I lived in Adelaide for 23 years towards the end of the Don's life. No, never saw him except a couple of times on tv - very private person. In fact I did initiate a move to rename Adelaide as Bradman City.. There was support but the British loyalist types old foggies shouted that idea down. We did get Bradman Drive from the airport out. One story which is probably fabricated but good one - Bradman was asked whether he could still score that highly against the much faster and aggressive bowlers of today. His answer of course was no he couldn't . So the questioner remarked that today's bowlers are better than the bowlers of his time. The Don replied, "No. The fact is I am almost ninety years old now!". Thank you for your wonderful compilation!
Many years ago when Roger Federer was in Australia for the Australian Open, around the time Hewitt had beaten him in Davis Cup actually, some great cricket had been on as always leading up to the first tennis tournaments of the year. Federer being a very capable athlete and arguably one of the greatest tennis players, was taken to play a bit of cricket which he hadn't played before and not surprisingly was immediately very good at. Hand eye co-ordination is what it is. It was talking about in the commentary, his amazing prowess. As was the Aussie who was a professional golfer too. Not once have I ever heard those commentators compare them to or even mention how great Bradman was at various sports. Which in Australia seems, I don't know, quite unforgiveable. A chance to inform the listening public a little more about a great legend of Australian sport at the same time and keep the memories alive and going.
Now that you mention it, we are reminded that sporting skills are generally universal, e.g. Compton, Fry, Botham, et al. The great Babe Ruth, I have read, on being introduced to cricket, chose a horizontal-bat stance and whacked the bowling all over. But Bradman's accomplishments in cricket were so exceptional - "as good as three batsmen" as his captain Woodfull said - that they shadow his humanity, the facts that he must have been competent at every other ball sport, that his sharp mind could have brought him a good living in any discipline available to him at the time.
THE REASON BRADMAN, MCABE, ORIELLY, MACARTNEY, PONDSFORD, HOBBS, BARNES HAMMOND, HUTTON & SUTCLIFFE & ALL THOSE BEFORE THEM ARE IN A HIGHER CLASS THAN THE CRICKETERS OF TODAY IS THAT THEY PLAYED AGAINST THE BEST PLAYERS IN THE WORLD ALMOST EVERY TEST SERIES. NO MINNOWS BACK THEN, TODAY THEY REGULARLY PLAY A TEST SERIES AGAINST PLAYERS WHO ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO PLAY EVEN FIRST CLASS CRICKET IN AUST. OR ENGLAND.
Disappointing to see the players' avarice for stumps and bails as soon as the last wicket falls. That aside, Arthur Morris stating that Bradman was a 'fine' player after the war is a bit fatuous. Wish we had more film of Bradman batting. And that sound of bat striking ball rings a bit hollow.
37.....1st class double centuries........WOW......If you want to watch ONE THING.....watch his footwork....It is ASTONISHINGLY fast.......he reacts to the change of pitch and swing of the ball better and faster than anyone who has ever lived. George Headley (West Indies) played bad pitches better than the Don.....but the Don had a much better 200+ run scoring record......Bradman actually thought Headley was the next best batsman after him.
At least 2 biographies of the Don state very clearly that he never applied himself on sticky dogs, realising that they came but once in a while and deciding that he would rather not waste his energies on them. My own surmise is 1. he feared falling ill (for he had a sensitive constitution) and just before the 1932-33 series had just come off a gruelling tour to the USA 2. he realised that he had no need to impress anybody, being already universally recognised as the pre-eminent batsman of all time 3. he would rather expend his energies on learning and practising stock-broking, which profession he chose to make a respectable living from. Had Bradman been born a century earlier, and had played alongside WG, he might have found the need to assert himself as a player for far longer. So too had he been born in the time of Victor Trumper.
Bradman never shared any of the 1,000 quid with his team mates. 1,000 English pounds was an absolute fortune in 1930. As an administrator for the Australian Cricket Board and SACA he was a tight bastard. It was because of him World Series Cricket started because the players were being paid peanuts. He was hated by many team mates including Victor Richardson and Bill O'Reilly.
The Don's stats are quite misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe he played test cricket in either India, Pakistan, South Africa or the Caribbean. He never dealt with Delhi belly or some of those dodgy strips in those countries. He only played on the best wickets of the time. Shane Warne is the best Australia has produced. He could take wickets anywhere. Bit of a rascal but the finest spin bowler ever. The Don, in the administrative role on the ACB also showed little empathy to those encountering issues in India such as the sub standard food and accommodation. Personally, I like a warts and all doco on the chap; not to slaughter him ... I just think it's a bit of a fantasy story.
This isn't Shane Warne hiding under a fake name by chance? Shane Warne would be the only person other than a seriously deranged, delusional and disturbed inmate from a mental hospital that would say Shane Warne was the best Australia has produced, over Bradman.
By the way, Australia didn't 'produce' Bradman. He was a genuine freak. Where he was born or came from had nothing to do with it. He could have quite easily been born on the sub continent, UK, anywhere. Just a fluke it was Australia.
People should check BRADMANS average during the body line series and watch (cricket Archives hosted by the ABC replays on how he played LARWOOD (please don't cry). It is embarrassing. REMEMBER Bradman faced one fast bowler in the series or a test not 3 or 4 fast bowlers as is today in the one team all after each other. Imagine turning your back and accept getting hit in the back against current test bowlers. The man had absolutely no idea in how to play just one single fast bowler in a game Best of all in his days he never faced any of the countries who are playing cricket today. God help us if he faced current indian and Pakistan spinners . Archives will show LARWOOD and other fast bowlers were nothing more than medium pace bowlers. CHECK THE FACTS. It's nice to have a legend but not one that is created by the press. PLEASE PLEASE don't compare him to other batsmen since the sixties
The term fast bowler is a term too frequently used with today bowlers. They use fast bowler term if you bowl one and awhile around 145kph and above. BUT there average is in the high 130 kph. for the day.
@@joevandijk2284 i wonder what Larwoods speed was going off interviews from players who faced him do you not think he would have been touching those figures?
Bradman played on uncovevered pitches. Its laughable that you say the bowlers were not as fast....the pitches were so slow back then thats why they look so slow. Richie Benaud says Frank Tyson was the quickest he has ever seen. The facts are no one back then was averaging as high as Bradman and no one is now, I have helped with a study on this for a book and it was because of how he batted which set him apart fro the rest. Bradman still averaged 50 in the bodyline series by the way !
@@jasonallen7607 Larwood was easy an 80-90mph merchant for sure, he looked quick ! His career wickets at first class level was 1427 at an average of 17.51 ! This was obviously an era bowlers dominated
