THE DON 100

[mal]

The greatest cricketer and perhaps the greatest sportsman of all time.
Born 27/08/1908.
It will be 100 years since his birth in 2 days time
What more can I say that has not been said about the great great man.
It would be true to say that the Don was a freak.
I guess one of the great regrets of this generation is we never got to see the Don batting.

The Don = champ

Is there anybody out there who has met the Don, or has a yarn?

[Aerie]

There was an article in the paper on Monday that said he beat Australia's squash champion at squash, took on the world snooker champion and beat several wimbledon tennis players at tennis. I think he is the greatest sportsman ever. Nobody in cricket comes as close to him as other sportsman come to their champions.

[GWW]

There was an article in the paper on Monday that said he beat Australia's squash champion at squash, took on the world snooker champion and beat several wimbledon tennis players at tennis. I think he is the greatest sportsman ever. Nobody in cricket comes as close to him as other sportsman come to their champions.

I'd find a lot of that very difficult to believe.

[Interceptor]

There was an article in the paper on Monday that said he beat Australia's squash champion at squash, took on the world snooker champion and beat several wimbledon tennis players at tennis. I think he is the greatest sportsman ever. Nobody in cricket comes as close to him as other sportsman come to their champions.

I'd find a lot of that very difficult to believe.

Does seem a stretch really.

I'm pretty sure though that he won the SA Squash open once.
Very good golfer as well and could shoot under his age in his later years.

[Booney]

Heard a good story about him playing golf with Allan Border at Glenelg golf club in the 80's.(Forgive me if it was not Glenelg,Im sure it was Border)

At a dog leg Border was playing safe when Bradman suggested taking on the tree on the bend saying "When I was your age I used to hit over that tree"...away Border went,obviuosly hitting the tree and finding trouble..."Must have been a big hitter Sir Don"......."Nope,that tree was only 10 feet high when I was your age"..

[Aerie]

There was an article in the paper on Monday that said he beat Australia's squash champion at squash, took on the world snooker champion and beat several wimbledon tennis players at tennis. I think he is the greatest sportsman ever. Nobody in cricket comes as close to him as other sportsman come to their champions.

I'd find a lot of that very difficult to believe.

You wouldn't believe he averaged 99.94 with the bat in Test cricket neither, if you didn't know. He was a tennis player as a youngster so wouldn't surprise me at all if he was that good.

[mal]

This may startle a few people
The Don needed 4 more runs to average 100
Story hazit that a historian believes he may have averaged 100 but for a possible error
Test match 1928/1929 season
I believe it goes like this
RYDER/BRADMAN batting in a Test match v England
TATE in his 35th over
There was a 4 hit of TATEs bowling
The glitch was that the 4 was not credited to a batsman
Was it given to Ryder ?
Was it given to Bradman ?
The scores may not have balanced and the 4 was eventually credited to Jack Ryder ?




1978
The Don celebrated his 70th birthday
A famous day for SA
West Adelaide Hellas won the Phillips League championship
WA needed to draw with arch rival Adelaide City to win the title
AC led 1-0 with about 5 minutes remaining
The ball was crossed and my old schoolmate Vic Bozanic scored a goal
WA were victors
What a day
SA GREAT

[spell_check]

His average is probably best left at 99.94, because of its mystique and that because that figure is known by all cricket fans around the world. Maybe if he did hit those 4 runs and it could be proven, make his average officially 100 and unofficially 99.94?

[Adelaide Hawk]

I think the funniest story I heard from Bradman was one day when the West Indies quicks were ripping through the Australians in 1984, someone asked Bradman how he would have fared against the West Indian quicks.

He replied he would have averaged about 50. The person asking the question then said, "But you averaged nearly 100 through your Test career ... why only 50, are the West Indians that good?", to which the Don replied, "Well I AM 76 years of age"

[mal]

Hey Hawky that joke is copyrighted !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Refer BEST JOKES in my 3 Bradman gags posted this morning

[Adelaide Hawk]

This may startle a few people
The Don needed 4 more runs to average 100
Story hazit that a historian believes he may have averaged 100 but for a possible error
Test match 1928/1929 season
I believe it goes like this
RYDER/BRADMAN batting in a Test match v England
TATE in his 35th over
There was a 4 hit of TATEs bowling
The glitch was that the 4 was not credited to a batsman
Was it given to Ryder ?
Was it given to Bradman ?
The scores may not have balanced and the 4 was eventually credited to Jack Ryder ?

This was an article from the AGE (23/8) from Charles Davis, a journalist who spends many hours pouring through old score books. It's fair to say scoring wasn't as an exact science in the 1920s, and therefore errors would have been made.

Irrespective of what errors can be found, all scorecards are official, the results will stand and cannot be altered. I have no doubt in my mind that the odd "forced balance" took place back then.

Yes, I've seen the scorebook where the 4 occurs in Tate's 35th over, and it does appear as though Bradman may have scored it. Once again though, it can't be proven as no notes were made.

The ball before was recorded as a "1" by Ryder, then the "4". However, it could well have been a "2" which was a short run recorded as "1", which would have meant Ryder hit the "4".

It's delicious to think about it, but as Mr Davis points out, you never know what you may discover. You may find 4 more runs for Bradman one innings, and then find some other runs he didn't actually make and was credited with in other innings.

Scorers would have been busy back then with the incredible over rates and scoring rates. No wonder they made mistakes.

[mal]

Great work as per usual Hawky
It might just be the great great man did in fact average 100 b4 his last dig
Who knows without the pressure of his last innings he might have scored better than his 0
Would Eric Hollies have dismissed the Don cheaply?
As for Eric his place in history is well and truly entrenched and 'unforgetable in every way'
Perhaps Eric Hollies was that famous there was a rock band named after him 2 decades later ....

[Dogwatcher]

IF HE was still alive, Australia’s greatest sportsman Sir Donald Bradman would have celebrated his 100th birthday yesterday.
In honour of that significant anniversary, former Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack editor Graeme Wright has chosen a fine selection of essays by respected cricket writers, including Neville Cardus and none other than Donald Bradman himself, for publication in Bradman In Wisden – Bradman’s extraordinary life and career.
Riverland Weekly editor Rob McLean, himself a massive cricket fan, spoke to Wright about the new book.

As an author, what is it like reading through pieces that have been written by some of the greats of the game?

I find the high standard of the writing pretty daunting.
But speaking as an editor, the combination of these different writers has enabled me to provide a fascinating, well-rounded portrait of Sir Donald Bradman.
I’m intrigued by the way the different writers approach the same subject (Bradman) and project their own ‘take’ and personality on it.
Some, like Neville Cardus and John Woodcock, write with great style and wit, so that the picture they paint tends to be more romantic than, say, Jim Swanton’s. 
Yet if Swanton’s writing is more prosaic, it possibly captures the truer essence of Bradman.
Others, and I’m thinking especially of R. C. ‘Crusoe’ Robertson-Glasgow and Gideon Haigh, bring their understanding of the world beyond cricket to their cricket writing, and so set Bradman the cricketer within the context of Bradman the man and the times in which he lived.

 What did the pieces that the Don wrote for Wisden reveal about his character?

You’d say he was a pragmatist, a realist, rather than a romantic.
But the  Bradman pieces do show a man who thought deeply and affectionately about cricket, both through his knowledge of its past and his concern about its present and its future.
You can tell that this was a man who thought clearly, and clearly didn’t waste his words.
There’s no flamboyance.
Each word does its job, just as his strokes did their job. 
Yet the appreciation he wrote for the 1944 Wisden after the death of Hedley Verity from wartime wounds reveals not only the respect he held for fellow-cricketers but also a genuine human warmth for his fellow-man.
I suspect, however, that he kept his feelings to himself as often as not.
 How relevant do you think Bradman is to people today and where do you see his story positioned in the mindset of future generations of cricket fans?
I’ve always thought that Bradman’s true relevance relates to the inter-war period when he was dominant as a run-maker and within the context of the relationship between Australia and Britain.
As that relationship diminishes (maybe has already diminished as Australia forges its own identity as a nation rather than a former colony) Bradman, I feel, will be remembered mostly for his large innings, the regularity of his centuries and the averages that show he was streets ahead of his contemporaries.
Rather, perhaps, as W. G. Grace will be remembered for his beard, Bradman will be remembered for his scores.
I suppose that, for future generations of cricket fans, he will remain the pre-eminent batsman of the 20th Century and the captain of the 1948 Invincibles (if future generations can comprehend a time when cricket teams spent month upon month touring just one country and played something other than limited-overs internationals and test matches).

 Do any of the writings give you a feel as to how Bradman would feel about the current cricket revolution?

His own writings say that he was in favour of limited-overs cricket, and cricket under lights.
Somewhere I recall him suggesting test cricket under lights, so he wasn’t essentially reactionary when it came to changes in cricket.
The writings suggest he was conservative with a lower-case ‘c’, and so he may have viewed the current explosion of 20/20 tournaments with a degree of caution rather than apprehension.
I suspect he would have wished he could be playing 20/20.
Everything I’ve read about his footwork, his shot placement and his running between the wickets suggest he would have been a sure success.

 As Bradman was considered a once in a lifetime player, does the 100th anniversary of his birth signify that it is time for us to start looking for a new player to dominate the game as he did?

Yes, and he will probably be a batsman because it is runs and scores that create and hold public attention.
It is not just a matter of dominating the game; it is also a matter of dominating the game within the context of an era.
That requires a degree of longevity: Grace and Bradman remained in the public eye for a long time. 
So it may depend on the nature of 21st Century cricket whether or not the game will have another Bradman.
Maybe the next Bradman won’t be reckoned by runs in the book but by money in the bank.

Are there any new gems in this updated version of the book?

I’d say anything Gideon Haigh writes is worth reading.
Even if you don’t always agree with what he writes, he challenges the reader to think.
Michael Davies, a fine writer, is very good at putting Bradman into context, while the piece by Richard Holt on ‘Bradman and the British’ is interesting in showing how the British (more so the English) adopted the ‘enemy’ Bradman as one of their own.
For me, the big difference between the two editions is that the new one, thanks to the more recent articles and the way they are ‘themed’, provides a much fuller and more critical picture of Bradman the man, as well as of Bradman the cricketer.
That said, you can’t help reading the Wisden match reports without feeling a sense of awe at the volume of runs that Bradman scored.
Every couple of games there’s yet another century. The guy was simply phenomenal.

[brod]

Anyone heard the Khamal song "I was a mate of Don Bradman's" with Greg Champion?
Was on 5AA last night and didnt KG think it was funny

[Grahaml]

I've always felt that the title of "greatest sportsman" belongs to someone who got to the top of several sports. Bradman may have beaten good players of other sports in their game but it's a far cry from beating them in a serious comp in their own game. Sort of like getting Bradman out in beach cricket. Good for a yarn but not a true indication of where the two combatants stand. And being able to compete in several sports in the modern clime is a different story to the first half of last century. Miller would never have been able to miss a few years of sport and still play both test cricket and league football. off the top of my head the only man I can think of to play the top level of multiple sports, without using exactly the same set of skills in both (like beach and indoor volleyball or something) is Dion Sanders, who was a star Grid Iron player with the Dallas Cowboys when they were at their best 10-15 years ago and also a professional baseball player concurrently.

The other thing to bear in mind is cricket with all its stats is vastly different to almost any other sport. In football there is no way to measure an individual's performance to the point we can in cricket. How do we compare the dominance of Matthews to Bradman? What about Armstrong, Bubka, Federer, Woods, Pele et al?

[Rik E Boy]

The way you measure that is the statistical comparison of other greats of their sport and compare the level of dominance. None of the champions you mentioned were nearly TWICE as dominant stastically as the Don was in his sport. For example, Armstrong won six Tour de Frances but Indurain won five. The don averaged nearly the ton but the next best was Pollock I think who finished up with an average of 70 but that was only from 19 tests.

Is Don, is good. Even gets another ton when he is no longer on this Earth!

regards,

REB

[Grahaml]

Hmm, you missed the point a litle there REB. You simply can't compare Armstrong and Indurain like you can Bradman and Ponting for example. There isn't any easy way to decide which of the two was the more dominant rider over their careers. All you can say is that they were both the best in the world at the time they were at their peaks. Imagine if we had no record of which players took wickets and scored runs, but just looked at which teams won test series. That would be more comparable to how we compare sportsmen and women in other sports. In tennis we only record the winners of the match and the margins are forgotten.

Also, let's not forget that Bradman was the greatest at the time in one of the world's minor sports. Few indians played the game back then, it was really just a game for the English aristocracy who holed up in India. Most of Europe hardly know of it, most asian countries eat crickets and so few americans and africans play the game it's considered a novelty sport played by mad englishmen and white south africans.

Let's celebrate Bradman for who he was, his achievements for what they were and his memory for what it is. Don't make it all look silly by making claims that are hard to back up with anything but misleading numbers.

[Rik E Boy]

Ah but now millions of Indians play cricket as well as eating them and none of them average 99 do they? And Sir Donald never got to play against such mighty sides such as Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. The only comparable sportsman IMO is Lindrum.

regards,

REB

[Interceptor]

Well for the record a statistician did a comparision of various sports' top performers based on their levels above the mean in those sports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradman#World_sport_context

Which really only confirms Bradman's standing amongst the world's all-time great sportsmen.
Yes, you can argue endlessly about statistical comparisons like this, but what the hell, here it is.

Liked the little ancedote on the wiki page about Nelson Mandela too:

When Nelson Mandela was released after 27 years in prison, his first question to an Australian visitor was, "Is Sir Donald Bradman still alive?"

[mal]

I've always felt that the title of "greatest sportsman" belongs to someone who got to the top of several sports. Bradman may have beaten good players of other sports in their game but it's a far cry from beating them in a serious comp in their own game. Sort of like getting Bradman out in beach cricket. Good for a yarn but not a true indication of where the two combatants stand. And being able to compete in several sports in the modern clime is a different story to the first half of last century. Miller would never have been able to miss a few years of sport and still play both test cricket and league football. off the top of my head the only man I can think of to play the top level of multiple sports, without using exactly the same set of skills in both (like beach and indoor volleyball or something) is Dion Sanders, who was a star Grid Iron player with the Dallas Cowboys when they were at their best 10-15 years ago and also a professional baseball player concurrently.

The other thing to bear in mind is cricket with all its stats is vastly different to almost any other sport. In football there is no way to measure an individual's performance to the point we can in cricket. How do we compare the dominance of Matthews to Bradman? What about Armstrong, Bubka, Federer, Woods, Pele et al?

Snowy Baker about 100 years ago was an allround champ at a lot of sports
These days sadly sportsmen have to put a lot of time at one sport only
There were lots of cricketers/footballers up until 20 odd years ago
Heres a few
Eric Freeman
Neil Hawke
Barrie Robran
Johnny Nash [Norwood boy]
Craig Bradley was the last one I can recall that played both