as well as played, a good game all summer.

An England win on Sunday would not dampen the humiliation of such heavy defeat, but it would at least offer some respite. Strauss must remind his men that they've turned things around previously this summer, when the stakes were much higher.

Central Contracts: Harmison And Panesar Dropped

Despite Andy Flower reiterating that "central contracts don't decide selection - performances do," there are signs in yesterday's central contracts announcement of the direction in which England will head over the coming year. Onions, Swann and Prior - three of England's leading lights in the last twelve months - have been awarded full contracts for the first time. Panesar and Harmison - along with Patel, Ambrose and the retired Michael Vaughan - have lost theirs.

Ian Bell also received one of the eleven full-time deals - an indication he'll be on the teamsheet for the first Test in South Africa, though hopefully at four, with KP moving up to three.

With their contracts taken away, the onus is firmly on Panesar and Harmison, and neither can have many complaints. The former has slipped behind Adil Rashid in the pecking order, who, with his all-round skills will be hard to overtake. Harmison does not have the threat of a like-for-like replacement breathing down his neck. The news will test his hunger, his options being retire now or add another chapter to his jekyll and hyde England career.

Full Contracts

Anderson, Bell, Broad, Collingwood, Cook, Onions, Pietersen, Prior, Sidebottom, Strauss, Swann

Incremental Contracts

Bopara, Bresnan, Flintoff, Rashid, Shah, Trott, Wright

T20 Squad Reaction

The selectors have drawn the following conclusions from the World T20 in June; they've dropped Mascarenhas, Key, Foster and Napier, and called up Trott, Prior, Denly and Bresnan for the upcoming games against Australia. Flintoff returns from injury, whilst KP has succumbed to it.

I think they've got all four of the form-related changes right. Mascarenhas has never done much wrong for England, but it could be argued he hasn't quite done enough right since his debut two summers ago.

It would be unfair to judge Key on his sole World T20 appearance - the ill-fated tournament opener against the Netherlands - and with a career T20 average just shy of 30 and captaincy credentials he deserves his place on the selectors radar. But in a way, despite being capped just once in the format, he is synonymous with England - good, but not quite good enough.

Foster was a success at the World T20 in keeping terms, but was one of a band of middle order hitters who came up short. At the time I felt there was a case for including him and Prior (as a batsman), but the latter's glovework in the two months since suggests England can dispense with Foster.

England's unwillingness to use Napier probably says it all. Certainly one to monitor - as anyone capable of scoring a 20 over 150 should be - but so far he's failed to convince that that innings wasn't a one-off.

Denly Named In Champions Trophy Squad

Joe Denly is the only new face in England's 15 man Champions Trophy squad, and a welcome inclusion. Andrew Strauss will lead the team, who will take on the Australians in seven ODIs before heading to the tournament in South Africa next month. KP misses out through injury, and Mascarenhas has been dropped.

Collingwood keeps the captaincy - in the absence of Strauss - for the forthcoming T20 internationals against Australia, and Denly and Test new-boy Trott have been included.

Only one new face puts paid to the significant changes I was hoping for, and I'd love to have seen Michael Lumb make the cut, but Bresnan, Rashid and Morgan are largely untried at this level, so hopefully they'll get a chance to impress. Overall, there is potential for fielding a relatively new-look team, which, given the lack of consistency of the current side and the relatively unimportant nature of the Champions trophy, is what I hope the management go with.

ODI series v Australia and Champions Trophy

Strauss (capt)

Anderson

Bopara

Bresnan

Broad

Collingwood

Denly

Flintoff

Morgan

Prior

Rashid

Shah

Sidebottom

Swann

Wright

T20 Squad v Australia

Same, minus Strauss and plus Trott.