Law was a dependable batsman with a FC average over 51. Dale was well-known for his economy in ODIs and his ability to break partnerships. Should either or both have gotten a longer run in the Test side?

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6274.html

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/4890.html

l feel Stuart Law could have played more, he was quite dependable

Law was slightly hard done by, but so were many other great batsman in that era.dale probably played as much as he should have..it is a question of who to leave out, not who to bring in.if they started there career now, they'd both have a much better time of it.

Stuart Law never really impressed me. But Adam Dale on the other hand, l thought was very good. Like a drug dealer without any drugs, he was really hard to score off.
Yeah l would have given him a go.

l do not think so. During the time these two players played for Australia, the team had better alternatives.

But then, why is Australia not selecting Brad Hodge ? He played 6 test matches and scored 503 runs in 9 innings. Is it not good enough? What are they wanting? Hauritz is another talent that was ignored and he went away to ICL. Dodemaide also got a raw deal.

They both came from Queensland. If you want to continue to play for Australia you have to be in New South Wales or Western Australia.

Law is a superb batsman and scores heavily in England. Dale a good change bowler.

The Aussie selectors are biased towards certain cricketers.

Adam Dale was good. He was more talented than that loser Kasprowicz, plus he could bat.

Stuart Law was quite good as well. He deserved more opportunities than he got, but he had too much competition. There were more deserving players.

law should have

l reckon yes only for Law.. hes the goog one.

In the case Of Stuart Law 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, & he could have been renowned as one of the best of his generation.

There r 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, & 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 & Damien Martyn is 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 OD l record, he played over 50 OD l is in a winning team (most of the time) & 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 & to the world, & unfortunately for Law he never took his chance.


l do not know as much about Adam Dale, but l do know that at times Dale struggled to make the most out of the conditions. l believe that he played the opening 2 games of the 1999 World Cup, & he failed to make an impact & was subsequently dropped for the rest of the tournament, which indicates the Australian selectors never had much faith in him. He had talent, but McGrath & Gillespie were better bowlers than him.