Was Stuart Law unlucky to only play one Test for Australia?

Question

Stuart Law only played one Test for Australia, back in 1996, when he scored 54 not out in his only innings.

He was one of the finest batsmen of his generation, and is still going strong at the age of 39. Today he scored a magnificent unbeaten 156 for Lancashire against Sussex at Hove?

Should he have played more for Australia? And should England consider picking him to lead the ODI side?

Answer 1

I too watched his innings, today and it was a superb display of patience and skill! (hey i thought you said Gary Keedy couldnt bat??)

To answer your question, YES of course he was unlucky to play only 1 test match, if he played for any other country besides Australia then he would have played many more test matches, and he could have been renowned as one of the best of his generation.

There are a few obvious reasons why Law only played 1 test match though. First of all between 1993-1999 Australia were a team who were firstly gathering momentum, and then a team who were ruling world cricket. They did this by picking the same bunch of players for every test match. For Law to get in the side, he would have to displace a the likes of the Waugh's, Blewett, Taylor, a young Ponting, Langer etc etc! Even players of Matthew Hayden and Damien Martyn's quality (world class players) were finding it tough to force there way into this winnning side.

Another reason why Law only played 1 test match, was because of his poor ODI record, he played over 50 ODI's in a winning team (most of the time) and he averaged less than 30! some people may say that these stats will prove that Law cant cut it at the top level! The great thing about great Aussie cricketers is that whenever they get a chance in the side be it a short stint, or a prolonged run! All great Aussie players take that opportunity to prove there class to the selectors and to the world, and unfortunately for Law he never took his chance.

He's a great player, and a very consistent batsmen for Lancashire, but i would never bring him into any England squad! he is 39! so he wouldnt be a long term fix that England needs

Answer 2

He's one of those guys who performed brilliantly in domestic cricket but didn't quite made an impact in international cricket. He can be considered in the list of the best players to have ever played 1 test match. Even that one test match came in his "luck" just because Steve Waugh was injured. Australia tried him more in their scheme of ODIs where he couldn't do justice with his ability & averaged 27 in 54 games.

And about making into the English team, well he has attained British citizenship but his age is the barrier now. "Unforturate" as you rightly put it.

Answer 3

Who were they going to throw out to fit him in the side? Unlucky maybe, but looking at the Aussie line up over the past 20 years it would be hard to fault the selectors. I don't remember him being all that great in the national side, and anyone could rack up a good score in English county cricket at present.

Answer 4

Was it Lheman that replaced Law?I think Lheman was a better batsman.Stuart Law may have been unlucky but I wouldn't have thought he had the quality to play tests for long.But then again I don't remember him playing much, I only wanted to see Mark Waugh bat.

I think England should stop trying to lure players like Saqlain,law etc into the team,I just don't think its cool.

Answer 5

I watched some of his innings today, and have seen him many times, he is still a quality act but probably too old to bring in now, though a couple of years ago there was a valid argument.

He was a victim of the Aussies success really, any other team and he would have been a regular on a consistent basis, but that Aussie team just had so much strength in depth and his boat has sailed now.

Answer 6

Bad luck perhaps, as those days, there was nothing like IPL which has pushed up S.Watson and S.Marsh npw.

Answer 7

he really was a good player... I agree he should have played more for his national team but picking him up now would not be the right choice!! He maybe good but the young blood looks much better and needs to be groomed for the future. I think he must be made an advisor to the coach so that talented players like him are not sidelined in the future!! A coach cant take care of everything so i think a guy like Law alongside the coach will be a delight....       :-)