Stuart Law/ Ricky Pointing

[jemo27]

Imagine what could have happened if Mark Taylor had decided that Stuart Law had batted at 5 and Ricky Ponting batted 6 against Sri Lanka in Perth December 1995.
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1995-96/SL_IN_AUS/SL_AUS_T1_08-11DEC1995.html

And Law had scored 96 and Ponting only made 54 not out, could it have changed cricket history, or would Stuart Law just have played a few test and Ponting forced his way back into the test team like he did when he did get droped in the late 90's

It might have made no diference but one batting line up decision could have changed to players cricket careers

 

[Matt79]

The latter. Although Law might have played more tests I suppose, at the expense of Martyn, Katich or Lehmann or whoever...

 

[iamdavid]

Law may very well have forged a succesful test career, you can never be sure with these sorts of things but he certainly appeared a quality player and it wouldnt have suprised many people to see him do very well at test level.

Ponting would have forced his way into the side within a year or two either way, he was what 21 at the time and just to good a player (particularly for his age) to be kept out for long.

 

[NUFAN]

I reckon it would have changed history slightly. Man I hated Umpire Khizer Hayat that day, was such a dodgy LBW decision.

BTW it's Ponting, so many people, even a Cricket article I was reading in the paper today spell it Pointing, it's almost as bad as JaCques..

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I think the Pointing thing can be put down to a typo. I is right next to O, after all.

 

[Richard]

BTW it's Ponting, so many people, even a Cricket article I was reading in the paper today spell it Pointing, it's almost as bad as JaCques..

Have to delete a "c" pretty much every time I write Jaques TBH.

 

[sideshowtim]

Wouldn't have changed much. Ponting was a kid with enormous, enormous wraps and potential. He was always going to get another go even if he came in and scored a duck.

 

[burr]

Yeah, changed nothing basically. Ponting's the kind of guy who writes his own history. Still remember that lb, gotta be one of the worst decisions to cop on debut.

 

[garypleavin]

As a Lancashire fan who has seen probably even more of Stuart Law than Ricky Ponting, I've always found it amazing that this unbelievable player failed to make the team. Every time I've been to Old Traffor he has made the best Championship attacks look very average when the likes of Loye, Chilton, Suttcliffe fail. He most certainly is NOT a better batsmen than Ponting but much better than Katich, Symonds etc.

 

[sideshowtim]

As a Lancashire fan who has seen probably even more of Stuart Law than Ricky Ponting, I've always found it amazing that this unbelievable player failed to make the team. Every time I've been to Old Traffor he has made the best Championship attacks look very average when the likes of Loye, Chilton, Suttcliffe fail. He most certainly is NOT a better batsmen than Ponting but much better than Katich, Symonds etc.

He was simply one of those batsmen who was incredibly unlucky to be present in the era he was in. I definitely think he had what it took to become a good Test batsman.

 

[garypleavin]

What i'm trying to say is that he should have developed a fantastic international career even in this era. I believe he is a much better batsmen than Katich and could have given Damien Martyn and Mark waugh a run for their money as well.

I don't know of a player who has a better cut shoot than Stuart Law in world cricket. Australia ignoring him though has led to him playing a lot more for Lancashire, so i'm not complaining.

 

[social]

As a Lancashire fan who has seen probably even more of Stuart Law than Ricky Ponting, I've always found it amazing that this unbelievable player failed to make the team. Every time I've been to Old Traffor he has made the best Championship attacks look very average when the likes of Loye, Chilton, Suttcliffe fail. He most certainly is NOT a better batsmen than Ponting but much better than Katich, Symonds etc.

He was also something else, which made it easier to leave him out

 

[luckyeddie]

Imagine what could have happened if Mark Taylor had decided that Stuart Law had batted at 5 and Ricky Ponting batted 6 against Sri Lanka in Perth December 1995.
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1995-96/SL_IN_AUS/SL_AUS_T1_08-11DEC1995.html

And Law had scored 96 and Ponting only made 54 not out, could it have changed cricket history, or would Stuart Law just have played a few test and Ponting forced his way back into the test team like he did when he did get droped in the late 90's

It might have made no diference but one batting line up decision could have changed to players cricket careers

Class tells - cream rises to the top etc etc. Ricky Ponting is absolutely world-class, and a place would have been found for him no matter what. Saying that, Law was gifted too.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He was also something else, which made it easier to leave him out

I've heard that, even when compared to other Australian cricketers, he was considered to have something of a challenging personality. Has always seemed a nice guy in interviews I've seen tho, so maybe it was a bit of a bum rap.

 

[Richard]

As a Lancashire fan who has seen probably even more of Stuart Law than Ricky Ponting, I've always found it amazing that this unbelievable player failed to make the team. Every time I've been to Old Traffor he has made the best Championship attacks look very average when the likes of Loye, Chilton, Suttcliffe fail. He most certainly is NOT a better batsmen than Ponting but much better than Katich, Symonds etc.

Symonds yes, beyond doubt (though he'd already played his last game for Qld before Symonds played his first Test). Katich, I honestly don't think so TBH, I think Katich is at least as good as Law.

Katich simply got his Test chance (not THAT much of a chance compared to what some get) and didn't take it terribly well. Law didn't - Law could every bit as easily have failed at Test level as Katich did.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah but we're not comparing the correct eras here. When Stuart Law was seriously under consideration for selection, he was up against the Waughs, Martyn, Ponting, etc. You'd never pick him any of those. Plus, he had Mark Waugh's tendency towards soft dismissals sometimes and I guess the selectors figured it was risky having two players of that type in the team.

 

[Matt79]

Yeah, I mentioned Katich, but he was a bit later on. Law's problem was that he had to dislodge one of the Waughs, Ponting, probably David Boon early on, and then Damien Martyn. Darren Lehmann was never able to do that either, until retirements cleared a spot, and I don't think you can say that Law's had a more impressive FC career than Lehmann. Law was a classy player and in all probability would have been a successful test batsman, but there was always someone with as good, if not better, claims to a spot. If you look at the players going around in Sheffield Shield in that period who were unable to break into the test team, he wasn't alone.

And the comparison with Symonds is erroneous, not only cause of timeframes, but because Symonds is picked as an allrounder rather than as a pure batsman. And if we're talking ODIs, Symonds is much much better than Law.

 

[Richard]

TBH, if there was anyone who blocked Law's path it was Greg Blewett and Michael Bevan. Seems odd to some extent that the former, certainly, played so many times ahead of him.

 

[Top_Cat]

TBH, if there was anyone who blocked Law's path it was Greg Blewett and Michael Bevan. Seems odd to some extent that the former, certainly, played so many times ahead of him.

Blewwy was a very good batsman is why and was out-performing Law in Sheffield Shield cricket for some time. He certainly underachieved even in his FC career overall but in that time, he was a better option. For some reason, Law would go through lulls in his Sheffield Shield/Pura Cup days.

 

[Matt79]

Plus Blewett did have a stellar beginning to his Test career that probably sustained his position in the team, and the selector's pecking order, a bit longer than was merited in the end.

I always thought it was Bevan who had too few chances at Test level in the end, given how good he was in Sheffield Shield in the second half of his career - got found out against the short ball early on, but worked on it and overcame it, but by then had been pigeon-holed as a ODI specialist.