Mark Nicholas: Australia`s loss is a gain at Chelmsford (8 Septembers 1997)

Monday 8 September 1997

Australia`s loss is a gain at Chelmsford

By Mark Nicholas

AT Chandigargh, northern India, in the World Cup semi-final a year ago last March, Stuart Law came to the crease with Australia paralysed at 15 for four. Two Waughs, a Taylor and a Ponting had tried to repel the West Indian tide that rushed at them, and they had failed. Curtley Ambrose was bowling with awesome, typical fire; Ian Bishop with swing and real pace.

Law`s first definitive scoring stroke was a drive which bisected the stumps at the non-striker`s end and mid-on. It was hit at the top of the ball`s bounce and caused Ambrose to have a second look just to check it was true.

Very few batsmen are able to do this to Ambrose, least of all on an uncertain pitch, and the great proud West Indian was surprised that Law was one. Law made 72, Australia`s highest score and his team won the low-scoring, unforgettably tense match by five runs. Apparently though, he was still not good enough to play Test cricket.

At Lord`s in the NatWest final yesterday, Law came to the crease with just 171 needed to claim the trophy and, just as importantly from the point of view of the county`s self esteem, to snuff out the memory of last year`s gigantic cock-up. He chose, with the considerable assistance of his rampaging captain, to snuff it out in style.

He thrashed past square cover and flicked with upright balance through square leg; punched past mid-off and eased decent, straight bowling wide of mid-on. Best of all, he repeated that fantastic stroke, the one off Ambrose, against Allan Donald. In fact, he made Donald seem as if he were bowling medium pace and the others as if they were barely bowling at all.

There is a clarity and momentum to his footwork and a commitment to all the strokes, in attack and defence, that is special to watch and should be a lesson to all batsmen. For moments in his play, he is Greg Chappell revisited and there is no higher plane than that.

I tell you this because Australians say that Law is a bully of ordinary bowling and an ordinary batsman himself against very good bowling. This is nonsense, the sort of accusation that comes from jealousy or mistrust. Clearly, he has rubbed a few who matter the wrong way and now his face does not fit. Clearly, other more amenable men are getting the favour of the selectors and of the team.

Law is a confrontational character, sometimes a rough modern diamond in an old game of traditional manners. His histrionics in the semi-final against Glamorgan, when again he played quite brilliantly, and against Waqar Younis, too, after Darren Thomas had struck his wrist with a full toss, were the actions of a spoilt child.

His row with Paul Franks, the young Nottinghamshire seam bowler, in the quarter-final at Trent Bridge, was no more mature. It is one thing for fire to be in your belly when you challenge your opponent, quite another to behave unworthily. Perhaps he is bitter at being ignored by his country -an Ashes tour of England, of all tours - and perhaps he has overdone his determination to make an impression.

Certainly he has been meanly treated and has a case to make, for he is not only an outstanding batsman but a fine leader, who was in charge of Queensland when they first won the Sheffield Shield after a lifetime of trying, and again this spring when they confirmed they were the best team in Australia.

Essex are pleased to have him, the man that is, as well as the batsman, for they say that he has become as much a piece of the furniture as any of their illustrious overseas cricketers.

Whatever the flaw in his make-up, Australia could be a better side still if they looked to heal the wounded man rather than reject him.

For the moment, Essex can be grateful for the rejection and acclaim another of their adopted Australian batsmen

Source :: The Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/)