Have England got the Wright Idea?

Luke Wright is for me, something of an anomaly in an otherwise obvious Squad for England in the forthcoming World Cup and the remaining One Day Internationals (ODI's) against Australia.

England have persisted with having him in their ODI team for the last few years and there appears to be no obvious reason why, other than simply because he is also in the 20-20 squad. His batting average is a measly 20.40 and his "best" batting position is still yet to be found with his most recent efforts coming from number 8. Admittedly, his recent inclusion was due to the late omission of Talisman KP who normally bats at number 4. Are England really suggesting that their best replacement batsmen for this tour is 25 year old All rounder Wright? I surely hope not.

Perhaps the inclusion of Wright is because, being an all rounder, England can justify his late batting position by bowling his medium pacers occasionally and he could be included in the team as either a batsmen or a bowler. Scrutiny of his bowling record however would suggest that bowling him in an ODI may be more beneficiary to the Opposite side. Statistics of 14 wickets from 143 overs prove this may indeed be the case. Instead of striking fear into the opposing batsmen's eyes, I would be very surprised if they aren't liking their lips in anticipation at the buffet of runs he will undoubtedly be offering them.

I fear that England's obsession with creating a perfect team that can compete in all three forms of cricket (Test, ODI and 20-20 internationals) may have blinded them of other possibilities. Luke Wright is in the 20-20 squad and his record would actually suggest he is there deservedly so, but may i remind you there are significant differences between playing ODI's and 20-20's.  May i also remind you all of a man called Ravi Bopara.

Yes I am aware he is remembered for scoring runs against a below par West Indian team and suffering from what can only be referred to as a severe case of the  yips, during the 2009 ashes victory that seemed to end his involvement with England. But his ODI record is significantly better than his main competitor Wright.
From only 10 games more he has accumulated over 500 more runs at an average of 28.47, which admittedly is not great but his bowling average too is much better at 33.2 compared to Wrights 52.5.

 The fact he seems to have been overlooked for all forms of the game based on a poor test series seems slightly hypocritical. I say this with specific reference to Paul Collingwood, who after an abysmal year in the test arena has called time on his involvement in that particular format but is still picked for the others, despite still being horribly out of knick. Luke Wright is not, nor should he ever be, seen as a test match player. So why should his inability to play test cricket not hinder his prospects of representing England in the other forms of the game like his counterpart Bopara?

Most importantly though in my eyes is that Bopara is a genuine batsmen, which he has proven throughout his first class career and shown glimpses of in his short lived test career. This places him head and shoulders above "Pinch-hitter" Wright as he can provide genuine cover for a batsmen with the added bonus of an extra bowling option. Bopara slots into any of the top 6 positions whereas Wright is seemingly out of his depth at 8.

Some say Wright is seen as a sacrificial lamb who is given a licence to simply try and heave the ball, but i see him more as a lamb to the slaughter. For England to remain an improving side, they must address this growing problem, particularly in the wake of the most recent series where the batting has been poor to say the least.
Simply put, Bopara in as back up in place of the hopeless and predictably  useless Wright.