did Bradman ever have a form slump?
sudeep
thing happened with taylor...commentators are saying your reflexes
obviously get slower etc...so did bradmans form decline as he got
older? Was he encouraged to play longer or were people expecting him
to retire?
Jai Natarajan
He did have a couple of periods when he fell fomr his won high standards -
was scoring a flashy and quick 70 or hundred and getting out to the delight
of Neville Cardus.
But then he realised the danger and buckled down to those big double
hundreds again.
And then there was the bodyline series where his form slumped dramatically
to average 57 :)
Finally there was much speculation about his abilities in the 1948
Invincibles tour he led. DB himself had doubts but he performed and led
brilliantly (avg 72) and Australia was unbeaten on the entire tour. They
wrote the book on aggressive cricket which Steve Waugh is now perfecting.
Check out this run chase in T4 and the speed at which it was achieved on day
5
Australia 2nd innings (target: 404 runs) R 4 6
AR Morris c Pollard b Yardley 182 0
AL Hassett c & b Compton 17 0
*DG Bradman not out 173 0
KR Miller lbw b Cranston 12 0
RN Harvey not out 4 0
Extras (b 6, lb 9, nb 1) 16
Total (3 wickets, 114.1 overs) 404
What I find astounding was his immense performance in first class games as
well, down the years. It was not unusual to make 200+ first class runs on a
tour of England.
Also, he scored his runs extremely fast. Not unusual to go a run per minute
or 80 % strike rate(strike rate being runs per 100 minutes), and quite often
even coming in after tea he would have 60-70 not out by close.
jai [Bradman's biography is required reading. I was reading it for the first
time the day he died]
Moby
I hear Brett Lee released his... should I send you a copy?
Moby
Black humour 'r us.
Jai Natarajan
"Moby" <s35...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.30.020319...@student.uq.edu.au...
>
> I hear Brett Lee released his... should I send you a copy?
trust me, I've travelled the road. Hoping for a "collected biographies"
editions of a few players all-in-one.
jai
Mad Hamish
>All this talk about the waughs retiring or getting dropped...same
>thing happened with taylor...commentators are saying your reflexes
>obviously get slower etc...so did bradmans form decline as he got
>older?
depends a bit on how you measure it.
Bradman averaged over 100 after WWII.
1948 was his worst tour of England with an average of only 72.
He didn't make the big scores that he used to (his highest in the
tests was a mere 173*)
Bill O'Reilly said that Bradman after the war wasn't the same batsman
as Bradman before the war, but he was still the best batsman in the
world.
>Was he encouraged to play longer or were people expecting him
>to retire?
People weren't really expecting him to return after WWII.
He'd announced before the 48 tour that he would be retiring from
cricket after the tour was completed.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@bigpond.com
David Richardson
news:23f06ba4.02031...@posting.google.com...
Bit hard to compare modern day cricketers with those who played pre and post
WWII. There were a whole bunch of social factors that influenced decisions
then that don't now.
Dunno Dave
R. Bharat Rao
Yeah, the slacker averaged only 72 on his final tour, and a shocking
0 in his final innings.... Clearly he hung on too long....
Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao
E-mail: rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com (remove "-nospam-this")
"The lunatic is in the hall
The lunatics are in my hall
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And every day the paper boy brings more."
Pink Floyd, "Brain Damage"
Andrew Dunford
I was going to say that Bradman had a bit of a slump in form in 2001, but
that would be in poor taste. Putting a hex on BLee is ok though.
Andrew
Jai Natarajan
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifaxsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:MJwl8.209$eF4....@news02.tsnz.net...
> I was going to say that Bradman had a bit of a slump in form in 2001, but
> that would be in poor taste. Putting a hex on BLee is ok though.
He's only resting !
Actually His Mortal Remains would have done a bit better than Ricky Ponting
on the India tour
jai
Dechucka
"Jai Natarajan" <j...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7666l$a...@dispatch.concentric.net...
and better than the whole Indian batting line up outside India :-)
>
>
Augustus Fink-Nottle
>The short answer is, no.
>
>He did have a couple of periods when he fell fomr his won high standards -
>was scoring a flashy and quick 70 or hundred and getting out to the delight
>of Neville Cardus.
>
>But then he realised the danger and buckled down to those big double
>hundreds again.
>
>And then there was the bodyline series where his form slumped dramatically
>to average 57 :)
Well he did have 3 slumps in his career. The difficulty is in defining what a
slump is. Bradman only played 80 innings so how many bad innings in a
row is a 'slump in form' for him? They didn't play tests as often as they do
now so I think 5-6 continuous low scoring innings can be considered a
slump for Bradman.
With that caveat, he had 3 slumps where he averaged less than 50 (very
ordinary by his standards)
1) Innings 27-39 (13 innings, 529 runs, 1n.o., avg. 44.08, 1932-1934)
Scores: 0, 103*, 8, 66, 76, 24, 48, 71, 29, 25, 36, 13, 30
2) Innings 42-47 (6 innings, 210 runs, 0n.o., avg. 35, 1936-1937)
Scores: 77, 38, 0, 0, 82, 13
3) Innings 73-78 (6 innings, 197 runs, 1n.o., avg. 39.4, 1948)
Scores: 77, 38, 0, 0, 82, 13
Of course, there was bodyline to deal with during the 1st group of innings
and by the 3rd he was getting ready to retire. The middle one - you could
blame it on the law of averages because on either side of all these low
scores he had big tons.
- Gussie
Ken Higgs
Augustus Fink-Nottle wrote:
>
> Well he did have 3 slumps in his career. The difficulty is in defining what a
> slump is. Bradman only played 80 innings so how many bad innings in a
> row is a 'slump in form' for him? They didn't play tests as often as they do
> now so I think 5-6 continuous low scoring innings can be considered a
> slump for Bradman.
>
> With that caveat, he had 3 slumps where he averaged less than 50 (very
> ordinary by his standards)
>
> 1) Innings 27-39 (13 innings, 529 runs, 1n.o., avg. 44.08, 1932-1934)
> Scores: 0, 103*, 8, 66, 76, 24, 48, 71, 29, 25, 36, 13, 30
>
> 2) Innings 42-47 (6 innings, 210 runs, 0n.o., avg. 35, 1936-1937)
> Scores: 77, 38, 0, 0, 82, 13
>
> 3) Innings 73-78 (6 innings, 197 runs, 1n.o., avg. 39.4, 1948)
> Scores: 77, 38, 0, 0, 82, 13
>
> Of course, there was bodyline to deal with during the 1st group of innings
> and by the 3rd he was getting ready to retire. The middle one - you could
> blame it on the law of averages because on either side of all these low
> scores he had big tons.
>
> - Gussie
It's interesting, vis the no. of Tests played then & now.
SRW is seen to be in a slump now, yet his supporters remind us that it was only last year that he
scored 150* on one leg with one hand tied behind his back whilst wearing a blindfold and his average
reached it's highest point.
That, however, was 9 Tests ago. For some of the players of yore, that equated to a couple of years
or more. Does that mean that slumps are more noticeable now, what with more games played?
Higgsy
(Master of irony, hyperbole & comprehension of the English Language)
C.Kelly (BCTA)
He slumped in late in 1948, and got dropped for it!
Cheers,
Christian Kelly
Mad Hamish
<BC...@shopmall.com.au> wrote:
>
>He slumped in late in 1948, and got dropped for it!
Yes, the chairman of selectors decided that it was time for Bradman to
go.
Yuk Tang
> The short answer is, no.
>
> He did have a couple of periods when he fell fomr his won high standards -
> was scoring a flashy and quick 70 or hundred and getting out to the
delight
> of Neville Cardus.
>
> But then he realised the danger and buckled down to those big double
> hundreds again.
There was also a period just after his discharge from the services, when he
played some low level cricket and couldn't get runs. IIRC some people
accused him of justifying his chickening out of the war. My opinion, given
his past history, was that he couldn't physically hack it as a soldier, and
that the exertions in training left him no good for cricket either. Which
is why Bradman was so remarkable, that such a congenitally weak man could
have set such towering standards.
Cheers, ymt.
Ken Higgs
Yuk Tang wrote:
I think it points to the fact (?) that a lot of his success/consistency was
down to mental strength, as opposed to physical strength or ability -not that he
didn't have ability, but others possibly had more. It's not that others couldn't
average 100 at times, it's just that they couldn't do it year after year.
Look at Clang
Higgsy
(king etc)
Colin Kynoch
Jai Natarajan wrote:
<snip>
> jai [Bradman's biography is required reading. I was reading it for the first
> time the day he died]
Which one I have over a dozen?
Colin Kynoch
Jai Natarajan
jai
"Colin Kynoch" <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3C97DDD7...@iprimus.com.au...
Mad Hamish
Actually according to The Don by Roland Perry Bradman was hospitalised
for an eye condition early in 1941 and then he was invalidated out of
the army in June 41 with Fibrositis
According to Bradman (I can't remember whether it's in A Farewell to
Cricket or an interview later on) he never recovered feeling in a
couple of fingers after that...
There's no reason to believe that he chickened out as he was involved
in physical training of soldiers and not really in any danger of being
sent overseas (that was a position offered to him because they thought
that it'd be useful for promotion, he had actually gone into training
for air crew duty in the RAAF)
Moby
<snip>
Back to Yuk's point about "congenitally weak." The same thing occured to
me while reading Benaud's auto.
Moby
Colin Kynoch
Jai Natarajan wrote:
> The Don by Roland Perry
Good book, try the following if you can.
Bradman The Illustrated Biography by Michael Page.
It has a very good comparison of Bradman and trumper, which I can
reproduce here if you like.
Colin Kynoch
dougie
@iprimus.com.au:
Not a bad book, but I think the comparison between Bradman and Trumper
lessened it a bit. It happens in most sports when a new star comes along.
Is Woods better than Nicklaus? (imho yes)
Is Schumacher better than Fangio? (don't know)
Is Tendulkar as good as Bradman was? (imho no)
Was Maradona better than Pele? (imho no, and anyway, George best was better
than both)
When Bradman came along plenty of old blokes thought he wasn't as good as
Trumper. It's the old "in my day..." argument. These blokes have to justify
why they went to watch Trumper play and why they thought that nobody (even
Bradman) could possibly be better than the guy they saw play (Trumper).
Instead of enjoying the new bloke, they stick up for the bloke they saw in
their prime. Added to it, Trumper was dead, and anyone who said Bradman was
better was showing a lack of respect for the the great man Trumper.
Reading that comparison, it was almost like Bradman (or his biographer) was
giving a final kick to all those old blokes who (when Bradman came along)
said that Trumper was better. The book was written in the early 80s, by
then most of trumper's supporters were dead. The comparison was
unnecessary.
>
> Colin Kynoch
>
>
Yuk Tang
>
> Back to Yuk's point about "congenitally weak." The same thing occured to
> me while reading Benaud's auto.
Details? My point about Bradman was based on
1. His serious illness during the 1934 tour.
2. The death of his first child, and the serious illness of his second.
A bit of a pattern there, I thought.
Cheers, ymt.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>The Don by Roland Perry
>
It's not bad.
I'm somewhat suspicious about Roland Perry because Bradman's Best
strikes me as iffy from what I've heard and read Bradman say, but The
Don reads as reasonably credible (at least where I can check sources,
there's no doubt that Perry slants things to be in favour of Bradman
wherever possible)
Get
A Farewell To Cricket by Sir Donald Bradman and read it the first
chance you get.
I'd also recommend The Art Of Cricket by Sir Donald Bradman, it's
_mostly_ a coaching book but it has some very good points about how he
approached an innings (e.g. his section on dealing with an off-spinner
which was provoked by Laker's match)
--
Ian Galbraith
:On 20 Mar 2002 00:57:34 GMT, "Jai Natarajan" <j...@nospam.hotmail.com>
:wrote:
:>The Don by Roland Perry
:It's not bad.
Agreed. However the less said about Perry's book on Steve Waugh the
better, don't buy it.
:I'm somewhat suspicious about Roland Perry because Bradman's Best
:strikes me as iffy from what I've heard and read Bradman say, but The
:Don reads as reasonably credible (at least where I can check sources,
:there's no doubt that Perry slants things to be in favour of Bradman
:wherever possible)
Yep, I've got the same concerns listening to some interviews with Perry
about Bradman's best. He appears to be milking Bradman for as much as
possible.
[snip]
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination
is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination
encircles the world." - Albert Einstein
Mad Hamish
<jim.l...@REMOVEbtopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>Moby <s35...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:Pine.OSF.4.30.020320...@student.uq.edu.au...
>>
>> Back to Yuk's point about "congenitally weak." The same thing occured to
>> me while reading Benaud's auto.
>
>Details? My point about Bradman was based on
>
>1. His serious illness during the 1934 tour.
Appendicitis doesn't really require anything congenital.
>2. The death of his first child,
a baby dying young in the 30s probably doesn't mean that much, infant
mortality rates have come down a lot.
>and the serious illness of his second.
>
3rd iirc in any case is cerebral palsy genetic?
>A bit of a pattern there, I thought.
Moby
The impression was about Benaud (I may have not been clear about that).
Apparently he was a bit of a sickly kid.
Moby
Bob Dubery
wrote:
>I think it points to the fact (?) that a lot of his success/consistency was
>down to mental strength, as opposed to physical strength or ability -not that he
>didn't have ability, but others possibly had more. It's not that others couldn't
>average 100 at times, it's just that they couldn't do it year after year.
Which is pretty much what Sir Donald himself said. I saw a video of an
interview in which it was put to him that he was the best player ever
and he denied this, citing contemporaries who he thought played
better.
When confronted with the respective averages he said "yes, but they
kept on getting out."
Yuk Tang
Mad Hamish <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3c97fdaa...@bri-news.tpg.com.au...
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 02:21:40 +0000 (UTC), "Yuk Tang"
> <jim.l...@REMOVEbtopenworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >Details? My point about Bradman was based on
> >
> >1. His serious illness during the 1934 tour.
>
> Appendicitis doesn't really require anything congenital.
>
> >2. The death of his first child,
>
> a baby dying young in the 30s probably doesn't mean that much, infant
> mortality rates have come down a lot.
>
> >and the serious illness of his second.
>
> 3rd iirc in any case is cerebral palsy genetic?
I didn't know the details about John's cerebral palsy, but I would have
thought that the history of his family suggests that he was more susceptible
to illnesses in general than most.
Cheers, ymt.
Ron Knight
> 3rd iirc in any case is cerebral palsy genetic?
Cerebral palsy is caused by injury to the brain before, during, or
shortly after birth. It could be an infection or accident to the
mother while the baby is in the womb, or having oxygen cut off during
birth or some other trauma associated with birth. It is not
considered a genetic disease.
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~smb4v/tutorials/cp/causes/causes.html
Take it easy,
Ron Knight
Spaceman Spiff
>
>
> Jai Natarajan wrote:
>
> > The Don by Roland Perry
>
>
> Good book, try the following if you can.
>
> Bradman The Illustrated Biography by Michael Page.
>
by irving rosenwater. i read it probably about 15-20 years ago. very thick,
very comprehensive, presents the don thru a statistician's eyes. detailed
descriptions of pretty much all the cricket matches played by bradman.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
Ah well, ninety-nine people all running around
Not one in a hundred got his feet on the ground,
In fact one in a thousand holding some in reserve
For when the real, true action comes around the curve.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
about
Bradman The Illustrated Biography by Michael Page.
>Reading that comparison, it was almost like Bradman (or his biographer) was
>giving a final kick to all those old blokes who (when Bradman came along)
>said that Trumper was better. The book was written in the early 80s, by
>then most of trumper's supporters were dead. The comparison was
>unnecessary.
>
I'd say it was the biographer.
Bradman had said a bit in A Farewell To Cricket but not much.
In addition I think you'll find that there was also one of the books
in the series on Trumper by Ashley Mallett.
I'm not sure of the order that they were released but it's certainly
possible that there was talk between Page and Mallett
Jai Natarajan
to lengths to try and prove Trumper was a better bat than Bradman
jai
"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3c990dae...@bri-news.tpg.com.au...
Ian Galbraith
:On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:12:00 +1100, Ken Higgs <kenh...@hotmail.com>
:wrote:
Yep there are a lot of people who write Bradman off because he wasn't an
aesthetically pleasing batsman.
Ken Higgs
Jai Natarajan wrote:
> The disease of Trumper comparisons started with Fingleton I think who went
> to lengths to try and prove Trumper was a better bat than Bradman
>
> jai
>
To be fair to Fingleton, whilst there was a mutual dislike between him &
Bradman, he was said to appreciate his batting talents. Perhaps he even saw
Trumper play, though he wouldn't have been very old (<5yo IIRC).
Higgsy
dougie
news:3C995F39...@hotmail.com:
Was Fingleton catholic? Was Trumper? Just wondering, there were a few
rifts in Aus cricket early last century based on religious beliefs. Might
have had something to do with the who was better argument.
>
> Higgsy
>
>
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>
>
>Jai Natarajan wrote:
>
>> The disease of Trumper comparisons started with Fingleton I think who went
>> to lengths to try and prove Trumper was a better bat than Bradman
>>
>> jai
>>
>
>To be fair to Fingleton, whilst there was a mutual dislike between him &
>Bradman, he was said to appreciate his batting talents.
Suggesting a "mutual dislike" there is rather stretching the matter.
Fingleton claimed that Bradman hated him because Bradman prefered
Brown to Fingleton as an opener in 1934 because Bradman felt that
Brown was better suited for English conditions.
Fingleton in England
4 6 0 123 40 31 30 20.50 0 0 0
Brown in England
11 20 1 885 206* 133 105 46.57 3 3 1
looks like the decision was justified.
In The Don by Roland Perry Fingleton is quoted as complaining that
Bradman's big scores meant that people didn't appreciate how tough a
50 was to make...
> Perhaps he even saw
>Trumper play, though he wouldn't have been very old (<5yo IIRC).
Jai Natarajan
"dougie" <noe...@all.fromyou.net.au> wrote in message
news:ugdm8.15081$Hz2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Was Fingleton catholic? Was Trumper? Just wondering, there were a few
> rifts in Aus cricket early last century based on religious beliefs. Might
> have had something to do with the who was better argument.
The Fingleton/don feud was because Don backed Bill Brown as opener ahead of
Jack Fingleton for an Ashes tour and JF forever held it against him.
Among his other lame arguments was that Trumper would typically gift his
wicket away after reaching 100.
Later in life JF did give him much credit.
The religious/politcial rift in the side was with Bill O'Reilly,
Fleetwood-Smith and, I forget the third, may have been JF. They had a
dressing down from the selectors early in Don's captaincy.
jai
Spaceman Spiff
>
> The religious/politcial rift in the side was with Bill O'Reilly,
> Fleetwood-Smith and, I forget the third, may have been JF. They had a
> dressing down from the selectors early in Don's captaincy.
>
clique which excluded others (bradman was a protestant).
when bradman was on tour, he became irritated that irish catholics on board
ship went off together to sunday mass, and that they did so in a pointed
manner. how much is true and how much was bradman's own misconceptions, is
not clear. however, he made several remarks commenting about these issues,
which only served to antagonize the catholics, who included o'reilly,
fingleton, stan mccabe, leo o'brien and ernie mccormick.
that created a definite coolness between the parties in this case. though
they all acknowledged his superiority as a scored and a batsman, they
usually (especially fingleton) found some nits to pick about his skills.
Mad Hamish
<spacema...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>"Jai Natarajan" <j...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a7d9l7$1...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>
>> The religious/politcial rift in the side was with Bill O'Reilly,
>> Fleetwood-Smith and, I forget the third, may have been JF. They had a
>> dressing down from the selectors early in Don's captaincy.
>>
>bradman had a perception that the roman catholics in the team had formed a
>clique which excluded others (bradman was a protestant).
Any source for Bradman making comments?
I've never heard one.
I'd also find it hard to believe that Bradman would get worried about
what somebody else did on tour considering that he did his own thing a
fair bit as well (e.g. time by himself in his room, didn't drink etc)
>when bradman was on tour, he became irritated that irish catholics on board
>ship went off together to sunday mass, and that they did so in a pointed
>manner. how much is true and how much was bradman's own misconceptions, is
>not clear. however, he made several remarks commenting about these issues,
>which only served to antagonize the catholics, who included o'reilly,
>fingleton, stan mccabe, leo o'brien and ernie mccormick.
Source?
>that created a definite coolness between the parties in this case. though
>they all acknowledged his superiority as a scored and a batsman, they
>usually (especially fingleton) found some nits to pick about his skills.
--
Spaceman Spiff
> [snip]
> Any source for Bradman making comments?
> Source?
>
http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
Gafoor
"Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:zatm8.7409$BP1...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
> "Mad Hamish" <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:3c9a572f...@bri-news.tpg.com.au...
> > [snip]
> > Any source for Bradman making comments?
> > [snip]
> > Source?
> >
>
> http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
What's a Mason ?
"Obviously, this still rankled with him more than half a century later. Sure
Bradman was a
Protestant and, for a time at least, a Mason. Even so, his enduring sense of
private grievance
concerning the religious divisions of another age was surprising. Especially
for someone
who projected a tolerant image. "
Does it stand for Freemason ?
Can someone explain more about Freemasonery ?
Is it like a Protestant Jihad group ?
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>
>"Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>news:zatm8.7409$BP1...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
>> "Mad Hamish" <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> news:3c9a572f...@bri-news.tpg.com.au...
>> > [snip]
>> > Any source for Bradman making comments?
>> > [snip]
>> > Source?
>> >
>>
>> http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
>
>What's a Mason ?
>"Obviously, this still rankled with him more than half a century later. Sure
>Bradman was a
>Protestant and, for a time at least, a Mason. Even so, his enduring sense of
>private grievance
>concerning the religious divisions of another age was surprising. Especially
>for someone
>who projected a tolerant image. "
>
>Does it stand for Freemason ?
yep.
>Can someone explain more about Freemasonery ?
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Social_Organizations/Freemasonry/
should give you enough sources to give you a confused idea of it.
Ken Higgs
Mad Hamish wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:19:06 +1100, Ken Higgs <kenh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Jai Natarajan wrote:
> >
> >> The disease of Trumper comparisons started with Fingleton I think who went
> >> to lengths to try and prove Trumper was a better bat than Bradman
> >>
> >> jai
> >>
> >
> >To be fair to Fingleton, whilst there was a mutual dislike between him &
> >Bradman, he was said to appreciate his batting talents.
>
> Suggesting a "mutual dislike" there is rather stretching the matter.
>
> Fingleton claimed that Bradman hated him because Bradman prefered
> Brown to Fingleton as an opener in 1934 because Bradman felt that
> Brown was better suited for English conditions.
>
> Fingleton in England
> 4 6 0 123 40 31 30 20.50 0 0 0
> Brown in England
> 11 20 1 885 206* 133 105 46.57 3 3 1
>
> looks like the decision was justified.
>
> In The Don by Roland Perry Fingleton is quoted as complaining that
> Bradman's big scores meant that people didn't appreciate how tough a
> 50 was to make...
>
I was referring more to the 'there's only one team out there playing cricket'
quote, the leak of which Fingleton put down to Bradman. No-one 'fessed up &
Fingleton got the blame.
Higgsy
Mad Hamish
<spacema...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:3c9a572f...@bri-news.tpg.com.au...
>> [snip]
>> Any source for Bradman making comments?
>> [snip]
>> Source?
>>
>
>http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
>
o.k. looking at the article
Fingleton, O'Reilly, O'Brien and McCabe were summoned before the board
of control in 36-37. Bradman has always denied that he knew anything
about the meeting before it was held and states that he doesn't know
exactly went on during it.
The Australian selectors dropped Richardson who had captained the
touring squad and was popular but averaged 23.53 in tests and had
averaged 16.80 in South Africa.
They also dropped Grimmett, many people lay that at the door of
Bradman. There is no record of who voted which way on Grimmett's
selection but O'Reilly never forgave Bradman for Grimmett being
dropped.
I can't recall where I saw or read it but I've always been interested
by a comment of Bradman's that as a selector he was often criticised
bitterly for players being omitted whom he had actually been trying to
get into the team, it'd be tough to come up with a more controversial
selection in the entire time that Bradman was a selector than when
Grimmett was dropped.
Arthur Mailey wrote
"Some members of the team have not been giving Bradman the
co-operation that a captain is entitled to expect. Ther is definately,
and has been for some time, an important section of the team that has
not seen eye to eye with Bradman, either on or off the field."
Woodfull is said to have told some of his workmates that
"O'Reilly and Fingleton want McCabe to be captain. With Australia 0:2
down they have decided that this is the moment to lobby against
Bradman."
Bradman's comment on the issue
"More good would accrue if the Englishmen were give due credit for
well-deserved victories and if the Australia team were accorded more
sympathetic understanding from those people who really know nothing
about the inner workings.
I have never played in an Australian Eleven which was not 100 per cent
loyal to its captain, and I know that I never will."
Now if Mailey and Woodfull are correct then calling players before the
board was justified. If Bradman is telling the truth when he says that
he wasn't consulted before they were called up then whether justified
or not it's got nothing to do with him.
I've never heard anything about MCCormick being hostile to Bradman
(aside from when he was bowling), there doesn't appear to have been
anything much between O'Brien and Bradman either.
If Bradman sounded bitter during the interview it could well be
because of Fingleton who
- claimed that it was Bradman who leaked the famous 'There are two
teams out there...' quote.
According to Roland Perry in The Don Warner asked one of the
journalists the source on the day and was told it was Fingleton.
Fingleton claimed years later than Bradman told the journalist the
remark at a clandestine meeting, funnily enough the journalist in
question was dead by the time and so not in a position to comment.
Perry on the 34 tour of england selections
"Fingleton and Ricahrdson were considered unlucky to miss
out...Fingleton on the other hand blamed Bradman for not getting in
the side. When I asked Bradman if there were any truth in this he
replied:
I wasn't a selector or captain then, but I always thought that Billy
Brown was a better opener than Fingleton and that he would do better
on English soil. This proved correct in '34, '38 and '48. I may have
expressed this to selectors at the time.
This partly explained Fingleton's instigation of what became a long
running fued with Bradman. He went to the trouble of writing a book on
Victor Rumpre pointing out why he was a better batsman than Bradman.
This was some challenge.... Fingleton suggested that Trumper didn't
like big scores and that he wanted to get out at 50, although the
journalist failed to explain how Trumper came to score a triple
century against a county..."
In Brightly Fades The Don Fingleton puts forwards the claim that
Bradman was terrible on wet wickets and quotes results to show it.
Funnily enough he seems to omit any wicket where rain fell but Bradman
still made runs, for instance in 1930 when he made 232 batting on 3
days (from 27* to 130* on day 3) due to rain interruptions.
The Daily Mail
"the courage of Bradman and Jackson when facing the fast stuff on a
wicket which was distinctly unpleasant after the rain..."
yet the innings doesn't count as a wet wicket according to
Fingleton...
Fingleton was hugely critical of Bradman's efforts against Bodyline,
claiming that he ran away because he was scared.
Here are the averages
DG Bradman 4 8 1 396 56.57 103* 3 1 3
SJ McCabe 5 10 1 385 42.77 187* 1 1 4
LS Darling 2 4 0 148 37.00 85 1 0 2
WM Woodfull 5 10 1 305 33.88 73* 3 0 0
PK Lee 1 2 0 57 28.50 42 0 0 0
VY Richardson 5 10 0 279 27.90 83 1 0 7
WAS Oldfield 4 7 2 136 27.20 52 1 0 6/1
JHW Fingleton 3 6 0 150 25.00 83 1 0 3
WH Ponsford 3 6 0 141 23.50 85 1 0 0
LPJ O'Brien 2 4 0 87 21.75 61 1 0 2
LE Nagel 1 2 1 21 21.00 21* 0 0 0
HH Alexander 1 2 1 17 17.00 17* 0 0 0
EH Bromley 1 2 0 33 16.50 26 0 0 1
AF Kippax 1 2 0 27 13.50 19 0 0 0
CV Grimmett 3 6 0 42 7.00 19 0 0 1
WJ O'Reilly 5 10 0 61 6.10 19 0 0 1
TW Wall 4 8 1 42 6.00 20 0 0 4
HSB Love 1 2 0 8 4.00 5 0 0 3
H Ironmonger 4 8 3 13 2.60 8 0 0 2
Notice anything about Bradman's results compared to Fingleton's?
In fact Bradman's results against Bodyline were
a) Better than anybody managed for England not facing bodyline
b) Better than Fingleton managed in any series against England.
Looks like Fingleton doesn't have much to stand on there to me...
"This in spite of the fact that the likes of Jack Fingleton and Bill
O'Reilly were unstinting in their praise of Bradman as a cricketer. "
Certainly the facts don't support the claim that Fingleton was
unstinting in his praise of Bradman the cricketer. O'Reilly was, but
then O'Reilly's criticisms of Bradman in other areas are more
justified. Fingleton's were IMO.
I can't find the source of the quote at the minute but I have seen it
said that Fingleton whinged that Bradman's habit of making huge scores
drew so much adoration that people who made 50s never got noticed.
As to
"Of course, as their names imply, they were all of Irish origin, all
Roman Catholic and mostly Labor in politics because of it." He then
quoted Bradman as claiming that "Fingleton was the ring-leader" and as
asserting: "When they arrived at Melbourne Railway Station (after the
South African tour) they were met by a bunch of priests in cassocks."
Well comments attributed to Woodfull suggest that Fingleton was a
ringleader of a plot to remove Bradman from the captaincy. The
comments on the 'priests in cassocks' looks to me like it could well
be interpreting a statement too literally. Having read a fair bit of
Bradman's writings and heard him in interviews it strikes me as
unlikely to be literal.
If 'priests in cassocks' was a common reference in the 30s it's likely
that Bradman used it in the way it was used in the 30s rather than
literally. I don't think there's any real doubt that there were
cliques in the team,. there are in most modern teams as well.
There is appreciably evidence that Fingleton was jealous of Bradman,
he wrote that Bradman had succeeded in England in previous tours
because they were uncommonly dry summers. Wisden comments on the 1930
tour that there were more matches disrupted by rain that was
common....
As a selector for 30+ years and chairman of selectors for most of that
time of course Bradman will have the odd clash with cricketers. He's
the one they'll hold responsible if they're dropped.
regarding
Lord Williams told Amanda Smith in August 1996 that, when Bradman was
on tour, he became irritated that Catholics "on board ship ¤ went off
together to Mass on the Sunday". Especially since "they made a point
of doing that in a ¤ pointed manner". He could only have got this
information from The Don himself.
Crud. It could be something that somebody else told Williams and he
accepted it.
regarding
Keith Miller was Australia's greatest all-rounder. He is evidence for
the proposition that it was not only irreverent Catholics such as
O'Reilly, Fingleton and McCabe who found Bradman difficult. It appears
that, to Miller, The Don was authoritarian and awesomely serious. And
a great cricketer as well.
Considering the stories of Miller coming in from a night on the town
just as the rest of the team was ready to leave for a test match in
1948 (revealed by one of the other 48 tourists on an ABC radion
interview) perhaps Bradman felt that Miller had to be watched a bit
more than most?
regarding
On the ABC-TV Lateline program last Monday, Roland Perry claimed that
Bradman "made very little money out of the game". This is
questionable. As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian,
has demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in
our history" (Sunday Age, June 2, 1996). Fair enough. He was entitled
to market his prodigious ability.
Bradman was not a professional cricketer. He did receive a large
testimonial and did receive money as gifts. The majority of Bradman's
money came from his stockbroking and later work as company directors
on many boards. It's undeniable that he got those opportunities
because of his cricket but it doesn't mean that he was paid all that
much for cricket.
As for the comment that
However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s.
a) In Bradman's day very few players in Australia were professional
cricketers, in fact the only way to really be a professional cricketer
was to move to England. Even in Australia in the 60s I think you'll
find that most cricketers held down jobs (heck in the early 80s Kepler
Wessels and Alan Border were given jobs by a company)
b) Bradman had mostly stepped down from a main role in administering
cricket in 71-72. He was a South Australian board representative after
that but not a major force in admistration by the time that things
came to a head.
His comment in The Don By Roland Perry
"I had avoided being a professional. I would get to the office at 7
a.m., and then walk to the ground to play at 11 a.m. It wasn't unusual
for me to arrive at the match, walk on the field in my suit and toss
the coin. Straight after the game I would return to the office and
work for several more hours. That could not happen today. There are so
many addition tours ... Cricketers must be professional."
Bradman didn't like the WSC breakaway movement but agreed that the
ciicketers were underpaid at that time.
Certainly that source appears to be ocnsiderably kinder to Fingleton
than what I've heard and read would justify. Looks to me like he may
be trying for a bit of poppy lopping himself....
Yuk Tang
>
> This partly explained Fingleton's instigation of what became a long
> running fued with Bradman. He went to the trouble of writing a book on
> Victor Rumpre pointing out why he was a better batsman than Bradman.
> This was some challenge.... Fingleton suggested that Trumper didn't
> like big scores and that he wanted to get out at 50, although the
> journalist failed to explain how Trumper came to score a triple
> century against a county..."
>
> In Brightly Fades The Don Fingleton puts forwards the claim that
> Bradman was terrible on wet wickets and quotes results to show it.
> Funnily enough he seems to omit any wicket where rain fell but Bradman
> still made runs, for instance in 1930 when he made 232 batting on 3
> days (from 27* to 130* on day 3) due to rain interruptions.
>
> The Daily Mail
> "the courage of Bradman and Jackson when facing the fast stuff on a
> wicket which was distinctly unpleasant after the rain..."
>
> yet the innings doesn't count as a wet wicket according to
> Fingleton...
>
> Fingleton was hugely critical of Bradman's efforts against Bodyline,
> claiming that he ran away because he was scared.
[snip]
Was Fingleton born in India?
Cheers, ymt.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
Fingleton made that allegation years later after the reporter that
Bradman is supposed to have met with had died.
According to Roland Perry Warner asked one of the reporters who had
leaked the info on the day and was told that it was Fingleton.
Now I'm not saying it's certain that it was Fingleton but Fingleton's
story saying it was Bradman has no supporting evidence and I'd
struggle to call Fingleton unbiased...
Ken Higgs
Gafoor wrote:
ROTFL!
I like that!
They have a funny handshake and keep secrets, I think a lot of their dealings
are business related.
Just followed the link. Interesting.
I recall a little (Hamish will cane me for lack of reference) about Woodfull or
Ponsford, and an interview conducted before their deaths and an oblique
reference to 'he never forgave The Don, nor would he ever speak about it'. I
never knew what that was about. Still don't.
IRT WSC, Bradman does come up smelling slightly less of roses in his dealings
with the team of the 70s, appearing as a bit of a stuffed shirt.
Which of course has Buckleys to do with his cricketing ability or indeed any
supposed form slump
Higgsy
Sanctify
the 'leaking' to the press of the famous Bodyline exchange between Woodfull
and Warner.
In Cricket Crisis Fingleton claims that Bradman leaked the comments and
would never own up to it and instead implied that Fingleton himself was the
person that allowed the comments to become public, thus marking him forever
as someone that couldn't be trusted in the dressing room. Certainly Bradman
took more than a few swipes at Fingleton in his own Farewell To Cricket,
something that Fingleton thought was a retaliation for his own comments
about The Don in Cricket Crisis.....but then who really knows what went on
between the two of them?
"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:3c99b14a...@bri-news.tpg.com.au...
Colin Lord
"Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:a7dnhb$kj969$1...@ID-27262.news.dfncis.de...
> Does it stand for Freemason ?
> Can someone explain more about Freemasonery ?
Not really. Strange bunch which AFAIK are denonimational, but you must
believe in a higher entity. But I can tell you that they did NOT get on
well with Catholics in the 1st half of the century.
Ken Higgs
Mad Hamish wrote:
could this be the complaint I had heard vis Woodfull?
>
> I've never heard anything about MCCormick being hostile to Bradman
> (aside from when he was bowling), there doesn't appear to have been
> anything much between O'Brien and Bradman either.
>
> If Bradman sounded bitter during the interview it could well be
> because of Fingleton who
> - claimed that it was Bradman who leaked the famous 'There are two
> teams out there...' quote.
> According to Roland Perry in The Don Warner asked one of the
> journalists the source on the day and was told it was Fingleton.
> Fingleton claimed years later than Bradman told the journalist the
> remark at a clandestine meeting, funnily enough the journalist in
> question was dead by the time and so not in a position to comment.
>
I've heard that leak attributed to Bradman on a number of occasions from a
number of sources.
Perhaps they all go back to the same sourse, I dunno.
But hey, it had to have come from *somewhere*.
Any suggestions?
(Bradman also had a newspaper contract at the time IIRC).
yes, but so was O' Reilly.
>
> Here are the averages
> DG Bradman 4 8 1 396 56.57 103* 3 1 3
> SJ McCabe 5 10 1 385 42.77 187* 1 1 4
> LS Darling 2 4 0 148 37.00 85 1 0 2
> WM Woodfull 5 10 1 305 33.88 73* 3 0 0
> PK Lee 1 2 0 57 28.50 42 0 0 0
> VY Richardson 5 10 0 279 27.90 83 1 0 7
> WAS Oldfield 4 7 2 136 27.20 52 1 0 6/1
> JHW Fingleton 3 6 0 150 25.00 83 1 0 3
> WH Ponsford 3 6 0 141 23.50 85 1 0 0
> LPJ O'Brien 2 4 0 87 21.75 61 1 0 2
> LE Nagel 1 2 1 21 21.00 21* 0 0 0
> HH Alexander 1 2 1 17 17.00 17* 0 0 0
> EH Bromley 1 2 0 33 16.50 26 0 0 1
> AF Kippax 1 2 0 27 13.50 19 0 0 0
> CV Grimmett 3 6 0 42 7.00 19 0 0 1
> WJ O'Reilly 5 10 0 61 6.10 19 0 0 1
> TW Wall 4 8 1 42 6.00 20 0 0 4
> HSB Love 1 2 0 8 4.00 5 0 0 3
> H Ironmonger 4 8 3 13 2.60 8 0 0 2
>
> Notice anything about Bradman's results compared to Fingleton's?
>
> In fact Bradman's results against Bodyline were
> a) Better than anybody managed for England not facing bodyline
Actually, they weren't.
(can't get onto Crickinfo just now, no matter which mirror I use)
He had the best ave of recognised batsmen, I don't think he had the most
runs, though.
>
> b) Better than Fingleton managed in any series against England.
>
> Looks like Fingleton doesn't have much to stand on there to me...
>
> "This in spite of the fact that the likes of Jack Fingleton and Bill
> O'Reilly were unstinting in their praise of Bradman as a cricketer. "
>
> Certainly the facts don't support the claim that Fingleton was
> unstinting in his praise of Bradman the cricketer. O'Reilly was, but
> then O'Reilly's criticisms of Bradman in other areas are more
> justified. Fingleton's were IMO.
>
You are being selective there, Fingleton has praised Bradman on numerous
occasions.
He was the No.1 sporting celebrity of his day, given, I think, GBP1000 on
his return from the 1930 series by a wealthy admirer. He missed the 1st
Bodyline Test partly because of a dispute over his newspaper column (much
as say Warney & Co. have these days), he faced the Board down over this.
Yes, mostly his income came from 'outside' cricket, but it was because of
his cricket and was at the time he was playing.
If he had litt;e money during the 30s, he must've been pretty profligate
(which certainly doesn't seem to have been in his character)
>
> As for the comment that
> However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
> state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
> stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
> for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
> breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s.
>
> a) In Bradman's day very few players in Australia were professional
> cricketers, in fact the only way to really be a professional cricketer
> was to move to England. Even in Australia in the 60s I think you'll
> find that most cricketers held down jobs (heck in the early 80s Kepler
> Wessels and Alan Border were given jobs by a company)
> b) Bradman had mostly stepped down from a main role in administering
> cricket in 71-72. He was a South Australian board representative after
> that but not a major force in admistration by the time that things
> came to a head.
>
He was still very much a power in the background, from what I've read.
(try Cricket wars)
>
> His comment in The Don By Roland Perry
> "I had avoided being a professional. I would get to the office at 7
> a.m., and then walk to the ground to play at 11 a.m. It wasn't unusual
> for me to arrive at the match, walk on the field in my suit and toss
> the coin. Straight after the game I would return to the office and
> work for several more hours. That could not happen today. There are so
> many addition tours ... Cricketers must be professional."
>
> Bradman didn't like the WSC breakaway movement but agreed that the
> ciicketers were underpaid at that time.
>
>
hmmmm.
>
>
> Certainly that source appears to be ocnsiderably kinder to Fingleton
> than what I've heard and read would justify. Looks to me like he may
> be trying for a bit of poppy lopping himself....
> --
> "Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
> Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
>
> Mad Hamish
> Hamish Laws
> h_l...@bigpond.com
Hamish,
over time, I've seen you as a big Bradman fan.
I'm not trying to say you're posting a load of hokey here, but I reckon
your interpretation of events is rosier than some others might be.
Higgsy
sort of expecting that to be taken the wrong way
Ken Higgs
Mad Hamish wrote:
or vice versa.
Bradman was a complex man, what he didn't say could be revealing.
Asked about Wally Hammonds batting, he said 'he was greatly undervalued as a bowler'
(or some such).
This was the guy, almost his exact contemporary, who he'd have seen on innumerable
occasions, including scoring consecutive double tons in successive matches
(innings?)
Higgsy
Colin Lord
"Colin Lord" <cl...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Alzm8.18657$Hz2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Sorry, non-denonimational (typo).
Shishir Pathak
news:a7e1u2$65v$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Actually he's Crapstle's (TM) grandfather.
Cheers,
Shishir
>
>
>
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>
>
>Mad Hamish wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:30:55 GMT, "Spaceman Spiff"
>> <spacema...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3c9a572f...@bri-news.tpg.com.au...
>>
>> Now if Mailey and Woodfull are correct then calling players before the
>> board was justified. If Bradman is telling the truth when he says that
>> he wasn't consulted before they were called up then whether justified
>> or not it's got nothing to do with him.
>>
>
>could this be the complaint I had heard vis Woodfull?
Could be.
>
>>
>> I've never heard anything about MCCormick being hostile to Bradman
>> (aside from when he was bowling), there doesn't appear to have been
>> anything much between O'Brien and Bradman either.
>>
>> If Bradman sounded bitter during the interview it could well be
>> because of Fingleton who
>> - claimed that it was Bradman who leaked the famous 'There are two
>> teams out there...' quote.
>> According to Roland Perry in The Don Warner asked one of the
>> journalists the source on the day and was told it was Fingleton.
>> Fingleton claimed years later than Bradman told the journalist the
>> remark at a clandestine meeting, funnily enough the journalist in
>> question was dead by the time and so not in a position to comment.
>>
>
>I've heard that leak attributed to Bradman on a number of occasions from a
>number of sources.
>Perhaps they all go back to the same sourse, I dunno.
I'd suspect so. Fingleton spread his views pretty widely and did a lot
of cricket writing so his view is likely to have spread.
>But hey, it had to have come from *somewhere*.
>Any suggestions?
If I was betting on anybody I'd bet on Fingleton.
Ashley Mallett suggests Grimmett as a possible source for the leak.
>(Bradman also had a newspaper contract at the time IIRC).
>
Yes,
Source?
he missed the fist test
He played 4 tests Hammond etc played 5 tests.
Not surprising that Hammond made more runs in the series then is it?
Hammond and Sutcliffe each scored 440 runs, Bradman 396
Hammond and Sutcliffe each had 1 more innings than Bradman (and they
each had 1 not out)
>>
>> b) Better than Fingleton managed in any series against England.
>>
>> Looks like Fingleton doesn't have much to stand on there to me...
>>
>> "This in spite of the fact that the likes of Jack Fingleton and Bill
>> O'Reilly were unstinting in their praise of Bradman as a cricketer. "
>>
>> Certainly the facts don't support the claim that Fingleton was
>> unstinting in his praise of Bradman the cricketer. O'Reilly was, but
>> then O'Reilly's criticisms of Bradman in other areas are more
>> justified. Fingleton's were IMO.
>
>You are being selective there, Fingleton has praised Bradman on numerous
>occasions.
unstinting
adj : very generous; "distributed gifts with a lavish hand"; "the
critics were lavish in their praise"; "a munificent gift"; "his father
gave him a half-dollar and his mother a quarter and he thought them
munificent"; "prodigal praise"; "unsparing generosity"; "his unstinted
devotion"; "called for unstinting aid to Britain"
Considering Fingleton's comments on Bradman vs Bodyline, his crap
about Bradman on wet wickets (omitting at least one wet wicket where
Bradman made a double 100) and him stating that Bradman had only
previously succeeded in England due to dry summers when Wisden states
that 1930 was hugely affected by rain he's well short of unstinting
praise of Bradman as a cricketer.
If Fingleton _hadn't_ praised Bradman a bit nobody could have taken
him at all seriously _and_ he wouldn't have earned anything from
Brightly Fades The Don...
>>
>> regarding
>> On the ABC-TV Lateline program last Monday, Roland Perry claimed that
>> Bradman "made very little money out of the game". This is
>> questionable. As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian,
>> has demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in
>> our history" (Sunday Age, June 2, 1996). Fair enough. He was entitled
>> to market his prodigious ability.
>>
>> Bradman was not a professional cricketer. He did receive a large
>> testimonial and did receive money as gifts. The majority of Bradman's
>> money came from his stockbroking and later work as company directors
>> on many boards. It's undeniable that he got those opportunities
>> because of his cricket but it doesn't mean that he was paid all that
>> much for cricket.
>>
>
>He was the No.1 sporting celebrity of his day, given, I think, GBP1000 on
>his return from the 1930 series by a wealthy admirer.
iirc during the tour
He wasn't the only person who that benefactor donated money to
> He missed the 1st
>Bodyline Test partly because of a dispute over his newspaper column (much
>as say Warney & Co. have these days),
Not exactly.
Under the rules at that time a player was allowed to write a newspaper
column journalism was his sole profession. Bradman was in a contract
where he was going to do some radio, some press and (iirc) some
promotion work.
Because he was not solely employed as a journalist he was not allowed
to write the column by the board.
> he faced the Board down over this.
No, actually he was released from the requirement to write a newspaper
column by his employer who did not want to a) deny Australia Bradman's
services as a batsman or b) be known as the person who had denied
Australia Bradman's services as a batsman.
>Yes, mostly his income came from 'outside' cricket, but it was because of
>his cricket and was at the time he was playing.
Analyse the following sentence
"It's undeniable that he got those opportunities
because of his cricket but it doesn't mean that he was paid all that
much for cricket."
you'll find it was in my previous post.
Many olympic medalists don't get paid that much for their sport, they
make money from publicity generated from their win (Tatiana for
instance will have made far more money from publicity and modelling
than from competing in the pole vault)
>If he had litt;e money during the 30s, he must've been pretty profligate
>(which certainly doesn't seem to have been in his character)
>
The phrase was 'doesn't mean that he was paid all that
much for cricket'
"not had little money"
(although he made much more money after the 30s than during it, as a
stockbroker and company director)
He started as an independent stockbroker because him employer went
bust and owed Bradman money at the time.
>>
>> As for the comment that
>> However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
>> state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
>> stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
>> for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
>> breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s.
>>
>> a) In Bradman's day very few players in Australia were professional
>> cricketers, in fact the only way to really be a professional cricketer
>> was to move to England. Even in Australia in the 60s I think you'll
>> find that most cricketers held down jobs (heck in the early 80s Kepler
>> Wessels and Alan Border were given jobs by a company)
>> b) Bradman had mostly stepped down from a main role in administering
>> cricket in 71-72. He was a South Australian board representative after
>> that but not a major force in admistration by the time that things
>> came to a head.
>>
>
>He was still very much a power in the background, from what I've read.
>(try Cricket wars)
By an offsider of Kerry Packer isn't it?
Perhaps not the best source for an unbiased view of an establishment
figure.
>>
>> His comment in The Don By Roland Perry
>> "I had avoided being a professional. I would get to the office at 7
>> a.m., and then walk to the ground to play at 11 a.m. It wasn't unusual
>> for me to arrive at the match, walk on the field in my suit and toss
>> the coin. Straight after the game I would return to the office and
>> work for several more hours. That could not happen today. There are so
>> many addition tours ... Cricketers must be professional."
>>
>> Bradman didn't like the WSC breakaway movement but agreed that the
>> ciicketers were underpaid at that time.
>>
>hmmmm.
>
What, you can't disagree with methods taken if you agree with the
goals?
>>
>> Certainly that source appears to be ocnsiderably kinder to Fingleton
>> than what I've heard and read would justify. Looks to me like he may
>> be trying for a bit of poppy lopping himself....
>
>Hamish,
>over time, I've seen you as a big Bradman fan.
>I'm not trying to say you're posting a load of hokey here, but I reckon
>your interpretation of events is rosier than some others might be.
>
I am a Bradman fan.
I _don't_ think that Bradman is perfect or never made a mistake.
However when it comes down to Bradman vs Fingleton Bradman has much
more credibility IMO.
Fingleton certainly appears to have done the best job he can to have
cut Bradman down to size (claiming that Trumper tried to get out past
50 and hence was a better bat, not counting rain affected wickets as
wet wickets if Bradman made runs, accusing him of running away from
bodyline etc)
Given Fingleton's writings on Bradman I don't trust him as far as I
can throw him for comments on Bradman and allegations about Bradman.
Given that Bradman was _1_ board member in the time when WSC was
happening and his public utterances were affected becasue he was on
the board and could hardly go against them the criticiism of his view
on the 70 pay is somewhat iffy...
Mad Hamish
<sanc...@kagpublishing.com> wrote:
>I've always been under the impression that Fingleton disliked Bradman due to
>the 'leaking' to the press of the famous Bodyline exchange between Woodfull
>and Warner.
>
>In Cricket Crisis Fingleton claims that Bradman leaked the comments and
>would never own up to it and instead implied that Fingleton himself was the
>person that allowed the comments to become public, thus marking him forever
>as someone that couldn't be trusted in the dressing room.
Yes, funnily enough Fingleton's source for the knowledge was dead
before Fingleton ever said anything.
Warner is meant to have been told during the match that it was
Fingleton.
>Certainly Bradman
>took more than a few swipes at Fingleton in his own Farewell To Cricket,
>something that Fingleton thought was a retaliation for his own comments
>about The Don in Cricket Crisis.....but then who really knows what went on
>between the two of them?
Bradman's swipes at Fingleton in A Farewell to Cricket which were
_not_ directly addressing Fingleton's columns being?
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>or vice versa.
>
>Bradman was a complex man, what he didn't say could be revealing.
>Asked about Wally Hammonds batting, he said 'he was greatly undervalued as a bowler'
>(or some such).
Source?
Mad Hamish
wrote:
Largely because Catholics in England, Australia and the USA tended to
be in the working classes while the masons were establishment figures.
Ken Higgs
Mad Hamish wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:40:53 +1100, Ken Higgs <kenh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >or vice versa.
> >
> >Bradman was a complex man, what he didn't say could be revealing.
> >Asked about Wally Hammonds batting, he said 'he was greatly undervalued as a bowler'
> >(or some such).
>
> Source?
> --
Hammond: The Reasons Why
Higgsy
Ken Higgs
Mad Hamish wrote:
source?
>
>
> >But hey, it had to have come from *somewhere*.
> >Any suggestions?
>
> If I was betting on anybody I'd bet on Fingleton.
> Ashley Mallett suggests Grimmett as a possible source for the leak.
source?
National Library Sound Archives
No,
but you need to be careful about how you class people when you are very picky
about how other people do it.
>
>
> Hammond and Sutcliffe each scored 440 runs, Bradman 396
> Hammond and Sutcliffe each had 1 more innings than Bradman (and they
> each had 1 not out)
yup
so his praise of Bradman indicates to you that he had no respect for Bradmans
batting talents?
>
> >>
> >> regarding
> >> On the ABC-TV Lateline program last Monday, Roland Perry claimed that
> >> Bradman "made very little money out of the game". This is
> >> questionable. As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian,
> >> has demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in
> >> our history" (Sunday Age, June 2, 1996). Fair enough. He was entitled
> >> to market his prodigious ability.
> >>
> >> Bradman was not a professional cricketer. He did receive a large
> >> testimonial and did receive money as gifts. The majority of Bradman's
> >> money came from his stockbroking and later work as company directors
> >> on many boards. It's undeniable that he got those opportunities
> >> because of his cricket but it doesn't mean that he was paid all that
> >> much for cricket.
> >>
> >
> >He was the No.1 sporting celebrity of his day, given, I think, GBP1000 on
> >his return from the 1930 series by a wealthy admirer.
>
> iirc during the tour
> He wasn't the only person who that benefactor donated money to
>
source?
>
> > He missed the 1st
> >Bodyline Test partly because of a dispute over his newspaper column (much
> >as say Warney & Co. have these days),
>
> Not exactly.
> Under the rules at that time a player was allowed to write a newspaper
> column journalism was his sole profession. Bradman was in a contract
> where he was going to do some radio, some press and (iirc) some
> promotion work.
> Because he was not solely employed as a journalist he was not allowed
> to write the column by the board.
read what I wrote
>
>
> > he faced the Board down over this.
>
> No, actually he was released from the requirement to write a newspaper
> column by his employer who did not want to a) deny Australia Bradman's
> services as a batsman or b) be known as the person who had denied
> Australia Bradman's services as a batsman.
yep, but that was the newspaper releasing him, not Bradman backing down
>
>
> >Yes, mostly his income came from 'outside' cricket, but it was because of
> >his cricket and was at the time he was playing.
>
> Analyse the following sentence
> "It's undeniable that he got those opportunities
> because of his cricket but it doesn't mean that he was paid all that
> much for cricket."
>
> you'll find it was in my previous post.
>
and mine too.
>
> Many olympic medalists don't get paid that much for their sport, they
> make money from publicity generated from their win (Tatiana for
> instance will have made far more money from publicity and modelling
> than from competing in the pole vault)
yep
>
>
> >If he had litt;e money during the 30s, he must've been pretty profligate
> >(which certainly doesn't seem to have been in his character)
> >
>
> The phrase was 'doesn't mean that he was paid all that
> much for cricket'
> "not had little money"
> (although he made much more money after the 30s than during it, as a
> stockbroker and company director)
>
yes, but the implication was that he was a poor man.
He wasn't.
>
> He started as an independent stockbroker because him employer went
> bust and owed Bradman money at the time.
Hamish, you've admitted that a wellwisher gave him GBP1000 (without demanding a
source), a huge amount of money for the time.
If this had all gone, who's fault was that?
(I don't believe it was all gone)
>
>
> >>
> >> As for the comment that
> >> However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
> >> state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
> >> stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
> >> for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
> >> breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s.
> >>
> >> a) In Bradman's day very few players in Australia were professional
> >> cricketers, in fact the only way to really be a professional cricketer
> >> was to move to England. Even in Australia in the 60s I think you'll
> >> find that most cricketers held down jobs (heck in the early 80s Kepler
> >> Wessels and Alan Border were given jobs by a company)
> >> b) Bradman had mostly stepped down from a main role in administering
> >> cricket in 71-72. He was a South Australian board representative after
> >> that but not a major force in admistration by the time that things
> >> came to a head.
> >>
> >
> >He was still very much a power in the background, from what I've read.
> >(try Cricket wars)
>
> By an offsider of Kerry Packer isn't it?
> Perhaps not the best source for an unbiased view of an establishment
> figure.
Gideon Haigh is a highly regarded cricket writer. He may or may not have worked
for Packer at some time, but to write off his contribution as non biased or
some sort of apology for WSC indicates to me that you haven't read the book.
>
> >>
> >> His comment in The Don By Roland Perry
> >> "I had avoided being a professional. I would get to the office at 7
> >> a.m., and then walk to the ground to play at 11 a.m. It wasn't unusual
> >> for me to arrive at the match, walk on the field in my suit and toss
> >> the coin. Straight after the game I would return to the office and
> >> work for several more hours. That could not happen today. There are so
> >> many addition tours ... Cricketers must be professional."
> >>
> >> Bradman didn't like the WSC breakaway movement but agreed that the
> >> ciicketers were underpaid at that time.
> >>
> >hmmmm.
> >
> What, you can't disagree with methods taken if you agree with the
> goals?
>
not at all.
But you're basing your comment on how Bradman reacted to WSC on something
written by someone who has already had their allegiances questioned on this
group and the context being Bradmans work habits during his playing career, ie
30 years previously
>
> >>
> >> Certainly that source appears to be ocnsiderably kinder to Fingleton
> >> than what I've heard and read would justify. Looks to me like he may
> >> be trying for a bit of poppy lopping himself....
> >
> >Hamish,
> >over time, I've seen you as a big Bradman fan.
> >I'm not trying to say you're posting a load of hokey here, but I reckon
> >your interpretation of events is rosier than some others might be.
> >
> I am a Bradman fan.
>
you don't say.
>
> I _don't_ think that Bradman is perfect or never made a mistake.
>
neither do I.
Neither was I trying to portray him as some sort of ogre.
>
> However when it comes down to Bradman vs Fingleton Bradman has much
> more credibility IMO.
> Fingleton certainly appears to have done the best job he can to have
> cut Bradman down to size (claiming that Trumper tried to get out past
> 50 and hence was a better bat, not counting rain affected wickets as
> wet wickets if Bradman made runs, accusing him of running away from
> bodyline etc)
> Given Fingleton's writings on Bradman I don't trust him as far as I
> can throw him for comments on Bradman and allegations about Bradman.
That's fine, I respect your position.
However, not all the material I've referenced has come from Fingleton, and you
seem equally sceptical of any of that.
>
>
> Given that Bradman was _1_ board member in the time when WSC was
> happening and his public utterances were affected becasue he was on
> the board and could hardly go against them the criticiism of his view
> on the 70 pay is somewhat iffy...
> --
Well I beg to differ on the i Board member issue.
He was the pre eminent figure in Australian cricket for an awfully long time,
his views were often deferred to, him being an almost legendary figure.
Yes, reports I've read on him vis WSC are less than flattering, but don't
forget he was nearly 70 at the time. Perhaps his views/opinions were simply out
of step with the views of the time, hardly a mortal sin, is it?
(neither does it reflect on his ability as a crciketer)
Higgsy
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>
>
>Mad Hamish wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:40:53 +1100, Ken Higgs <kenh...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >or vice versa.
>> >
>> >Bradman was a complex man, what he didn't say could be revealing.
>> >Asked about Wally Hammonds batting, he said 'he was greatly undervalued as a bowler'
>> >(or some such).
>>
>> Source?
>
>Hammond: The Reasons Why
>
Interesting. iirc
Bradman names Hammon, Hobbs and Hutton as the best 3 English batsmen
that he's seen in A Farewell To Cricket.
He names Tate and Bedser as the two best medium pacers that he's seen,
with the note that Hammon wasn't far behind them on his day.
--
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>Mad Hamish wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:14:28 +1100, Ken Higgs <kenh...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Mad Hamish wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:30:55 GMT, "Spaceman Spiff"
>> >> <spacema...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Mad Hamish" <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3c9a572f...@bri-news.tpg.com.au...
>>>
>> >> (aside from when he was bowling), there doesn't appear to have been
>> >> anything much between O'Brien and Bradman either.
>> >>
>> >> If Bradman sounded bitter during the interview it could well be
>> >> because of Fingleton who
>> >> - claimed that it was Bradman who leaked the famous 'There are two
>> >> teams out there...' quote.
>> >> According to Roland Perry in The Don Warner asked one of the
>> >> journalists the source on the day and was told it was Fingleton.
>> >> Fingleton claimed years later than Bradman told the journalist the
>> >> remark at a clandestine meeting, funnily enough the journalist in
>> >> question was dead by the time and so not in a position to comment.
>> >
>> >I've heard that leak attributed to Bradman on a number of occasions from a
>> >number of sources.
>> >Perhaps they all go back to the same sourse, I dunno.
>>
>> I'd suspect so. Fingleton spread his views pretty widely and did a lot
>> of cricket writing so his view is likely to have spread.
>
>source?
If asking for sources perhaps you should clarify what you are asking
about?
Fingleton was a professional writer so he did do a lot of cricket
writing.
The idea that it was Bradman who leaked the Woodfull comment never
appears to have been raised before Fingleton (at least nowhere that
I've seen)
>>
>> >But hey, it had to have come from *somewhere*.
>> >Any suggestions?
>>
>> If I was betting on anybody I'd bet on Fingleton.
>> Ashley Mallett suggests Grimmett as a possible source for the leak.
>
>source?
>
Grimmett, The Bradman of Bowlers by Ashley Mallett is the title iirc.
The book is currently in transit.
>>
>> >(Bradman also had a newspaper contract at the time IIRC).
>> >
>> Yes,
actually I was wrong here. Bradman had been let off the newspaper
contract by that stage.
>> >>
>> >> Perry on the 34 tour of england selections
>> >> "Fingleton and Ricahrdson were considered unlucky to miss
>> >> out...Fingleton on the other hand blamed Bradman for not getting in
>> >> the side. When I asked Bradman if there were any truth in this he
>> >> replied:
>> >>
>> >> I wasn't a selector or captain then, but I always thought that Billy
>> >> Brown was a better opener than Fingleton and that he would do better
>> >> on English soil. This proved correct in '34, '38 and '48. I may have
>> >> expressed this to selectors at the time.
>> >>
>> >> This partly explained Fingleton's instigation of what became a long
>> >> running fued with Bradman. He went to the trouble of writing a book on
>> >> Victor Rumpre pointing out why he was a better batsman than Bradman.
Heck, I must have been channelling Scooby Doo when I wrote that name
>> >> This was some challenge.... Fingleton suggested that Trumper didn't
>> >> like big scores and that he wanted to get out at 50, although the
>> >> journalist failed to explain how Trumper came to score a triple
>> >> century against a county..."
>> >>
>> >> In Brightly Fades The Don Fingleton puts forwards the claim that
>> >> Bradman was terrible on wet wickets and quotes results to show it.
>> >> Funnily enough he seems to omit any wicket where rain fell but Bradman
>> >> still made runs, for instance in 1930 when he made 232 batting on 3
>> >> days (from 27* to 130* on day 3) due to rain interruptions.
>> >>
>> >> The Daily Mail
>> >> "the courage of Bradman and Jackson when facing the fast stuff on a
>> >> wicket which was distinctly unpleasant after the rain..."
>> >>
>> >> yet the innings doesn't count as a wet wicket according to
>> >> Fingleton...
>> >>
>> >> Fingleton was hugely critical of Bradman's efforts against Bodyline,
>> >> claiming that he ran away because he was scared.
>> >
>> >yes, but so was O' Reilly.
>>
>> Source?
>
>National Library Sound Archives
Exact Quote?
Bradman stepped away to cut against bodyline, I've never seen O'Reilly
state that he believed it was due to Bradman being afraid.
Getting inside the ball does expose you to less risk than backing
away.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Here are the averages
>> >> DG Bradman 4 8 1 396 56.57 103* 3 1 3
>> >> SJ McCabe 5 10 1 385 42.77 187* 1 1 4
>> >> LS Darling 2 4 0 148 37.00 85 1 0 2
>> >> WM Woodfull 5 10 1 305 33.88 73* 3 0 0
>> >> PK Lee 1 2 0 57 28.50 42 0 0 0
>> >> VY Richardson 5 10 0 279 27.90 83 1 0 7
>> >> WAS Oldfield 4 7 2 136 27.20 52 1 0 6/1
>> >> JHW Fingleton 3 6 0 150 25.00 83 1 0 3
>> >> WH Ponsford 3 6 0 141 23.50 85 1 0 0
>> >> LPJ O'Brien 2 4 0 87 21.75 61 1 0 2
>> >> LE Nagel 1 2 1 21 21.00 21* 0 0 0
>> >> HH Alexander 1 2 1 17 17.00 17* 0 0 0
>> >> EH Bromley 1 2 0 33 16.50 26 0 0 1
>> >> AF Kippax 1 2 0 27 13.50 19 0 0 0
>> >> CV Grimmett 3 6 0 42 7.00 19 0 0 1
>> >> WJ O'Reilly 5 10 0 61 6.10 19 0 0 1
>> >> TW Wall 4 8 1 42 6.00 20 0 0 4
>> >> HSB Love 1 2 0 8 4.00 5 0 0 3
>> >> H Ironmonger 4 8 3 13 2.60 8 0 0 2
>> >>
>> >> Notice anything about Bradman's results compared to Fingleton's?
>>
>> >>
The claim was
"This in spite of the fact that the likes of Jack Fingleton and Bill
O'Reilly were unstinting in their praise of Bradman as a cricketer."
_UNSTINTING_ is an important word in that sentence. A definition of
unstinting is above. Read the definition, read the claim.
Fingleton's sniping about Bradman means that, IMO, he falls well short
of being unstinting in his praise of Bradman. Frankly based on what
I've read of Fingleton he appears to give Bradman the absolute minimum
of praise that he can get away with.
>>
>> >>
>> >> regarding
>> >> On the ABC-TV Lateline program last Monday, Roland Perry claimed that
>> >> Bradman "made very little money out of the game". This is
>> >> questionable. As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian,
>> >> has demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in
>> >> our history" (Sunday Age, June 2, 1996). Fair enough. He was entitled
>> >> to market his prodigious ability.
>> >>
>> >> Bradman was not a professional cricketer. He did receive a large
>> >> testimonial and did receive money as gifts. The majority of Bradman's
>> >> money came from his stockbroking and later work as company directors
>> >> on many boards. It's undeniable that he got those opportunities
>> >> because of his cricket but it doesn't mean that he was paid all that
>> >> much for cricket.
>> >>
>> >
>> >He was the No.1 sporting celebrity of his day, given, I think, GBP1000 on
>> >his return from the 1930 series by a wealthy admirer.
>>
>> iirc during the tour
>> He wasn't the only person who that benefactor donated money to
>>
>source?
iirc
A Farewell To Cricket by Sir Donald Bradman and The Don by Roland
Perry both cover the donation.
>>
>> > He missed the 1st
>> >Bodyline Test partly because of a dispute over his newspaper column (much
>> >as say Warney & Co. have these days),
>>
>> Not exactly.
>> Under the rules at that time a player was allowed to write a newspaper
>> column journalism was his sole profession. Bradman was in a contract
>> where he was going to do some radio, some press and (iirc) some
>> promotion work.
>> Because he was not solely employed as a journalist he was not allowed
>> to write the column by the board.
>
>read what I wrote
Read what I wrote.
>>
>> > he faced the Board down over this.
>>
>> No, actually he was released from the requirement to write a newspaper
>> column by his employer who did not want to a) deny Australia Bradman's
>> services as a batsman or b) be known as the person who had denied
>> Australia Bradman's services as a batsman.
>
>yep, but that was the newspaper releasing him, not Bradman backing down
Yes, but he did _not_ face the Board down.
The Board did not change their position and allow him to write the
column.
>>
>>
>> >If he had litt;e money during the 30s, he must've been pretty profligate
>> >(which certainly doesn't seem to have been in his character)
>> >
>>
>> The phrase was 'doesn't mean that he was paid all that
>> much for cricket'
>> "not had little money"
>> (although he made much more money after the 30s than during it, as a
>> stockbroker and company director)
>>
>
>yes, but the implication was that he was a poor man.
>He wasn't.
>
No Kenny, when commenting upon the claim that Bradman was paid very
well for cricket
"doesn't mean that he was paid all that much for cricket" means
"doesn't mean that he was paid all that much for cricket"
Michael Jordan was not paid all that much when he tried to become a
professional baseball player, it does not mean that he was poor.
>>
>> He started as an independent stockbroker because him employer went
>> bust and owed Bradman money at the time.
>
>Hamish, you've admitted that a wellwisher gave him GBP1000 (without demanding a
>source), a huge amount of money for the time.
I ask for sources for information that sounds dodgy, I know that
Bradman was given money by somebody on the 1930 tour of England.
Exactly how huge 1000 pounds was in 1930 is a matter of record. It was
a large amount of money but, as I recall comparisons with average
earnings, less money than a top level modern player would get for a
base contract now.
>If this had all gone, who's fault was that?
at what stage?
iirc Bradman would have started his own stockbroking firm around 1943.
13 years after the money was given to him, after the depression, after
his first child had died, I _think_ after his daughter had cerebral
palsy, after Bradman have been invalidated out of the armed forces and
had about a year in convalesence,
after he'd gotten married and moved to South Australia to learn a way
of making money outside of cricket.
I find it quite easy to believe that the demands made by the above
factors would have meant that the money was spent, note that's
different from gone.
If you spend money on a house the house is (depending upon your
definitions) an asset, however it is not a liquid asset and losing
your house is a rather bad thing financially...
>(I don't believe it was all gone)
>> >>
>> >> As for the comment that
>> >> However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
>> >> state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
>> >> stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
>> >> for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
>> >> breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s.
>> >>
>> >> a) In Bradman's day very few players in Australia were professional
>> >> cricketers, in fact the only way to really be a professional cricketer
>> >> was to move to England. Even in Australia in the 60s I think you'll
>> >> find that most cricketers held down jobs (heck in the early 80s Kepler
>> >> Wessels and Alan Border were given jobs by a company)
>> >> b) Bradman had mostly stepped down from a main role in administering
>> >> cricket in 71-72. He was a South Australian board representative after
>> >> that but not a major force in admistration by the time that things
>> >> came to a head.
>> >>
>> >
>> >He was still very much a power in the background, from what I've read.
>> >(try Cricket wars)
>>
>> By an offsider of Kerry Packer isn't it?
>> Perhaps not the best source for an unbiased view of an establishment
>> figure.
>
>Gideon Haigh is a highly regarded cricket writer.
in your household anyway.
>He may or may not have worked
>for Packer at some time, but to write off his contribution as non biased or
So you're saying that Haigh's writings were biased then?
>some sort of apology for WSC indicates to me that you haven't read the book.
Read what I wrote.
Justify the step from what I wrote to 'some sort of apology for WSC'
they're hugely different
>
>> >>
>> >> His comment in The Don By Roland Perry
>> >> "I had avoided being a professional. I would get to the office at 7
>> >> a.m., and then walk to the ground to play at 11 a.m. It wasn't unusual
>> >> for me to arrive at the match, walk on the field in my suit and toss
>> >> the coin. Straight after the game I would return to the office and
>> >> work for several more hours. That could not happen today. There are so
>> >> many addition tours ... Cricketers must be professional."
>> >>
>> >> Bradman didn't like the WSC breakaway movement but agreed that the
>> >> ciicketers were underpaid at that time.
>> >>
>> >hmmmm.
>> >
>> What, you can't disagree with methods taken if you agree with the
>> goals?
>
>not at all.
>But you're basing your comment on how Bradman reacted to WSC on something
>written by someone who has already had their allegiances questioned on this
>group
No, I'm using a source who actually interviewed Bradman and asked for
his view.
> and the context being Bradmans work habits during his playing career, ie
>30 years previously
Reread the quote.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Certainly that source appears to be ocnsiderably kinder to Fingleton
>> >> than what I've heard and read would justify. Looks to me like he may
>> >> be trying for a bit of poppy lopping himself....
>> >
>> >Hamish,
>> >over time, I've seen you as a big Bradman fan.
>> >I'm not trying to say you're posting a load of hokey here, but I reckon
>> >your interpretation of events is rosier than some others might be.
>> >
>> I am a Bradman fan.
>
>you don't say.
>
>> I _don't_ think that Bradman is perfect or never made a mistake.
>
>neither do I.
>Neither was I trying to portray him as some sort of ogre.
>
I addressed what I saw as weaknesses in the article.
>>
>> However when it comes down to Bradman vs Fingleton Bradman has much
>> more credibility IMO.
>> Fingleton certainly appears to have done the best job he can to have
>> cut Bradman down to size (claiming that Trumper tried to get out past
>> 50 and hence was a better bat, not counting rain affected wickets as
>> wet wickets if Bradman made runs, accusing him of running away from
>> bodyline etc)
>> Given Fingleton's writings on Bradman I don't trust him as far as I
>> can throw him for comments on Bradman and allegations about Bradman.
>
>That's fine, I respect your position.
>However, not all the material I've referenced has come from Fingleton, and you
>seem equally sceptical of any of that.
I've queried Haigh because I believe he had fairly tight links with
Kerry Packer during the WSC days.
I asked for the source, and now the quote, for O'Reilly commenting on
Bradman against bodyline because it doesn't mesh with what I've heard
and read him say about it in the past. I suspect that you've
misunderstood him.
>>
>> Given that Bradman was _1_ board member in the time when WSC was
>> happening and his public utterances were affected becasue he was on
>> the board and could hardly go against them the criticiism of his view
>> on the 70 pay is somewhat iffy...
>
>Well I beg to differ on the i Board member issue.
>He was the pre eminent figure in Australian cricket for an awfully long time,
Yes, however that does not mean that he was in control in the late
70s. England was one of the dominant military forces for a long time,
they weren't by the 1950s.
>his views were often deferred to, him being an almost legendary figure.
>Yes, reports I've read on him vis WSC are less than flattering, but don't
>forget he was nearly 70 at the time. Perhaps his views/opinions were simply out
>of step with the views of the time, hardly a mortal sin, is it?
>(neither does it reflect on his ability as a crciketer)
Read the article that I was addressing and what it claims.
--
Mad Hamish
<jim.l...@REMOVEbtopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>Mad Hamish <h_l...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:3c97fdaa...@bri-news.tpg.com.au...
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 02:21:40 +0000 (UTC), "Yuk Tang"
>> <jim.l...@REMOVEbtopenworld.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Details? My point about Bradman was based on
>> >
>> >1. His serious illness during the 1934 tour.
>>
>> Appendicitis doesn't really require anything congenital.
>>
>> >2. The death of his first child,
>>
>> a baby dying young in the 30s probably doesn't mean that much, infant
>> mortality rates have come down a lot.
>>
>> >and the serious illness of his second.
>>
>> 3rd iirc in any case is cerebral palsy genetic?
>
>I didn't know the details about John's cerebral palsy, but I would have
>thought that the history of his family suggests that he was more susceptible
>to illnesses in general than most.
John had polio, his daughter had (at least according to one source)
cerabral palsy.
None of what his family had seems to be real evidence of anything
other than bad luck.
Ken Higgs
Mad Hamish wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:24:08 +1100, Ken Higgs <kenh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mad Hamish wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:40:53 +1100, Ken Higgs <kenh...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >or vice versa.
> >> >
> >> >Bradman was a complex man, what he didn't say could be revealing.
> >> >Asked about Wally Hammonds batting, he said 'he was greatly undervalued as a bowler'
> >> >(or some such).
> >>
> >> Source?
> >
> >Hammond: The Reasons Why
> >
> Interesting. iirc
> Bradman names Hammon, Hobbs and Hutton as the best 3 English batsmen
> that he's seen in A Farewell To Cricket.
>
so he doesn't even put Hammond in the top 3 English bats?
>
> He names Tate and Bedser as the two best medium pacers that he's seen,
> with the note that Hammon wasn't far behind them on his day.
> --
Meaning?
Higgsy
Ken Higgs
Mad Hamish wrote:
this idea that it was all part of a conspiracy from Fingleton, I'm interested in
where you got your facts from. A source would be useful, especially as you have
demanded a source for every statement I have made.
>
> >>
> >> >But hey, it had to have come from *somewhere*.
> >> >Any suggestions?
> >>
> >> If I was betting on anybody I'd bet on Fingleton.
> >> Ashley Mallett suggests Grimmett as a possible source for the leak.
> >
> >source?
> >
> Grimmett, The Bradman of Bowlers by Ashley Mallett is the title iirc.
> The book is currently in transit.
It's interesting that you feel you cannot believe Fingleton because he made the
claim supposedly after some of the protagonists were dead, yet you can believe
Mallett, who would've made his claims at a much later date.
>
> >>
> >> >(Bradman also had a newspaper contract at the time IIRC).
> >> >
> >> Yes,
>
> actually I was wrong here. Bradman had been let off the newspaper
> contract by that stage.
Yes, I had mentioned that earlier
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Perry on the 34 tour of england selections
> >> >> "Fingleton and Ricahrdson were considered unlucky to miss
> >> >> out...Fingleton on the other hand blamed Bradman for not getting in
> >> >> the side. When I asked Bradman if there were any truth in this he
> >> >> replied:
> >> >>
> >> >> I wasn't a selector or captain then, but I always thought that Billy
> >> >> Brown was a better opener than Fingleton and that he would do better
> >> >> on English soil. This proved correct in '34, '38 and '48. I may have
> >> >> expressed this to selectors at the time.
> >> >>
> >> >> This partly explained Fingleton's instigation of what became a long
> >> >> running fued with Bradman. He went to the trouble of writing a book on
> >> >> Victor Rumpre pointing out why he was a better batsman than Bradman.
>
> Heck, I must have been channelling Scooby Doo when I wrote that name
hmmmm
>
>
> >> >> This was some challenge.... Fingleton suggested that Trumper didn't
> >> >> like big scores and that he wanted to get out at 50, although the
> >> >> journalist failed to explain how Trumper came to score a triple
> >> >> century against a county..."
> >> >>
> >> >> In Brightly Fades The Don Fingleton puts forwards the claim that
> >> >> Bradman was terrible on wet wickets and quotes results to show it.
> >> >> Funnily enough he seems to omit any wicket where rain fell but Bradman
> >> >> still made runs, for instance in 1930 when he made 232 batting on 3
> >> >> days (from 27* to 130* on day 3) due to rain interruptions.
> >> >>
> >> >> The Daily Mail
> >> >> "the courage of Bradman and Jackson when facing the fast stuff on a
> >> >> wicket which was distinctly unpleasant after the rain..."
> >> >>
> >> >> yet the innings doesn't count as a wet wicket according to
> >> >> Fingleton...
> >> >>
> >> >> Fingleton was hugely critical of Bradman's efforts against Bodyline,
> >> >> claiming that he ran away because he was scared.
> >> >
> >> >yes, but so was O' Reilly.
> >>
> >> Source?
> >
> >National Library Sound Archives
>
> Exact Quote?
>
dunno.
If interested, I suggest you track it down, that, after all is the point of having
references.
>
> Bradman stepped away to cut against bodyline, I've never seen O'Reilly
> state that he believed it was due to Bradman being afraid.
ah, but that's because you haven't read his stuff or lisstened to interviews with
him.
Whether that be due to accident or design is a moot point.
>
>
> Getting inside the ball does expose you to less risk than backing
> away.
I didn't speak about getting inside a ball, that is your surmise
Umm, I'd say that Fingleton, O' Reilly et al were pretty unstinting in their praise
of Bradman, they had some minor quibblesm eg his ability vs fast hostile bowling,
but apart form that, the term is fair enough.
Now I'd say that Bradman gave Hammond the absolute minimum of praise that he could
get away with, for sure.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> regarding
> >> >> On the ABC-TV Lateline program last Monday, Roland Perry claimed that
> >> >> Bradman "made very little money out of the game". This is
> >> >> questionable. As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian,
> >> >> has demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in
> >> >> our history" (Sunday Age, June 2, 1996). Fair enough. He was entitled
> >> >> to market his prodigious ability.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bradman was not a professional cricketer. He did receive a large
> >> >> testimonial and did receive money as gifts. The majority of Bradman's
> >> >> money came from his stockbroking and later work as company directors
> >> >> on many boards. It's undeniable that he got those opportunities
> >> >> because of his cricket but it doesn't mean that he was paid all that
> >> >> much for cricket.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >He was the No.1 sporting celebrity of his day, given, I think, GBP1000 on
> >> >his return from the 1930 series by a wealthy admirer.
> >>
> >> iirc during the tour
> >> He wasn't the only person who that benefactor donated money to
> >>
> >source?
>
> iirc
> A Farewell To Cricket by Sir Donald Bradman and The Don by Roland
> Perry both cover the donation.
I haven't come across the idea that others got the mony too, but I'll check it out.
BTW, who were the others who got money?
>
> >>
> >> > He missed the 1st
> >> >Bodyline Test partly because of a dispute over his newspaper column (much
> >> >as say Warney & Co. have these days),
> >>
> >> Not exactly.
> >> Under the rules at that time a player was allowed to write a newspaper
> >> column journalism was his sole profession. Bradman was in a contract
> >> where he was going to do some radio, some press and (iirc) some
> >> promotion work.
> >> Because he was not solely employed as a journalist he was not allowed
> >> to write the column by the board.
> >
> >read what I wrote
>
> Read what I wrote.
no, read what I wrote.
>
> >>
> >> > he faced the Board down over this.
> >>
> >> No, actually he was released from the requirement to write a newspaper
> >> column by his employer who did not want to a) deny Australia Bradman's
> >> services as a batsman or b) be known as the person who had denied
> >> Australia Bradman's services as a batsman.
> >
> >yep, but that was the newspaper releasing him, not Bradman backing down
>
> Yes, but he did _not_ face the Board down.
> The Board did not change their position and allow him to write the
> column.
and he did not change his position either, the newspaper broke the impasse.
Bradman sat out the first Test to prove his point(though he had an injury cloud
too).
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >If he had litt;e money during the 30s, he must've been pretty profligate
> >> >(which certainly doesn't seem to have been in his character)
> >> >
> >>
> >> The phrase was 'doesn't mean that he was paid all that
> >> much for cricket'
> >> "not had little money"
> >> (although he made much more money after the 30s than during it, as a
> >> stockbroker and company director)
> >>
> >
> >yes, but the implication was that he was a poor man.
> >He wasn't.
> >
> No Kenny, when commenting upon the claim that Bradman was paid very
> well for cricket
> "doesn't mean that he was paid all that much for cricket" means
> "doesn't mean that he was paid all that much for cricket"
>
> Michael Jordan was not paid all that much when he tried to become a
> professional baseball player, it does not mean that he was poor.
I think you'll find that Bradman was one of the best paid sportsmen in Aus at the
time
>
> >>
> >> He started as an independent stockbroker because him employer went
> >> bust and owed Bradman money at the time.
> >
> >Hamish, you've admitted that a wellwisher gave him GBP1000 (without demanding a
> >source), a huge amount of money for the time.
>
> I ask for sources for information that sounds dodgy, I know that
> Bradman was given money by somebody on the 1930 tour of England.
>
why is it dodgy?
Bradman was certainly given a gift of GBP1000, you don't deny it yourself.
>
> Exactly how huge 1000 pounds was in 1930 is a matter of record. It was
> a large amount of money but, as I recall comparisons with average
> earnings, less money than a top level modern player would get for a
> base contract now.
I didn't claim that it was comparable to a modern day cricketer. Supposedly Waugh is
on around $700 000 as a base from the ACB. I'm not making that comparison.
But as a young man he bought a house in Waverton. You know Waverton?
I do. It is not, and was not, a down market suburb.
Soon after Bradman started playing, from what I read, he was quite an affluent young
man. That he lost money in a business venture (or employer went bust) does not mean
that he was poorly paid in cricket
>
>
> >If this had all gone, who's fault was that?
>
> at what stage?
> iirc Bradman would have started his own stockbroking firm around 1943.
>
> 13 years after the money was given to him, after the depression, after
> his first child had died, I _think_ after his daughter had cerebral
> palsy, after Bradman have been invalidated out of the armed forces and
> had about a year in convalesence,
> after he'd gotten married and moved to South Australia to learn a way
> of making money outside of cricket.
>
I'd be surprised if that 1000 was all he had for over 10 years.
In fact I know it wasn't.
He had a sponsorship with, I think, Mick Simmons Sports; he had a newspaper column,
he was paid by the ACB & NSW.
This was deprsession era Australia, lots of people had NO jobs.
Perhaps not the most affluent time in the nations history, but I don't believe that
the Bradman family was struggling.
>
> I find it quite easy to believe that the demands made by the above
> factors would have meant that the money was spent, note that's
> different from gone.
> If you spend money on a house the house is (depending upon your
> definitions) an asset, however it is not a liquid asset and losing
> your house is a rather bad thing financially...
>
yes.
But that can happen to anyone. I have an acquaintance who is a senior partner at
Andersons, he stands to lose his house if the poo hits the fan. He's been very well
paid for a number of years.
>
> >(I don't believe it was all gone)
> >> >>
> >> >> As for the comment that
> >> >> However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
> >> >> state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
> >> >> stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
> >> >> for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
> >> >> breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s.
> >> >>
> >> >> a) In Bradman's day very few players in Australia were professional
> >> >> cricketers, in fact the only way to really be a professional cricketer
> >> >> was to move to England. Even in Australia in the 60s I think you'll
> >> >> find that most cricketers held down jobs (heck in the early 80s Kepler
> >> >> Wessels and Alan Border were given jobs by a company)
> >> >> b) Bradman had mostly stepped down from a main role in administering
> >> >> cricket in 71-72. He was a South Australian board representative after
> >> >> that but not a major force in admistration by the time that things
> >> >> came to a head.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >He was still very much a power in the background, from what I've read.
> >> >(try Cricket wars)
> >>
> >> By an offsider of Kerry Packer isn't it?
> >> Perhaps not the best source for an unbiased view of an establishment
> >> figure.
> >
> >Gideon Haigh is a highly regarded cricket writer.
>
> in your household anyway.
someone else (not me) on this group described him as one of Australia's premier
cricket writers.
You describe him as an offsider of Kerry Packer.
What is it about his writings that you so dislike, aside from the fact that he wrote
that Bradman was very much on the ACB side of the WSC dispute (which, incidentally,
wasn't the main theme of his book on that anyway)?
>
>
> >He may or may not have worked
> >for Packer at some time, but to write off his contribution as non biased or
>
> So you're saying that Haigh's writings were biased then?
sorry, a typo.
I don't think they were, you appear to hold the opposite view.
Why?
>
>
> >some sort of apology for WSC indicates to me that you haven't read the book.
>
> Read what I wrote.
> Justify the step from what I wrote to 'some sort of apology for WSC'
you claim that you cannot take his claims seriously because he is an offsider of
Kerry Packer.
You claim that he is a respected cricket writer only in my household.
Your remarks toward him are disparaging, yet you don't actually say what it is about
his writing that you find so inaccurate.
>
>
> they're hugely different
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> His comment in The Don By Roland Perry
> >> >> "I had avoided being a professional. I would get to the office at 7
> >> >> a.m., and then walk to the ground to play at 11 a.m. It wasn't unusual
> >> >> for me to arrive at the match, walk on the field in my suit and toss
> >> >> the coin. Straight after the game I would return to the office and
> >> >> work for several more hours. That could not happen today. There are so
> >> >> many addition tours ... Cricketers must be professional."
> >> >>
> >> >> Bradman didn't like the WSC breakaway movement but agreed that the
> >> >> ciicketers were underpaid at that time.
> >> >>
> >> >hmmmm.
> >> >
> >> What, you can't disagree with methods taken if you agree with the
> >> goals?
> >
> >not at all.
> >But you're basing your comment on how Bradman reacted to WSC on something
> >written by someone who has already had their allegiances questioned on this
> >group
>
> No, I'm using a source who actually interviewed Bradman and asked for
> his view.
>
Ah, so when I quote you what someone else wrote about what Bradman said, based on an
interview with him, about Hammond, you choose to discount it because it doesn't fit
in with your view of things.
>
> > and the context being Bradmans work habits during his playing career, ie
> >30 years previously
>
> Reread the quote.
and what will that tell me?
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Certainly that source appears to be ocnsiderably kinder to Fingleton
> >> >> than what I've heard and read would justify. Looks to me like he may
> >> >> be trying for a bit of poppy lopping himself....
> >> >
> >> >Hamish,
> >> >over time, I've seen you as a big Bradman fan.
> >> >I'm not trying to say you're posting a load of hokey here, but I reckon
> >> >your interpretation of events is rosier than some others might be.
> >> >
> >> I am a Bradman fan.
> >
> >you don't say.
> >
> >> I _don't_ think that Bradman is perfect or never made a mistake.
> >
> >neither do I.
> >Neither was I trying to portray him as some sort of ogre.
> >
> I addressed what I saw as weaknesses in the article.
>
I was under the impression that you didn't believe it and asked for sources
>
> >>
> >> However when it comes down to Bradman vs Fingleton Bradman has much
> >> more credibility IMO.
> >> Fingleton certainly appears to have done the best job he can to have
> >> cut Bradman down to size (claiming that Trumper tried to get out past
> >> 50 and hence was a better bat, not counting rain affected wickets as
> >> wet wickets if Bradman made runs, accusing him of running away from
> >> bodyline etc)
> >> Given Fingleton's writings on Bradman I don't trust him as far as I
> >> can throw him for comments on Bradman and allegations about Bradman.
> >
> >That's fine, I respect your position.
> >However, not all the material I've referenced has come from Fingleton, and you
> >seem equally sceptical of any of that.
>
> I've queried Haigh because I believe he had fairly tight links with
> Kerry Packer during the WSC days.
>
you describe him as Kerry Packers offsider.
I don't know where you get this view from.
>
> I asked for the source, and now the quote, for O'Reilly commenting on
> Bradman against bodyline because it doesn't mesh with what I've heard
> and read him say about it in the past. I suspect that you've
> misunderstood him.
I think it would be best to view the source before saying I misunderstood.
>
> >>
> >> Given that Bradman was _1_ board member in the time when WSC was
> >> happening and his public utterances were affected becasue he was on
> >> the board and could hardly go against them the criticiism of his view
> >> on the 70 pay is somewhat iffy...
> >
> >Well I beg to differ on the i Board member issue.
> >He was the pre eminent figure in Australian cricket for an awfully long time,
>
> Yes, however that does not mean that he was in control in the late
> 70s. England was one of the dominant military forces for a long time,
> they weren't by the 1950s.
>
England (or Britain) has a veto on the UN board, along with US, Russia, France &
China, based on the power that they were a long time ago, if that's the analogy you
want to use.
If you believe that Bradman had no influence on the events of the late 70s, then you
ought to brush up on some of those events. I recall Chappelli recounting a story of
going to see Bradman & smoking a cigar at the time, a sign of disrespect. He
specifically mentioned Bradman. I wonder why?
>
> >his views were often deferred to, him being an almost legendary figure.
> >Yes, reports I've read on him vis WSC are less than flattering, but don't
> >forget he was nearly 70 at the time. Perhaps his views/opinions were simply out
> >of step with the views of the time, hardly a mortal sin, is it?
> >(neither does it reflect on his ability as a crciketer)
>
> Read the article that I was addressing and what it claims.
> --
read my replies and what I have claimed
Higgsy
Mad Hamish
wrote:
No, the idea is not that it's a conspiracy from Fingleton
(in fact Fingleton can't be a conspiracy, it requires more than one
person...)
the idea is that Fingleton is the source of the idea and that other
people have picked it up.
As I mentioned I've never seen a reference to Bradman as a possible
source that predates Fingleton's allegation.
>I'm interested in
>where you got your facts from. A source would be useful, especially as you have
>demanded a source for every statement I have made.
>
Learn to read Kenny.
You wrote
"I've heard that leak attributed to Bradman on a number of occasions
from a number of sources.
Perhaps they all go back to the same sourse, I dunno."
I have given my opinion that the same source is Fingleton, I have
previously quoted Roland Perry
"According to Roland Perry in The Don Warner asked one of the
journalists the source on the day and was told it was Fingleton.
Fingleton claimed years later than Bradman told the journalist the
remark at a clandestine meeting, funnily enough the journalist in
question was dead by the time and so not in a position to comment."
>> >>
>> >> >But hey, it had to have come from *somewhere*.
>> >> >Any suggestions?
>> >>
>> >> If I was betting on anybody I'd bet on Fingleton.
>> >> Ashley Mallett suggests Grimmett as a possible source for the leak.
>> >
>> >source?
>> >
>> Grimmett, The Bradman of Bowlers by Ashley Mallett is the title iirc.
>> The book is currently in transit.
>
>It's interesting that you feel you cannot believe Fingleton because he made the
>claim supposedly after some of the protagonists were dead, yet you can believe
>Mallett, who would've made his claims at a much later date.
>
Who said I believed Mallett?
I said that he put Grimmett forwards as a possible source, I didn't
say that I thought it was Grimmett.
I don't think that there is conclusive evidence to prove who did it. I
believe that it was Fingleton based on several factors (Warner
allegedly being told it at the time, the timing when Fingleton
released his version of events etc) but that's not proof.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Perry on the 34 tour of england selections
>> >> >> "Fingleton and Ricahrdson were considered unlucky to miss
>> >> >> out...Fingleton on the other hand blamed Bradman for not getting in
>> >> >> the side. When I asked Bradman if there were any truth in this he
>> >> >> replied:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I wasn't a selector or captain then, but I always thought that Billy
>> >> >> Brown was a better opener than Fingleton and that he would do better
>> >> >> on English soil. This proved correct in '34, '38 and '48. I may have
>> >> >> expressed this to selectors at the time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This partly explained Fingleton's instigation of what became a long
>> >> >> running fued with Bradman. He went to the trouble of writing a book on
>> >> >> Victor Rumpre pointing out why he was a better batsman than Bradman.
>>
>> Heck, I must have been channelling Scooby Doo when I wrote that name
>
>hmmmm
>
as penance for mistyping Victor Trumper I must attend the Scooby Doo
movie being released this year at least twice.
I must force myself to watch Sarah Michelle Gellar playing Daphne...
>>
>>
>> >> >> This was some challenge.... Fingleton suggested that Trumper didn't
>> >> >> like big scores and that he wanted to get out at 50, although the
>> >> >> journalist failed to explain how Trumper came to score a triple
>> >> >> century against a county..."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In Brightly Fades The Don Fingleton puts forwards the claim that
>> >> >> Bradman was terrible on wet wickets and quotes results to show it.
>> >> >> Funnily enough he seems to omit any wicket where rain fell but Bradman
>> >> >> still made runs, for instance in 1930 when he made 232 batting on 3
>> >> >> days (from 27* to 130* on day 3) due to rain interruptions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Daily Mail
>> >> >> "the courage of Bradman and Jackson when facing the fast stuff on a
>> >> >> wicket which was distinctly unpleasant after the rain..."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> yet the innings doesn't count as a wet wicket according to
>> >> >> Fingleton...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fingleton was hugely critical of Bradman's efforts against Bodyline,
>> >> >> claiming that he ran away because he was scared.
>> >> >
>> >> >yes, but so was O' Reilly.
>> >>
>> >> Source?
>> >
>> >National Library Sound Archives
>>
>> Exact Quote?
>>
>
>dunno.
>If interested, I suggest you track it down, that, after all is the point of having
>references.
I am in Tasmania, I am not going to get to the National Library Sound
Archives in the near future.
I suspect that if I do go there and ask them for "the quote from
O'Reilly where he says that Bradman was running away because he was
afraid of fast bowling" I'll be in for a long search.
>
>>
>> Bradman stepped away to cut against bodyline, I've never seen O'Reilly
>> state that he believed it was due to Bradman being afraid.
>
>ah, but that's because you haven't read his stuff or lisstened to interviews with
>him.
I've listened to him on The Bradman Era.
There he said that Bradman stepped away to cut into the open off-side,
(as footage shows Ponsford doing during his innings in Adelaide)
I've seen Mark Waugh step back and play Ambrose over the slips, it
doesn't mean that he's afraid...
The closest thing that I've heard to OReilly say that Bradman was
scared of bodyline was his comment that Bradman seemed to flinch from
a couple of balls in the 5th test of the 1930 tour. Bradman made 232
on a rain damaged pitch against Larwood, we should all be so scared
(I've seen some footage of that knock, it looked like evading the ball
rather than flinching to me, possibly at other times Bradman reacted
less well.)
I've seen Bradman say that he had no real desire to be hit by Larwood,
well who would have?
There is no evidence that Bradman cutting Larwood in bodyline was
because he was scared rather than because he thought it was the best
way to combat the tactic.
McCabe and Richardson were considered great players of the pull and
hook. McCabe's test record is up with the top few australian batsmen.
McCabe played an incredible innings in the first test against bodyline
- although O'Reilly notes that the ball went in the air near to
fieldsmen quite a few times and he pretty much failed in the rest of
the series
187*, 32, 32, 0, 8, 7, 20, 22, 73 & 4
in 10 innings he cleared 50 twice.
Bradman made 0, 103*, 8, 66, 76, 24, 48 and 71
Bradman saw McCabes innings and saw how much luck was needed to
succeed with the hook shot... a mishit cut was much more likely to
fall safe than a mishit hook...
The idea that Bradman went to cut due to fear needs proof.Nobody has
proven it.
>Whether that be due to accident or design is a moot point.
>
So you can't provide the quote, can't narrow it down beyond 'somewhere
in the national sound archives' and say that it's because I've avoided
O'Reilly...
>>
>> Getting inside the ball does expose you to less risk than backing
>> away.
>
>I didn't speak about getting inside a ball, that is your surmise
So you think that because of Bradman's fear of getting hit he exposed
himself to more danger by backing away instead of moving inside the
line of the ball...
>> >>
>> >> Considering Fingleton's comments on Bradman vs Bodyline, his crap
>> >> about Bradman on wet wickets (omitting at least one wet wicket where
>> >> Bradman made a double 100) and him stating that Bradman had only
>> >> previously succeeded in England due to dry summers when Wisden states
>> >> that 1930 was hugely affected by rain he's well short of unstinting
>> >> praise of Bradman as a cricketer.
>>
>> The claim was
>> "This in spite of the fact that the likes of Jack Fingleton and Bill
>> O'Reilly were unstinting in their praise of Bradman as a cricketer."
>>
>> _UNSTINTING_ is an important word in that sentence. A definition of
>> unstinting is above. Read the definition, read the claim.
>>
>> Fingleton's sniping about Bradman means that, IMO, he falls well short
>> of being unstinting in his praise of Bradman. Frankly based on what
>> I've read of Fingleton he appears to give Bradman the absolute minimum
>> of praise that he can get away with.
>
>Umm, I'd say that Fingleton, O' Reilly et al were pretty unstinting in their praise
Now now Kenny, your basic stupidity is showing through again
"Certainly the facts don't support the claim that Fingleton was
unstinting in his praise of Bradman the cricketer. O'Reilly was, but
then O'Reilly's criticisms of Bradman in other areas are more
justified."
I have not queried O'Reilly's comments on Bradman the cricketer, so
what are you doing dragging him back in here?
>of Bradman, they had some minor quibblesm eg his ability vs fast hostile bowling,
>but apart form that, the term is fair enough.
"Considering Fingleton's comments on Bradman vs Bodyline, his crap
about Bradman on wet wickets (omitting at least one wet wicket where
Bradman made a double 100) and him stating that Bradman had only
previously succeeded in England due to dry summers when Wisden states
that 1930 was hugely affected by rain he's well short of unstinting
praise of Bradman as a cricketer."
So you think that Fingleton ignoring at least on double 100 on a wet
wicket, lying about the conditions in tours of England to back up the
claim that Bradman couldn't play on wet wickets _doesn't_ cast doubt
upon Fingleton as an unbiased observer of Bradman?
>Now I'd say that Bradman gave Hammond the absolute minimum of praise that he could
>get away with, for sure.
>
Yes, listing him as up there with Hobbs, Compton and Hutton as the
best of the English batsmen he'd seen in A Farewell to Cricket,
revealing that Bradman had actually picked a particular bowler
because he felt that he was the best chance of removing Hammond and
saying that the ball that Fleetwood-Smith bowled Hammond with was a
ball that won a test match is obviously the minimum of praise that he
can get away with..
all of the above come from A Farewell To Cricket.
>> >> >
>> >> >He was the No.1 sporting celebrity of his day, given, I think, GBP1000 on
>> >> >his return from the 1930 series by a wealthy admirer.
>> >>
>> >> iirc during the tour
>> >> He wasn't the only person who that benefactor donated money to
>> >>
>> >source?
>>
>> iirc
>> A Farewell To Cricket by Sir Donald Bradman and The Don by Roland
>> Perry both cover the donation.
>
>I haven't come across the idea that others got the mony too, but I'll check it out.
>BTW, who were the others who got money?
>
dunno, but Bradman states in A Farewell to Cricket that in 1930 that
he believed it was a joke but other team members assured him that the
person who gave him the money had done it before
>> >>
>> >> > he faced the Board down over this.
>> >>
>> >> No, actually he was released from the requirement to write a newspaper
>> >> column by his employer who did not want to a) deny Australia Bradman's
>> >> services as a batsman or b) be known as the person who had denied
>> >> Australia Bradman's services as a batsman.
>> >
>> >yep, but that was the newspaper releasing him, not Bradman backing down
>>
>> Yes, but he did _not_ face the Board down.
>> The Board did not change their position and allow him to write the
>> column.
>
>and he did not change his position either, the newspaper broke the impasse.
>Bradman sat out the first Test to prove his point(though he had an injury cloud
>too).
>
Which means that Bradman did not face the board down.
Bradman stated that he would fulfil his contract and the board did not
change their position.
The board was not faced down at any stage in the confrontation.
The claim was that Bradman faced the board down, he didn't. If anybody
was faced down it was Bradman's employer by the ABC (Australian Board
of Control)
>> >>
>> >> >If he had litt;e money during the 30s, he must've been pretty profligate
>> >> >(which certainly doesn't seem to have been in his character)
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The phrase was 'doesn't mean that he was paid all that
>> >> much for cricket'
>> >> "not had little money"
>> >> (although he made much more money after the 30s than during it, as a
>> >> stockbroker and company director)
>> >>
>> >
>> >yes, but the implication was that he was a poor man.
>> >He wasn't.
>> >
>> No Kenny, when commenting upon the claim that Bradman was paid very
>> well for cricket
>> "doesn't mean that he was paid all that much for cricket" means
>> "doesn't mean that he was paid all that much for cricket"
>>
>> Michael Jordan was not paid all that much when he tried to become a
>> professional baseball player, it does not mean that he was poor.
>
>I think you'll find that Bradman was one of the best paid sportsmen in Aus at the
>time
Weaseling aren't you?
The comment being addressed was
'As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian, has
demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in
our history"'
that goes a long way further than "Bradman was one of the best paid
sportsmen in Aus at the time"
Now I don't know what the pay situation was for VFL or Rugby League at
the time. I don't know what is being considered for this, however I
don't know of anything that would suggest that Bradman earned the same
amount in real terms from sport as Luke Longley (basketball with the
Chicago Bulls), the ex AFL footballer (Darren Bennett??) who plays as
a punter in the NFL in the USA or Greg Norman...
_Maybe_ if you include what he made later as a stockbroker or company
director but I still wouldn't bet on it, and in any case that's
somewhat different from being 'the best paid Athlete in our history'
Richard Branson is probably the richest man to try and fly around the
world in a hot air balloon, it doesn't mean that he was 'the best paid
balloonist in history'
>>
>> >>
>> >> He started as an independent stockbroker because him employer went
>> >> bust and owed Bradman money at the time.
>> >
>> >Hamish, you've admitted that a wellwisher gave him GBP1000 (without demanding a
>> >source), a huge amount of money for the time.
>>
>> I ask for sources for information that sounds dodgy, I know that
>> Bradman was given money by somebody on the 1930 tour of England.
>>
>
>why is it dodgy?
>Bradman was certainly given a gift of GBP1000, you don't deny it yourself.
again Kenny, I am adressing the claim
'As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian, has
demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in our
history"'
_that_ is what I want sources or evidence for, not that Bradman
received 1000 pounds. I know that, I've said in the thread that it
happened.
That would be you misrepresenting me again
>>
>> Exactly how huge 1000 pounds was in 1930 is a matter of record. It was
>> a large amount of money but, as I recall comparisons with average
>> earnings, less money than a top level modern player would get for a
>> base contract now.
>
>I didn't claim that it was comparable to a modern day cricketer. Supposedly Waugh is
>on around $700 000 as a base from the ACB. I'm not making that comparison.
>But as a young man he bought a house in Waverton. You know Waverton?
>I do. It is not, and was not, a down market suburb.
>Soon after Bradman started playing, from what I read, he was quite an affluent young
>man. That he lost money in a business venture (or employer went bust) does not mean
>that he was poorly paid in cricket
>
again you are applying the wrong criteria for the issue being debated.
I am addressing a particular claim.
If somebody claims that Mark Waugh is a better batsman than Tendulkar
then me arguing against it does not mean that I believe that Mark
Waugh wasn't a good test batsman.
The point is not that Bradman wasn't well paid for the time, the point
is that the article made a particular claim which looks very dodgy,
that affects the credibility of other claims in the article.
>>
>> >If this had all gone, who's fault was that?
>>
>> at what stage?
>> iirc Bradman would have started his own stockbroking firm around 1943.
>>
>> 13 years after the money was given to him, after the depression, after
>> his first child had died, I _think_ after his daughter had cerebral
>> palsy, after Bradman have been invalidated out of the armed forces and
>> had about a year in convalesence,
>> after he'd gotten married and moved to South Australia to learn a way
>> of making money outside of cricket.
>
>I'd be surprised if that 1000 was all he had for over 10 years.
That wasn't the point being made.
>In fact I know it wasn't.
>He had a sponsorship with, I think, Mick Simmons Sports;
actually he was employed by them as a representative.
>he had a newspaper column,
when exactly?
AFAIK he did not write a newspaper column consistantly until after he
had retired from cricket and then it was normally only on a tour by
tour arrangement.
He signed on to do media work before the bodyline series but please
tell me when he regularly wrote newspaper columns in the 9 or 10 years
between then and him starting his stockbroking firm.
>he was paid by the ACB & NSW.
afaik he received match fees and expenses when he played. There was
probably an additional amount for him as captain compared to other
players.
In real terms he probably did worse out of cricket than some of the
players in the late 1800s and early 1900s who shared profits from
their tours of England...
in addition he hadn't been playing for NSW for about 8 years by the
time that his employer went bust.
>This was deprsession era Australia, lots of people had NO jobs.
>Perhaps not the most affluent time in the nations history, but I don't believe that
>the Bradman family was struggling.
>
again, that's not the point being debated.
Neither my parents, my sisters or I are really struggling (given
another couple of months between jobs I might have been) but my father
isn't the best paid doctor in Australian history, my oldest sister
isn't the best paid doctor in New Zealand history, my other sister
isn't the best paid Engineer in Australian history and I'm not the
best paid computer scientist/engineer in Australian history.
I am not saying that Bradman was broke, living from hand to mouth etc.
I am addressing the particular claim that Bradman is the highest paid
Australian Athlete in history.
by 1943 or so Bradman had started working as a stockbroker about 8
years earlier, now I'm not entirely up on the historical payments for
stockbrokers but that would put him up the earning scale at the time.
Against that there are the facts that
a) he had spend time in the armed forces, I think that was much of 39,
maybe early 40...
b) there was an extended period of recovery after he was kicked out of
the service on medical grounds. I believe that was 9 months
c) he was owed money by his employer went it went bust
armed forces pay, 9 months without income and being a creditor
suggests that he might not have been overly flush at the time...
However that's still not relevent to the point of whether he was the
highest paid athlete in Australia's history. Money that Bradman earned
as a stockbroker is not money earned as a cricketer, so it doesn't
count towards the claim that he was the best paid athlete in
Australian sporting history.
>>
>> I find it quite easy to believe that the demands made by the above
>> factors would have meant that the money was spent, note that's
>> different from gone.
>> If you spend money on a house the house is (depending upon your
>> definitions) an asset, however it is not a liquid asset and losing
>> your house is a rather bad thing financially...
>>
>
>yes.
>But that can happen to anyone. I have an acquaintance who is a senior partner at
>Andersons, he stands to lose his house if the poo hits the fan. He's been very well
>paid for a number of years.
You reckon that by 96 Greg Norman was in any danger of losing a house?
If Bradman had been earning more than Greg Norman, Darren Bennett or
Luke Longley in real terms for 15 years then he wouldn't have been in
any danger of losing a house...
and AK says that Miandad is a better bat than Tendulkar.
>You describe him as an offsider of Kerry Packer.
Yes, and as I recall the situation he was involved in the WSC side of
the split.
>What is it about his writings that you so dislike, aside from the fact that he wrote
>that Bradman was very much on the ACB side of the WSC dispute (which, incidentally,
>wasn't the main theme of his book on that anyway)?
>
Learn to read Kenny.
I state that an offsider of Packer may not be the best source for an
unbiased view of the happenings around the time of WSC.
If Haigh was involved with the Packers the odds are that he wasn't on
the best of terms with the ABC at the time and as a freelance
journalist having the Packers on-side would be a pretty large
advantage for him.
>>
>> >He may or may not have worked
>> >for Packer at some time, but to write off his contribution as non biased or
>>
>> So you're saying that Haigh's writings were biased then?
>
>sorry, a typo.
>I don't think they were, you appear to hold the opposite view.
>Why?
>
Reread what I wrote.
As I recall things Haigh was close to the main movers for WSC, to me
that means that his relations with the ABC were unlikely to be all
that good.
>>
>>
>> >some sort of apology for WSC indicates to me that you haven't read the book.
>>
>> Read what I wrote.
>> Justify the step from what I wrote to 'some sort of apology for WSC'
>
>you claim that you cannot take his claims seriously because he is an offsider of
>Kerry Packer.
No, I claim that if he was an offsider of Packer he is not the best
source for what was happening on the ABC side of things.
I'd like to know what sources he used to justify the claim that
Bradman was unsympathetic to the idea that cricketers needed more
money in the 70s.
Did he interview Bradman for the book?
>You claim that he is a respected cricket writer only in my household.
No, I put a one liner suggesting that he's not actually that famous as
a cricket writer. The only book of his that I can recall being
mentioned much is The Cricket Wars which is more about the politics of
cricket than cricket itself and if I'm right about his links at the
time I am somewhat suspicious about his evenhandedness in treating
both sides.
Checking finds a few more but Amazon uk has 8 books of his currently
available. Not a huge amount of books.
>Your remarks toward him are disparaging, yet you don't actually say what it is about
>his writing that you find so inaccurate.
Please reread what I wrote.
>>
>> they're hugely different
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> His comment in The Don By Roland Perry
>> >> >> "I had avoided being a professional. I would get to the office at 7
>> >> >> a.m., and then walk to the ground to play at 11 a.m. It wasn't unusual
>> >> >> for me to arrive at the match, walk on the field in my suit and toss
>> >> >> the coin. Straight after the game I would return to the office and
>> >> >> work for several more hours. That could not happen today. There are so
>> >> >> many addition tours ... Cricketers must be professional."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bradman didn't like the WSC breakaway movement but agreed that the
>> >> >> ciicketers were underpaid at that time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >hmmmm.
>> >> >
>> >> What, you can't disagree with methods taken if you agree with the
>> >> goals?
>> >
>> >not at all.
>> >But you're basing your comment on how Bradman reacted to WSC on something
>> >written by someone who has already had their allegiances questioned on this
>> >group
>>
>> No, I'm using a source who actually interviewed Bradman and asked for
>> his view.
>
>Ah, so when I quote you what someone else wrote about what Bradman said, based on an
>interview with him, about Hammond, you choose to discount it because it doesn't fit
>in with your view of things.
>
No, I asked for a source.
When you provided a source I said that it was interesting and referred
to Bradman's comments on Hammond from other sources because it looks
to me like something very strange happened there.
Bradman wrote about Hammond in aFtC and rated him amonst the top
batsmen he ever saw. In The Art of Cricket Bradman uses Hammond as an
example of cover drives and the photo has the caption "A most glorious
study of W.R. Hammond making a cover drive. It is a perfect study in
grace, power and balance and gives a true picture of the full
splendour of this great batsman's stroke production."
Your claim that Bradman responded to a question about Hammond's
batting by saying that he was underrated as a bowler doesn't jibe with
anything else that I've ever read from Bradman or heard Bradman say in
interviews.
Also note that Hammond was listed as 12th man for the team that
Bradman picked according to Roland Perry.
Hammond wasn't going to open, Bradman was always going to be #3,
Sobers was always going to be there and the team as selected only had
5 specialist batsmen. Suggests that Bradman rated Hammond in the top 4
middle non-opening batsmen around...
Given Bradman's comments on Hammond over more than 50 years I find it
hard to believe that he'd have made that comment. It just doesn't fit
with what he said before and after. Given 1 alleged quote in 50 years
and multiple sources from before and after that paint a different view
I believe that there is considerable doubt about the view that you've
put forwards that Bradman didn't rate Hammond as a batsman.
A review of Hammond: The Reasons Why at
http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/INTERACTIVE/REVIEWS/BOOKS/OLD/HAMMOND_FOOT.html
makes no mention of the comments you attribute to Bradman in the book,
I'd have thought it was worth mentioning...
>>
>> > and the context being Bradmans work habits during his playing career, ie
>> >30 years previously
>>
>> Reread the quote.
>
>and what will that tell me?
>
" That could not happen today. There are so many addition tours ...
Cricketers must be professional."
might give you a hint.
It was really only in the 70s that cricket started to become a
professional affair in Australia...that was when players started
touring so often that it became impractical to have a career at the
same time.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Certainly that source appears to be ocnsiderably kinder to Fingleton
>> >> >> than what I've heard and read would justify. Looks to me like he may
>> >> >> be trying for a bit of poppy lopping himself....
>> >> >
>> >> >Hamish,
>> >> >over time, I've seen you as a big Bradman fan.
>> >> >I'm not trying to say you're posting a load of hokey here, but I reckon
>> >> >your interpretation of events is rosier than some others might be.
>> >> >
>> >> I am a Bradman fan.
>> >
>> >you don't say.
>> >
>> >> I _don't_ think that Bradman is perfect or never made a mistake.
>> >
>> >neither do I.
>> >Neither was I trying to portray him as some sort of ogre.
>> >
>> I addressed what I saw as weaknesses in the article.
>>
>
>I was under the impression that you didn't believe it and asked for sources
>
I don't believe it in some areas.
Other areas are far from proven but are put forwards as if certainly
correct.
I think the idea that Bradman was the highest paid athlete in
Australian sporting history is ludicrous.
I've put forwards a few names that I think would beat him hands down
for money.
The report on the summoning of various players before the board in
35-36 appears to be focusing entirely upon the fact that the people
summoned were Catholic rather than the question of whether there was
any reason to summon them before the board or whether Bradman had
anything to do with them being summoned.
I supplied quotes that suggested that it was fair enough to summon
them and Bradman has always denied all knowledge of them being
summoned. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that there were
enough rumours going around to have justified the summons and I
certainly would believe that Fingleton would have been one of the main
movers in any plot to get rid of Bradman.
To me the quoted comments from Bradman according to Charles Williams
look bloody dodgy, I'd be amazed if Bradman was being literal when he
said that the players were met by priests in cassocks. It reads much
more as a slang expression to me rather than anything literal.
If there had been that much tension between Bradman and McCabe I doubt
that McCabe would have been vice captain in 38.
I have no doubt that Bradman and Fingleton didn't get on. I suspect
that it does come down to jealousy from Fingleton because I've read
enough quotes from Fingleton that back that pretty strongly. (e.g.
I've seen him quoted that Bradman's huge scores meant that other
people were ignored, his claims of unusually dry English summers and
his ignoring any wet wicket where Bradman had success to back his case
that Bradman couldn't play on rain affected pitches)
I've seen no evidence presented that Bradman made any decisions as a
captain, selector or administrator based on any reason other than
cricketing ability or what was best for the game.
"It is a matter of record that, during his time as a player and an
administrator, Bradman clashed with a range of Australian cricketers."
Bradman was the head of the selection panel for a long time, of course
there are going to be some clashes.
As to the quote
'Lord Williams told Amanda Smith in August 1996 that, when Bradman was
on tour, he became irritated that Catholics "on board ship ¤ went off
together to Mass on the Sunday". Especially since "they made a point
of doing that in a ¤ pointed manner". He could only have got this
information from The Don himself. '
What utter crud.
Williams can't have gotten it from another source? Say Fingleton's
brother?
Considering Bradman's comments on people doing whatever they felt was
best to prepare for the match I find it hard to believe that he'd be
worried by that._If_ Bradman was irritated by that he's far too smart
to have mentioned it, nothing to gain by mentioning it and a lot to
lose.
'Keith Miller was Australia's greatest all-rounder. He is evidence for
the proposition that it was not only irreverent Catholics such as
O'Reilly, Fingleton and McCabe who found Bradman difficult. It appears
that, to Miller, The Don was authoritarian and awesomely serious. And
a great cricketer as well. "
Keith Miller came into the team hotel after staying out all night
during a test match. His approach to cricket was somewhat
undisciplined. A captain having the odd problem with Miller is not a
sign of anything other than a captain having problems with a wild
player.
'However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s. '
By that time Bradman was not in a main position on the board.
>> >>
>> >> However when it comes down to Bradman vs Fingleton Bradman has much
>> >> more credibility IMO.
>> >> Fingleton certainly appears to have done the best job he can to have
>> >> cut Bradman down to size (claiming that Trumper tried to get out past
>> >> 50 and hence was a better bat, not counting rain affected wickets as
>> >> wet wickets if Bradman made runs, accusing him of running away from
>> >> bodyline etc)
>> >> Given Fingleton's writings on Bradman I don't trust him as far as I
>> >> can throw him for comments on Bradman and allegations about Bradman.
>> >
>> >That's fine, I respect your position.
>> >However, not all the material I've referenced has come from Fingleton, and you
>> >seem equally sceptical of any of that.
>>
>> I've queried Haigh because I believe he had fairly tight links with
>> Kerry Packer during the WSC days.
>>
>
>you describe him as Kerry Packers offsider.
>I don't know where you get this view from.
Because I think he was tight with Packer and the WSC people at the
time. Maybe I'm wrong but it certainly hasn't been disputed that he
was.
>>
>> I asked for the source, and now the quote, for O'Reilly commenting on
>> Bradman against bodyline because it doesn't mesh with what I've heard
>> and read him say about it in the past. I suspect that you've
>> misunderstood him.
>
>I think it would be best to view the source before saying I misunderstood.
>
well gee, you've narrowed the source down to the National Sound
Archives, you can't provide the exact quote...
>>
>> >>
>> >> Given that Bradman was _1_ board member in the time when WSC was
>> >> happening and his public utterances were affected becasue he was on
>> >> the board and could hardly go against them the criticiism of his view
>> >> on the 70 pay is somewhat iffy...
>> >
>> >Well I beg to differ on the i Board member issue.
>> >He was the pre eminent figure in Australian cricket for an awfully long time,
>>
>> Yes, however that does not mean that he was in control in the late
>> 70s. England was one of the dominant military forces for a long time,
>> they weren't by the 1950s.
>
>England (or Britain) has a veto on the UN board, along with US, Russia, France &
>China, based on the power that they were a long time ago, if that's the analogy you
>want to use.
Please find the article from the Australian cricket board consitition
in the 70s where Bradman had veto rights...
>If you believe that Bradman had no influence on the events of the late 70s, then you
>ought to brush up on some of those events.
Please compare 'no influence' with 'in control'
Bradman was a board member, he had influence. He was not in control.
> I recall Chappelli recounting a story of
>going to see Bradman & smoking a cigar at the time, a sign of disrespect. He
>specifically mentioned Bradman. I wonder why?
>
Because he went to see Bradman.
Possibly because Bradman and Ian Chappell both lived in Adelaide.
Possibly because he thought that Bradman was more likely to give him a
fair hearing than other administrators...
>>
>> >his views were often deferred to, him being an almost legendary figure.
>> >Yes, reports I've read on him vis WSC are less than flattering, but don't
>> >forget he was nearly 70 at the time. Perhaps his views/opinions were simply out
>> >of step with the views of the time, hardly a mortal sin, is it?
>> >(neither does it reflect on his ability as a crciketer)
>>
>> Read the article that I was addressing and what it claims.
>
>read my replies and what I have claimed
Have done.
--
Yuk Tang
[snip 40k]
Is this the longest post to have appeared in rsc?
Cheers, ymt.
Ken Higgs
Mad Hamish wrote:
And that proves that Fingleton made it up, does it?
>
> >I'm interested in
> >where you got your facts from. A source would be useful, especially as you have
> >demanded a source for every statement I have made.
> >
> Learn to read Kenny.
> You wrote
> "I've heard that leak attributed to Bradman on a number of occasions
> from a number of sources.
> Perhaps they all go back to the same sourse, I dunno."
>
Learn to read Hammy, I said I didn't know, not that "they all asuredly come from the same
source."
>
> I have given my opinion that the same source is Fingleton, I have
> previously quoted Roland Perry
>
> "According to Roland Perry in The Don Warner asked one of the
> journalists the source on the day and was told it was Fingleton.
> Fingleton claimed years later than Bradman told the journalist the
> remark at a clandestine meeting, funnily enough the journalist in
> question was dead by the time and so not in a position to comment."
>
The book by Roland Perry has also been questioned as a hagiography of Bradman.
It has no more validity than other contemporary sources.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> >But hey, it had to have come from *somewhere*.
> >> >> >Any suggestions?
> >> >>
> >> >> If I was betting on anybody I'd bet on Fingleton.
> >> >> Ashley Mallett suggests Grimmett as a possible source for the leak.
> >> >
> >> >source?
> >> >
> >> Grimmett, The Bradman of Bowlers by Ashley Mallett is the title iirc.
> >> The book is currently in transit.
> >
> >It's interesting that you feel you cannot believe Fingleton because he made the
> >claim supposedly after some of the protagonists were dead, yet you can believe
> >Mallett, who would've made his claims at a much later date.
> >
> Who said I believed Mallett?
> I said that he put Grimmett forwards as a possible source, I didn't
> say that I thought it was Grimmett.
>
Them's typical weasel words Hamish, and you know it.
So why did you bring it up, if not to strengthen your claims.
>
> I don't think that there is conclusive evidence to prove who did it. I
> believe that it was Fingleton based on several factors (Warner
> allegedly being told it at the time, the timing when Fingleton
> released his version of events etc) but that's not proof.
>
And I believe otherwise.
Based on several factors too.
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Perry on the 34 tour of england selections
> >> >> >> "Fingleton and Ricahrdson were considered unlucky to miss
> >> >> >> out...Fingleton on the other hand blamed Bradman for not getting in
> >> >> >> the side. When I asked Bradman if there were any truth in this he
> >> >> >> replied:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I wasn't a selector or captain then, but I always thought that Billy
> >> >> >> Brown was a better opener than Fingleton and that he would do better
> >> >> >> on English soil. This proved correct in '34, '38 and '48. I may have
> >> >> >> expressed this to selectors at the time.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This partly explained Fingleton's instigation of what became a long
> >> >> >> running fued with Bradman. He went to the trouble of writing a book on
> >> >> >> Victor Rumpre pointing out why he was a better batsman than Bradman.
> >>
> >> Heck, I must have been channelling Scooby Doo when I wrote that name
> >
> >hmmmm
> >
> as penance for mistyping Victor Trumper I must attend the Scooby Doo
> movie being released this year at least twice.
> I must force myself to watch Sarah Michelle Gellar playing Daphne...
whatever.
I very much doubt it.
I'd say there aren't too many interviews with O'Reilly in the NLSA.
I'd say you don't really want to check it.
But that is a straw man.
as I've already posted today
'but against the short fast stuff, he absolutely wouldn't have it, walked away from it'.
Yep, one man's opinion (albeit shared by Jardine and a few others).
But stop saying I don't have proof.
If you disagree with that, fine, but this continual denial that any thing exists (or that I
haven't provided it) is getting tiresome.
>
> >Whether that be due to accident or design is a moot point.
> >
> So you can't provide the quote, can't narrow it down beyond 'somewhere
> in the national sound archives' and say that it's because I've avoided
> O'Reilly...
I'd say that because you've dropped off this thread a month ago, I haven't had an earlier
chance to provide you with the *exact* quote.
Now cut the misrepresentation and get back to me with something a bit more pertinent.
>
> >>
> >> Getting inside the ball does expose you to less risk than backing
> >> away.
> >
> >I didn't speak about getting inside a ball, that is your surmise
>
> So you think that because of Bradman's fear of getting hit he exposed
> himself to more danger by backing away instead of moving inside the
> line of the ball...
I said this, where, exactly?
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Considering Fingleton's comments on Bradman vs Bodyline, his crap
> >> >> about Bradman on wet wickets (omitting at least one wet wicket where
> >> >> Bradman made a double 100) and him stating that Bradman had only
> >> >> previously succeeded in England due to dry summers when Wisden states
> >> >> that 1930 was hugely affected by rain he's well short of unstinting
> >> >> praise of Bradman as a cricketer.
> >>
> >> The claim was
> >> "This in spite of the fact that the likes of Jack Fingleton and Bill
> >> O'Reilly were unstinting in their praise of Bradman as a cricketer."
> >>
> >> _UNSTINTING_ is an important word in that sentence. A definition of
> >> unstinting is above. Read the definition, read the claim.
> >>
> >> Fingleton's sniping about Bradman means that, IMO, he falls well short
> >> of being unstinting in his praise of Bradman. Frankly based on what
> >> I've read of Fingleton he appears to give Bradman the absolute minimum
> >> of praise that he can get away with.
> >
> >Umm, I'd say that Fingleton, O' Reilly et al were pretty unstinting in their praise
>
> Now now Kenny, your basic stupidity is showing through again
>
I'd say it's your basic inability to see anything rationally when it comes to Don Bradman
that is shining through here.
>
> "Certainly the facts don't support the claim that Fingleton was
> unstinting in his praise of Bradman the cricketer. O'Reilly was, but
> then O'Reilly's criticisms of Bradman in other areas are more
> justified."
>
> I have not queried O'Reilly's comments on Bradman the cricketer, so
> what are you doing dragging him back in here?
>
oh for crying out loud.
>
> >of Bradman, they had some minor quibblesm eg his ability vs fast hostile bowling,
> >but apart form that, the term is fair enough.
>
> "Considering Fingleton's comments on Bradman vs Bodyline, his crap
> about Bradman on wet wickets (omitting at least one wet wicket where
> Bradman made a double 100) and him stating that Bradman had only
> previously succeeded in England due to dry summers when Wisden states
> that 1930 was hugely affected by rain he's well short of unstinting
> praise of Bradman as a cricketer."
>
> So you think that Fingleton ignoring at least on double 100 on a wet
> wicket, lying about the conditions in tours of England to back up the
> claim that Bradman couldn't play on wet wickets _doesn't_ cast doubt
> upon Fingleton as an unbiased observer of Bradman?
>
OK, so in your book, Fingleton is a liar.
>
> >Now I'd say that Bradman gave Hammond the absolute minimum of praise that he could
> >get away with, for sure.
> >
>
> Yes, listing him as up there with Hobbs, Compton and Hutton as the
> best of the English batsmen he'd seen in A Farewell to Cricket,
> revealing that Bradman had actually picked a particular bowler
> because he felt that he was the best chance of removing Hammond and
> saying that the ball that Fleetwood-Smith bowled Hammond with was a
> ball that won a test match is obviously the minimum of praise that he
> can get away with..
>
> all of the above come from A Farewell To Cricket.
yet asked about his batting in a book about Hammond, he said 'he was underrated as a
bowler' (after a pause, authors note).
Ever hear the phrase 'damming with faint praise'?
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He was the No.1 sporting celebrity of his day, given, I think, GBP1000 on
> >> >> >his return from the 1930 series by a wealthy admirer.
> >> >>
> >> >> iirc during the tour
> >> >> He wasn't the only person who that benefactor donated money to
> >> >>
> >> >source?
> >>
> >> iirc
> >> A Farewell To Cricket by Sir Donald Bradman and The Don by Roland
> >> Perry both cover the donation.
> >
> >I haven't come across the idea that others got the mony too, but I'll check it out.
> >BTW, who were the others who got money?
> >
> dunno, but Bradman states in A Farewell to Cricket that in 1930 that
> he believed it was a joke but other team members assured him that the
> person who gave him the money had done it before
assuming, of course, that we believe him......
>
> >> >>
> >> >> > he faced the Board down over this.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, actually he was released from the requirement to write a newspaper
> >> >> column by his employer who did not want to a) deny Australia Bradman's
> >> >> services as a batsman or b) be known as the person who had denied
> >> >> Australia Bradman's services as a batsman.
> >> >
> >> >yep, but that was the newspaper releasing him, not Bradman backing down
> >>
> >> Yes, but he did _not_ face the Board down.
> >> The Board did not change their position and allow him to write the
> >> column.
> >
> >and he did not change his position either, the newspaper broke the impasse.
> >Bradman sat out the first Test to prove his point(though he had an injury cloud
> >too).
> >
> Which means that Bradman did not face the board down.
>
> Bradman stated that he would fulfil his contract and the board did not
> change their position.
>
> The board was not faced down at any stage in the confrontation.
> The claim was that Bradman faced the board down, he didn't. If anybody
> was faced down it was Bradman's employer by the ABC (Australian Board
> of Control)
>
so Bradman stating that he would fulfill his contract (with the paper) was not an example
of him facing down the Board?
Come on.....
Are you serious?
I mean, are we really comparing sums paid then to sums paid now for professional sport?
>
> _Maybe_ if you include what he made later as a stockbroker or company
> director but I still wouldn't bet on it, and in any case that's
> somewhat different from being 'the best paid Athlete in our history'
>
I think in historical terms, it has some validity.
This was the Depression era.
>
> Richard Branson is probably the richest man to try and fly around the
> world in a hot air balloon, it doesn't mean that he was 'the best paid
> balloonist in history'
I think you'll find that he probably was
(check out how much sponsorship he recieved form a Japanese soft drink company, I think
their product was, prosaically, named 'Sweat'. Source "The Virgin King").
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> He started as an independent stockbroker because him employer went
> >> >> bust and owed Bradman money at the time.
> >> >
> >> >Hamish, you've admitted that a wellwisher gave him GBP1000 (without demanding a
> >> >source), a huge amount of money for the time.
> >>
> >> I ask for sources for information that sounds dodgy, I know that
> >> Bradman was given money by somebody on the 1930 tour of England.
> >>
> >
> >why is it dodgy?
> >Bradman was certainly given a gift of GBP1000, you don't deny it yourself.
>
> again Kenny, I am adressing the claim
> 'As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian, has
> demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in our
> history"'
>
I think he probably said (or meant) 'at the time'.
>
> _that_ is what I want sources or evidence for, not that Bradman
> received 1000 pounds. I know that, I've said in the thread that it
> happened.
>
> That would be you misrepresenting me again
>
No, it'd be you misrepresenting a published source.
For the umpteenth time
>
> >>
> >> Exactly how huge 1000 pounds was in 1930 is a matter of record. It was
> >> a large amount of money but, as I recall comparisons with average
> >> earnings, less money than a top level modern player would get for a
> >> base contract now.
> >
> >I didn't claim that it was comparable to a modern day cricketer. Supposedly Waugh is
> >on around $700 000 as a base from the ACB. I'm not making that comparison.
> >But as a young man he bought a house in Waverton. You know Waverton?
> >I do. It is not, and was not, a down market suburb.
> >Soon after Bradman started playing, from what I read, he was quite an affluent young
> >man. That he lost money in a business venture (or employer went bust) does not mean
> >that he was poorly paid in cricket
> >
> again you are applying the wrong criteria for the issue being debated.
> I am addressing a particular claim.
> If somebody claims that Mark Waugh is a better batsman than Tendulkar
> then me arguing against it does not mean that I believe that Mark
> Waugh wasn't a good test batsman.
>
> The point is not that Bradman wasn't well paid for the time, the point
> is that the article made a particular claim which looks very dodgy,
> that affects the credibility of other claims in the article.
>
The point is that he *was* well paid at the time.
Not compared to Michael Jordan, but certainly compared to his contemporaries.
>
> >>
> >> >If this had all gone, who's fault was that?
> >>
> >> at what stage?
> >> iirc Bradman would have started his own stockbroking firm around 1943.
> >>
> >> 13 years after the money was given to him, after the depression, after
> >> his first child had died, I _think_ after his daughter had cerebral
> >> palsy, after Bradman have been invalidated out of the armed forces and
> >> had about a year in convalesence,
> >> after he'd gotten married and moved to South Australia to learn a way
> >> of making money outside of cricket.
> >
> >I'd be surprised if that 1000 was all he had for over 10 years.
>
> That wasn't the point being made.
>
yes it was
>
> >In fact I know it wasn't.
> >He had a sponsorship with, I think, Mick Simmons Sports;
>
> actually he was employed by them as a representative.
>
thank you.
>
> >he had a newspaper column,
>
> when exactly?
> AFAIK he did not write a newspaper column consistantly until after he
> had retired from cricket and then it was normally only on a tour by
> tour arrangement.
>
> He signed on to do media work before the bodyline series but please
> tell me when he regularly wrote newspaper columns in the 9 or 10 years
> between then and him starting his stockbroking firm.
>
please point out to me where 'he had a newspaper column' equates to 'write a newspaper
column consistantly', especially given the trouble it DID cause in 32/3.
We both acknowledge he had a newspaper column at some time.
>
> >he was paid by the ACB & NSW.
>
> afaik he received match fees and expenses when he played. There was
> probably an additional amount for him as captain compared to other
> players.
> In real terms he probably did worse out of cricket than some of the
> players in the late 1800s and early 1900s who shared profits from
> their tours of England...
>
source?
>
> in addition he hadn't been playing for NSW for about 8 years by the
> time that his employer went bust.
>
> >This was deprsession era Australia, lots of people had NO jobs.
> >Perhaps not the most affluent time in the nations history, but I don't believe that
> >the Bradman family was struggling.
> >
> again, that's not the point being debated.
> Neither my parents, my sisters or I are really struggling (given
> another couple of months between jobs I might have been) but my father
> isn't the best paid doctor in Australian history, my oldest sister
> isn't the best paid doctor in New Zealand history, my other sister
> isn't the best paid Engineer in Australian history and I'm not the
> best paid computer scientist/engineer in Australian history.
>
> I am not saying that Bradman was broke, living from hand to mouth etc.
> I am addressing the particular claim that Bradman is the highest paid
> Australian Athlete in history.
>
at the time, I'd be pretty sure he was.
>
> by 1943 or so Bradman had started working as a stockbroker about 8
> years earlier, now I'm not entirely up on the historical payments for
> stockbrokers but that would put him up the earning scale at the time.
> Against that there are the facts that
> a) he had spend time in the armed forces, I think that was much of 39,
> maybe early 40...
> b) there was an extended period of recovery after he was kicked out of
> the service on medical grounds. I believe that was 9 months
> c) he was owed money by his employer went it went bust
>
> armed forces pay, 9 months without income and being a creditor
> suggests that he might not have been overly flush at the time...
>
> However that's still not relevent to the point of whether he was the
> highest paid athlete in Australia's history. Money that Bradman earned
> as a stockbroker is not money earned as a cricketer, so it doesn't
> count towards the claim that he was the best paid athlete in
> Australian sporting history.
which is basically a nit pick.
Perhaps there was someone else paid better than him in the 30's who neither of us have
heard of.
But to make out he wasn't well off is spurious.
And demonstrably so.
>
> >>
> >> I find it quite easy to believe that the demands made by the above
> >> factors would have meant that the money was spent, note that's
> >> different from gone.
> >> If you spend money on a house the house is (depending upon your
> >> definitions) an asset, however it is not a liquid asset and losing
> >> your house is a rather bad thing financially...
> >>
> >
> >yes.
> >But that can happen to anyone. I have an acquaintance who is a senior partner at
> >Andersons, he stands to lose his house if the poo hits the fan. He's been very well
> >paid for a number of years.
>
> You reckon that by 96 Greg Norman was in any danger of losing a house?
>
> If Bradman had been earning more than Greg Norman, Darren Bennett or
> Luke Longley in real terms for 15 years then he wouldn't have been in
> any danger of losing a house...
you just don't get it, do you.
I was trying to illustrate that it's not just 'in my house'
>
> >You describe him as an offsider of Kerry Packer.
>
> Yes, and as I recall the situation he was involved in the WSC side of
> the split.
when he wrote the book, what position did he hold in the Packer empire?
>
>
> >What is it about his writings that you so dislike, aside from the fact that he wrote
> >that Bradman was very much on the ACB side of the WSC dispute (which, incidentally,
> >wasn't the main theme of his book on that anyway)?
> >
> Learn to read Kenny.
> I state that an offsider of Packer may not be the best source for an
> unbiased view of the happenings around the time of WSC.
>
but not neccessarily the worst.
Someone involved in the actual dealings may know somethings unavailable to an outsider.
You're happy to believe Bradman on the Fingleton affair, yet he's hardly a detached
observer
>
> If Haigh was involved with the Packers the odds are that he wasn't on
> the best of terms with the ABC at the time and as a freelance
> journalist having the Packers on-side would be a pretty large
> advantage for him.
proof?
>
> >>
> >> >He may or may not have worked
> >> >for Packer at some time, but to write off his contribution as non biased or
> >>
> >> So you're saying that Haigh's writings were biased then?
> >
> >sorry, a typo.
> >I don't think they were, you appear to hold the opposite view.
> >Why?
> >
> Reread what I wrote.
> As I recall things Haigh was close to the main movers for WSC, to me
> that means that his relations with the ABC were unlikely to be all
> that good.
so he basically lied in his book?
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >some sort of apology for WSC indicates to me that you haven't read the book.
> >>
> >> Read what I wrote.
> >> Justify the step from what I wrote to 'some sort of apology for WSC'
> >
> >you claim that you cannot take his claims seriously because he is an offsider of
> >Kerry Packer.
>
> No, I claim that if he was an offsider of Packer he is not the best
> source for what was happening on the ABC side of things.
>
but Bradman is?
>
> I'd like to know what sources he used to justify the claim that
> Bradman was unsympathetic to the idea that cricketers needed more
> money in the 70s.
> Did he interview Bradman for the book?
Why don't you read the book?
>
>
> >You claim that he is a respected cricket writer only in my household.
>
> No, I put a one liner suggesting that he's not actually that famous as
> a cricket writer.
!!
> The only book of his that I can recall being
> mentioned much is The Cricket Wars which is more about the politics of
> cricket than cricket itself and if I'm right about his links at the
> time I am somewhat suspicious about his evenhandedness in treating
> both sides.
> Checking finds a few more but Amazon uk has 8 books of his currently
> available. Not a huge amount of books.
for starters:
The Big Ship : Warwick Armstrong And The Making Of Modern Cricket / Gideon Haigh.
Gideon Haigh's Australian Cricket Anecdotes.
Mystery Spinner : The Story Of Jack Iverson / Gideon Haigh. .
1999
5
On Top Down Under : Australia's Cricket Captains / Ray Robinson And Gideon
Haigh
1996
The Summer Game : Australian Test Cricket 1949-71 / Gideon Haigh.
Is reasonably impressive?
>
>
> >Your remarks toward him are disparaging, yet you don't actually say what it is about
> >his writing that you find so inaccurate.
>
> Please reread what I wrote.
just did.
Now, answer the question (I don't mind if it takes you another month)
what, you don't believe it?
>
> Bradman wrote about Hammond in aFtC and rated him amonst the top
> batsmen he ever saw. In The Art of Cricket Bradman uses Hammond as an
> example of cover drives and the photo has the caption "A most glorious
> study of W.R. Hammond making a cover drive. It is a perfect study in
> grace, power and balance and gives a true picture of the full
> splendour of this great batsman's stroke production."
>
> Your claim that Bradman responded to a question about Hammond's
> batting by saying that he was underrated as a bowler doesn't jibe with
> anything else that I've ever read from Bradman or heard Bradman say in
> interviews.
>
so my source is plain wrong?
>
> Also note that Hammond was listed as 12th man for the team that
> Bradman picked according to Roland Perry.
> Hammond wasn't going to open, Bradman was always going to be #3,
> Sobers was always going to be there and the team as selected only had
> 5 specialist batsmen. Suggests that Bradman rated Hammond in the top 4
> middle non-opening batsmen around...
>
> Given Bradman's comments on Hammond over more than 50 years I find it
> hard to believe that he'd have made that comment. It just doesn't fit
> with what he said before and after. Given 1 alleged quote in 50 years
> and multiple sources from before and after that paint a different view
> I believe that there is considerable doubt about the view that you've
> put forwards that Bradman didn't rate Hammond as a batsman.
>
>
> A review of Hammond: The Reasons Why at
> http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/INTERACTIVE/REVIEWS/BOOKS/OLD/HAMMOND_FOOT.html
>
> makes no mention of the comments you attribute to Bradman in the book,
> I'd have thought it was worth mentioning...
I hardly think so.
It was about Hammond, not Bradman.
Why not read the book?
>
> >>
> >> > and the context being Bradmans work habits during his playing career, ie
> >> >30 years previously
> >>
> >> Reread the quote.
> >
> >and what will that tell me?
> >
> " That could not happen today. There are so many addition tours ...
> Cricketers must be professional."
>
> might give you a hint.
>
> It was really only in the 70s that cricket started to become a
> professional affair in Australia...that was when players started
> touring so often that it became impractical to have a career at the
> same time.
and?
>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Certainly that source appears to be ocnsiderably kinder to Fingleton
> >> >> >> than what I've heard and read would justify. Looks to me like he may
> >> >> >> be trying for a bit of poppy lopping himself....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Hamish,
> >> >> >over time, I've seen you as a big Bradman fan.
> >> >> >I'm not trying to say you're posting a load of hokey here, but I reckon
> >> >> >your interpretation of events is rosier than some others might be.
> >> >> >
> >> >> I am a Bradman fan.
> >> >
> >> >you don't say.
> >> >
> >> >> I _don't_ think that Bradman is perfect or never made a mistake.
> >> >
> >> >neither do I.
> >> >Neither was I trying to portray him as some sort of ogre.
> >> >
> >> I addressed what I saw as weaknesses in the article.
> >>
> >
> >I was under the impression that you didn't believe it and asked for sources
> >
> I don't believe it in some areas.
> Other areas are far from proven but are put forwards as if certainly
> correct.
>
no they aren't.
They are views that I hold, based on what I've read.
You asked for sources and I've given them to you.
If you took the trouble to read them yourself, perhaps you'd be ina better position to
comment.
>
> I think the idea that Bradman was the highest paid athlete in
> Australian sporting history is ludicrous.
> I've put forwards a few names that I think would beat him hands down
> for money.
>
You misrepresented that.
>
> The report on the summoning of various players before the board in
> 35-36 appears to be focusing entirely upon the fact that the people
> summoned were Catholic rather than the question of whether there was
> any reason to summon them before the board or whether Bradman had
> anything to do with them being summoned.
>
IYNSHO
>
> I supplied quotes that suggested that it was fair enough to summon
> them and Bradman has always denied all knowledge of them being
> summoned. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that there were
> enough rumours going around to have justified the summons and I
> certainly would believe that Fingleton would have been one of the main
> movers in any plot to get rid of Bradman.
>
IYNHO
>
> To me the quoted comments from Bradman according to Charles Williams
> look bloody dodgy, I'd be amazed if Bradman was being literal when he
> said that the players were met by priests in cassocks. It reads much
> more as a slang expression to me rather than anything literal.
>
> If there had been that much tension between Bradman and McCabe I doubt
> that McCabe would have been vice captain in 38.
>
why?
>
> I have no doubt that Bradman and Fingleton didn't get on. I suspect
> that it does come down to jealousy from Fingleton because I've read
> enough quotes from Fingleton that back that pretty strongly. (e.g.
> I've seen him quoted that Bradman's huge scores meant that other
> people were ignored, his claims of unusually dry English summers and
> his ignoring any wet wicket where Bradman had success to back his case
> that Bradman couldn't play on rain affected pitches)
>
> I've seen no evidence presented that Bradman made any decisions as a
> captain, selector or administrator based on any reason other than
> cricketing ability or what was best for the game.
>
that is simply not true.
I've provided you with evidence.
You simply choose to ignore it.
>
> "It is a matter of record that, during his time as a player and an
> administrator, Bradman clashed with a range of Australian cricketers."
>
> Bradman was the head of the selection panel for a long time, of course
> there are going to be some clashes.
>
> As to the quote
> 'Lord Williams told Amanda Smith in August 1996 that, when Bradman was
> on tour, he became irritated that Catholics "on board ship ¤ went off
> together to Mass on the Sunday". Especially since "they made a point
> of doing that in a ¤ pointed manner". He could only have got this
> information from The Don himself. '
>
> What utter crud.
> Williams can't have gotten it from another source? Say Fingleton's
> brother?
You aren't serious, are you?
>
> Considering Bradman's comments on people doing whatever they felt was
> best to prepare for the match I find it hard to believe that he'd be
> worried by that._If_ Bradman was irritated by that he's far too smart
> to have mentioned it, nothing to gain by mentioning it and a lot to
> lose.
>
> 'Keith Miller was Australia's greatest all-rounder. He is evidence for
> the proposition that it was not only irreverent Catholics such as
> O'Reilly, Fingleton and McCabe who found Bradman difficult. It appears
> that, to Miller, The Don was authoritarian and awesomely serious. And
> a great cricketer as well. "
>
> Keith Miller came into the team hotel after staying out all night
> during a test match. His approach to cricket was somewhat
> undisciplined. A captain having the odd problem with Miller is not a
> sign of anything other than a captain having problems with a wild
> player.
>
> 'However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
> state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
> stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
> for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
> breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s. '
>
> By that time Bradman was not in a main position on the board.
but still with *plenty* of influence.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> However when it comes down to Bradman vs Fingleton Bradman has much
> >> >> more credibility IMO.
> >> >> Fingleton certainly appears to have done the best job he can to have
> >> >> cut Bradman down to size (claiming that Trumper tried to get out past
> >> >> 50 and hence was a better bat, not counting rain affected wickets as
> >> >> wet wickets if Bradman made runs, accusing him of running away from
> >> >> bodyline etc)
> >> >> Given Fingleton's writings on Bradman I don't trust him as far as I
> >> >> can throw him for comments on Bradman and allegations about Bradman.
> >> >
> >> >That's fine, I respect your position.
> >> >However, not all the material I've referenced has come from Fingleton, and you
> >> >seem equally sceptical of any of that.
> >>
> >> I've queried Haigh because I believe he had fairly tight links with
> >> Kerry Packer during the WSC days.
> >>
> >
> >you describe him as Kerry Packers offsider.
> >I don't know where you get this view from.
>
> Because I think he was tight with Packer and the WSC people at the
> time. Maybe I'm wrong but it certainly hasn't been disputed that he
> was.
The reason that I haven't disputed it is because I'm not sure. I know he now works as an
author. What he did 25 years ago, I don't know.
What is your reason for believing he was a Packer man?
>
> >>
> >> I asked for the source, and now the quote, for O'Reilly commenting on
> >> Bradman against bodyline because it doesn't mesh with what I've heard
> >> and read him say about it in the past. I suspect that you've
> >> misunderstood him.
> >
> >I think it would be best to view the source before saying I misunderstood.
> >
> well gee, you've narrowed the source down to the National Sound
> Archives, you can't provide the exact quote...
can and have done........
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Given that Bradman was _1_ board member in the time when WSC was
> >> >> happening and his public utterances were affected becasue he was on
> >> >> the board and could hardly go against them the criticiism of his view
> >> >> on the 70 pay is somewhat iffy...
> >> >
> >> >Well I beg to differ on the i Board member issue.
> >> >He was the pre eminent figure in Australian cricket for an awfully long time,
> >>
> >> Yes, however that does not mean that he was in control in the late
> >> 70s. England was one of the dominant military forces for a long time,
> >> they weren't by the 1950s.
> >
> >England (or Britain) has a veto on the UN board, along with US, Russia, France &
> >China, based on the power that they were a long time ago, if that's the analogy you
> >want to use.
>
> Please find the article from the Australian cricket board consitition
> in the 70s where Bradman had veto rights...
>
> please find the bit where I said he had one
>
> >If you believe that Bradman had no influence on the events of the late 70s, then you
> >ought to brush up on some of those events.
>
> Please compare 'no influence' with 'in control'
> Bradman was a board member, he had influence. He was not in control.
>
so any criticism of him would be unwarranted?
>
> > I recall Chappelli recounting a story of
> >going to see Bradman & smoking a cigar at the time, a sign of disrespect. He
> >specifically mentioned Bradman. I wonder why?
> >
> Because he went to see Bradman.
> Possibly because Bradman and Ian Chappell both lived in Adelaide.
>
> Possibly because he thought that Bradman was more likely to give him a
> fair hearing than other administrators...
>
or possibly because he thought Bradman would have the most influence.....
>
> >>
> >> >his views were often deferred to, him being an almost legendary figure.
> >> >Yes, reports I've read on him vis WSC are less than flattering, but don't
> >> >forget he was nearly 70 at the time. Perhaps his views/opinions were simply out
> >> >of step with the views of the time, hardly a mortal sin, is it?
> >> >(neither does it reflect on his ability as a crciketer)
> >>
> >> Read the article that I was addressing and what it claims.
> >
> >read my replies and what I have claimed
>
> Have done.
> --
you give very little impression of having done so.
I'll give you two months to compose your reply to this......
Higgsy
Mad Hamish
wrote:
Please state when suspicion started to be equivalent to proof.
I believe that Fingleton is the source for the theory on Bradman, I
haven't seen any reference to Bradman being a possible leak at the
time and I would be extremely surprised if Bradman would have been
named captain if the ABC considered he'd leaked it...
I'm am not saying that Fingleton certainly is the source for the leak,
I am saying that I've never seen any source suggesting him as a leak
before Fingleton put it forwards.
When Fingleton put it forwards the person who he claimed told him was
already dead so nobody could check the claim independently.
It looks highly likely to me that the theory that Bradman was the leak
originated with Fingleton
If you've got counter evidence please produce it rather than making
accusations about me.
I don't trust Fingleton about Bradman.
I've posted some reasons to back that up.
>>
>> >I'm interested in
>> >where you got your facts from. A source would be useful, especially as you have
>> >demanded a source for every statement I have made.
>> >
>> Learn to read Kenny.
>> You wrote
>> "I've heard that leak attributed to Bradman on a number of occasions
>> from a number of sources.
>> Perhaps they all go back to the same sourse, I dunno."
>>
>
>Learn to read Hammy, I said I didn't know, not that "they all asuredly come from the same
>source."
>
Context Kenny, the next sentence makes things clear.
>>
>> I have given my opinion that the same source is Fingleton, I have
>> previously quoted Roland Perry
>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this bit here.
It's my opinion that the source for Bradman as a possible leak is
Fingleton. If you can produce an earlier source please do so.
>> "According to Roland Perry in The Don Warner asked one of the
>> journalists the source on the day and was told it was Fingleton.
>> Fingleton claimed years later than Bradman told the journalist the
>> remark at a clandestine meeting, funnily enough the journalist in
>> question was dead by the time and so not in a position to comment."
>
>The book by Roland Perry has also been questioned as a hagiography of Bradman.
>It has no more validity than other contemporary sources.
>
Well it does have the advantage of not being written by somebody who
could have made the leak. Fingleton is a suspect for the leak so a
claim by him has to be considered as somewhat iffy...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >But hey, it had to have come from *somewhere*.
>> >> >> >Any suggestions?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If I was betting on anybody I'd bet on Fingleton.
>> >> >> Ashley Mallett suggests Grimmett as a possible source for the leak.
>> >> >
>> >> >source?
>> >> >
>> >> Grimmett, The Bradman of Bowlers by Ashley Mallett is the title iirc.
>> >> The book is currently in transit.
>> >
>> >It's interesting that you feel you cannot believe Fingleton because he made the
>> >claim supposedly after some of the protagonists were dead, yet you can believe
>> >Mallett, who would've made his claims at a much later date.
>> >
>> Who said I believed Mallett?
>> I said that he put Grimmett forwards as a possible source, I didn't
>> say that I thought it was Grimmett.
>
>Them's typical weasel words Hamish, and you know it.
>So why did you bring it up, if not to strengthen your claims.
"If I was betting on anybody I'd bet on Fingleton.
Ashley Mallett suggests Grimmett as a possible source for the leak."
Exactly how would suggesting Grimmett as a source strengthen my
position that Fingleton is the most likely suspect?
I mentioned it because it is another theory. I don't think it's a
strong theory but I thought it was interesting.
>>
>> I don't think that there is conclusive evidence to prove who did it. I
>> believe that it was Fingleton based on several factors (Warner
>> allegedly being told it at the time, the timing when Fingleton
>> released his version of events etc) but that's not proof.
>>
>
>And I believe otherwise.
>Based on several factors too.
>
what 'several factors' would those be?
he was a journalist for 50 odd years Kenny,
a quick stop at a library site finds 480 minutes of O'Reilly on reel
to reel.
http://ilms.nla.gov.au/webpac-bin/wgbroker?042301480534332+1+search+select+1+7
the transcript is 244 pages...
I don't know if it's possible to get it sent to Tasmania but I don't
have a reel to reel player and I don't particularly want to sit
through 8 hours to try and check a quote that you can't provide
especially without even knowing that it's the source...
Doesn't quite look like "I don't want to check it"
No it's not.
>
>as I've already posted today
where?
Hasn't turned up on my newsreader and google doesn't find it
either....
>'but against the short fast stuff, he absolutely wouldn't have it, walked away from it'.
>
Funny how Larwood couldn't get him out in 1930 then isn't it?
Or do you think that Larwood was bowling gentle half-volleys all
through Bradman's 334 and his 232?
also funny that Bradman's best shot was the pull shot and I've seen
many shots of him playing the hook as well...
>Yep, one man's opinion (albeit shared by Jardine and a few others).
>But stop saying I don't have proof.
>If you disagree with that, fine, but this continual denial that any thing exists (or that I
>haven't provided it) is getting tiresome.
Exactly what are you claiming to have proven?
You have not provided a quote from O'Reilly until now, you have not
provided a source for the quote even now "something in the national
library sound archives" is not a source.
and you are _well_ away from proving that Bradman stepped away due to
fear rather than as a tactic against Bodyline...
>
>>
>> >Whether that be due to accident or design is a moot point.
>> >
>> So you can't provide the quote, can't narrow it down beyond 'somewhere
>> in the national sound archives' and say that it's because I've avoided
>> O'Reilly...
>
>I'd say that because you've dropped off this thread a month ago, I haven't had an earlier
>chance to provide you with the *exact* quote.
Sure you have Kenny.
I asked you for the quote in the post on the 30-3
">> >> Fingleton was hugely critical of Bradman's efforts against
Bodyline,
>> >> claiming that he ran away because he was scared.
>> >
>> >yes, but so was O' Reilly.
>>
>> Source?
>
>National Library Sound Archives
Exact Quote?"
Humh, you responded on 2-4
"dunno.
If interested, I suggest you track it down, that, after all is the
point of having
references."
looks like you had a chance and couldn't be bothered...
>Now cut the misrepresentation and get back to me with something a bit more pertinent.
>> >>
>> >> Getting inside the ball does expose you to less risk than backing
>> >> away.
>> >
>> >I didn't speak about getting inside a ball, that is your surmise
>>
>> So you think that because of Bradman's fear of getting hit he exposed
>> himself to more danger by backing away instead of moving inside the
>> line of the ball...
>
>I said this, where, exactly?
>
So you think that the safest way of dealing with a bouncer isn't to
move inside the ball?
If so doesn't that mean that Bradman chose not to take the safest
approach because he considered that he could best oppose Bodyline by
other tactics?
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Considering Fingleton's comments on Bradman vs Bodyline, his crap
>> >> >> about Bradman on wet wickets (omitting at least one wet wicket where
>> >> >> Bradman made a double 100) and him stating that Bradman had only
>> >> >> previously succeeded in England due to dry summers when Wisden states
>> >> >> that 1930 was hugely affected by rain he's well short of unstinting
>> >> >> praise of Bradman as a cricketer.
>> >>
>> >> The claim was
>> >> "This in spite of the fact that the likes of Jack Fingleton and Bill
>> >> O'Reilly were unstinting in their praise of Bradman as a cricketer."
>> >>
>> >> _UNSTINTING_ is an important word in that sentence. A definition of
>> >> unstinting is above. Read the definition, read the claim.
>> >>
>> >> Fingleton's sniping about Bradman means that, IMO, he falls well short
>> >> of being unstinting in his praise of Bradman. Frankly based on what
>> >> I've read of Fingleton he appears to give Bradman the absolute minimum
>> >> of praise that he can get away with.
>> >
>> >Umm, I'd say that Fingleton, O' Reilly et al were pretty unstinting in their praise
>>
>> Now now Kenny, your basic stupidity is showing through again
>
>I'd say it's your basic inability to see anything rationally when it comes to Don Bradman
>that is shining through here.
So you don't think that Fingleton ignoring a double 100 on a rain
damaged pitch when looking at Bradman's record on wet wickets casts
severe doubt about his honesty?
>
>>
>> "Certainly the facts don't support the claim that Fingleton was
>> unstinting in his praise of Bradman the cricketer. O'Reilly was, but
>> then O'Reilly's criticisms of Bradman in other areas are more
>> justified."
>>
>> I have not queried O'Reilly's comments on Bradman the cricketer, so
>> what are you doing dragging him back in here?
>
>oh for crying out loud.
>
Well you've already spat the dummy so a howl or two from you isn't
unexpected...
>>
>> >of Bradman, they had some minor quibblesm eg his ability vs fast hostile bowling,
>> >but apart form that, the term is fair enough.
>>
>> "Considering Fingleton's comments on Bradman vs Bodyline, his crap
>> about Bradman on wet wickets (omitting at least one wet wicket where
>> Bradman made a double 100) and him stating that Bradman had only
>> previously succeeded in England due to dry summers when Wisden states
>> that 1930 was hugely affected by rain he's well short of unstinting
>> praise of Bradman as a cricketer."
>>
>> So you think that Fingleton ignoring at least on double 100 on a wet
>> wicket, lying about the conditions in tours of England to back up the
>> claim that Bradman couldn't play on wet wickets _doesn't_ cast doubt
>> upon Fingleton as an unbiased observer of Bradman?
>
>OK, so in your book, Fingleton is a liar.
>
Read Brightly Fades the Don, have a look at Fingleton commenting on
Bradman on wet wickets. Read a Farewell to Cricket and have a look at
the quotes from the English press that Bradman quotes about the final
test of 1930.. ask yourself if it's a wet wicket...
>>
>> >Now I'd say that Bradman gave Hammond the absolute minimum of praise that he could
>> >get away with, for sure.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, listing him as up there with Hobbs, Compton and Hutton as the
>> best of the English batsmen he'd seen in A Farewell to Cricket,
>> revealing that Bradman had actually picked a particular bowler
>> because he felt that he was the best chance of removing Hammond and
>> saying that the ball that Fleetwood-Smith bowled Hammond with was a
>> ball that won a test match is obviously the minimum of praise that he
>> can get away with..
>>
>> all of the above come from A Farewell To Cricket.
>
>yet asked about his batting in a book about Hammond, he said 'he was underrated as a
>bowler' (after a pause, authors note).
>Ever hear the phrase 'damming with faint praise'?
>
I find that hard to credit with all the other comments from Bradman on
Hammond that I've seen...
I find it extremely hard to credit that at some stage in the mid 80s
he suddenly went anti-hammond and then picked him to be in the top few
middle order batsmen when it came time to pick an all-time world XI
(or of cricketers he's seen or whatever)...
>>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >He was the No.1 sporting celebrity of his day, given, I think, GBP1000 on
>> >> >> >his return from the 1930 series by a wealthy admirer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> iirc during the tour
>> >> >> He wasn't the only person who that benefactor donated money to
>> >> >>
>> >> >source?
>> >>
>> >> iirc
>> >> A Farewell To Cricket by Sir Donald Bradman and The Don by Roland
>> >> Perry both cover the donation.
>> >
>> >I haven't come across the idea that others got the mony too, but I'll check it out.
>> >BTW, who were the others who got money?
>> >
>> dunno, but Bradman states in A Farewell to Cricket that in 1930 that
>> he believed it was a joke but other team members assured him that the
>> person who gave him the money had done it before
>
>assuming, of course, that we believe him......
>
I can't see any reason to believe that he'd have lied about it. He
names the benefactor and at the time when A Farewell to Cricket was
written there were still a lot of people from that tour who were still
alive (hell the benefactor might well have still been alive)
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > he faced the Board down over this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, actually he was released from the requirement to write a newspaper
>> >> >> column by his employer who did not want to a) deny Australia Bradman's
>> >> >> services as a batsman or b) be known as the person who had denied
>> >> >> Australia Bradman's services as a batsman.
>> >> >
>> >> >yep, but that was the newspaper releasing him, not Bradman backing down
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but he did _not_ face the Board down.
>> >> The Board did not change their position and allow him to write the
>> >> column.
>> >
>> >and he did not change his position either, the newspaper broke the impasse.
>> >Bradman sat out the first Test to prove his point(though he had an injury cloud
>> >too).
>> >
>> Which means that Bradman did not face the board down.
>>
>> Bradman stated that he would fulfil his contract and the board did not
>> change their position.
>>
>> The board was not faced down at any stage in the confrontation.
>> The claim was that Bradman faced the board down, he didn't. If anybody
>> was faced down it was Bradman's employer by the ABC (Australian Board
>> of Control)
>>
>
>so Bradman stating that he would fulfill his contract (with the paper) was not an example
>of him facing down the Board?
>
No.
from www.dictionary.com
face down
To attain mastery over or overcome by confronting in a resolute,
determined manner: face down an opponent in a debate; faced the enemy
down.
Please state how Bradman attained mastery over or overcame the board
in that confrontation seeing as the board did not change their
position but Bradman's employer did.
Bradman _may_ have been attempting to face the board down, or he might
have believed that he had signed a contract and he was honour bound to
fulfill it.
That was the claim from the article. That Bradman was the highest paid
Athlete in out history.
The claim made means that Bradman was the highest paid athlete in our
history (to that stage) which, as I recall the dates, includes
Bennett, Longley and Norman...
Note that I used the phrase 'real terms' that means that I'm not doing
a direct dollar to dollar comparison (or pound to dollar) but adjusted
for spending power...
>>
>> _Maybe_ if you include what he made later as a stockbroker or company
>> director but I still wouldn't bet on it, and in any case that's
>> somewhat different from being 'the best paid Athlete in our history'
>>
>
>I think in historical terms, it has some validity.
>This was the Depression era.
>
Greg Norman has owned private jets and, iirc, he currently leases a
747...
I'm not a basketball fan but check what Longley was pulling down in
the NBA or Bennett in the NFL..
>>
>> Richard Branson is probably the richest man to try and fly around the
>> world in a hot air balloon, it doesn't mean that he was 'the best paid
>> balloonist in history'
>
>I think you'll find that he probably was
>(check out how much sponsorship he recieved form a Japanese soft drink company, I think
>their product was, prosaically, named 'Sweat'. Source "The Virgin King").
>
Well somebody else has made the trip around the world iirc and I'd
also check the early pioneers...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He started as an independent stockbroker because him employer went
>> >> >> bust and owed Bradman money at the time.
>> >> >
>> >> >Hamish, you've admitted that a wellwisher gave him GBP1000 (without demanding a
>> >> >source), a huge amount of money for the time.
>> >>
>> >> I ask for sources for information that sounds dodgy, I know that
>> >> Bradman was given money by somebody on the 1930 tour of England.
>> >
>> >why is it dodgy?
>> >Bradman was certainly given a gift of GBP1000, you don't deny it yourself.
>>
>> again Kenny, I am adressing the claim
>> 'As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian, has
>> demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in our
>> history"'
>>
>
>I think he probably said (or meant) 'at the time'.
>
From the article that started this debate at
http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
'On the ABC-TV Lateline program last Monday, Roland Perry claimed that
Bradman "made very little money out of the game". This is
questionable. As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian,
has demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in
our history" (Sunday Age, June 2, 1996). '
so either Haigh claimed it in the Age or else it's another strike
against the accuracy of the article that I was questioning...
>
>> _that_ is what I want sources or evidence for, not that Bradman
>> received 1000 pounds. I know that, I've said in the thread that it
>> happened.
>>
>> That would be you misrepresenting me again
>
>No, it'd be you misrepresenting a published source.
>For the umpteenth time
>
The quote and reference is directly above Kenny...
>> >>
>> >> Exactly how huge 1000 pounds was in 1930 is a matter of record. It was
>> >> a large amount of money but, as I recall comparisons with average
>> >> earnings, less money than a top level modern player would get for a
>> >> base contract now.
>> >
>> >I didn't claim that it was comparable to a modern day cricketer. Supposedly Waugh is
>> >on around $700 000 as a base from the ACB. I'm not making that comparison.
>> >But as a young man he bought a house in Waverton. You know Waverton?
>> >I do. It is not, and was not, a down market suburb.
>> >Soon after Bradman started playing, from what I read, he was quite an affluent young
>> >man. That he lost money in a business venture (or employer went bust) does not mean
>> >that he was poorly paid in cricket
>> >
>> again you are applying the wrong criteria for the issue being debated.
>> I am addressing a particular claim.
>> If somebody claims that Mark Waugh is a better batsman than Tendulkar
>> then me arguing against it does not mean that I believe that Mark
>> Waugh wasn't a good test batsman.
>>
>> The point is not that Bradman wasn't well paid for the time, the point
>> is that the article made a particular claim which looks very dodgy,
>> that affects the credibility of other claims in the article.
>
>The point is that he *was* well paid at the time.
>Not compared to Michael Jordan, but certainly compared to his contemporaries.
>
Again Kenny the claim in the article was that he was the best paid
athlete in Australian history. Read the original article if you don't
believe me. The link is above.
>> >>
>> >> >If this had all gone, who's fault was that?
>> >>
>> >> at what stage?
>> >> iirc Bradman would have started his own stockbroking firm around 1943.
>> >>
>> >> 13 years after the money was given to him, after the depression, after
>> >> his first child had died, I _think_ after his daughter had cerebral
>> >> palsy, after Bradman have been invalidated out of the armed forces and
>> >> had about a year in convalesence,
>> >> after he'd gotten married and moved to South Australia to learn a way
>> >> of making money outside of cricket.
>> >
>> >I'd be surprised if that 1000 was all he had for over 10 years.
>>
>> That wasn't the point being made.
>
>yes it was
>
>
>>
>> >In fact I know it wasn't.
>> >He had a sponsorship with, I think, Mick Simmons Sports;
>>
>> actually he was employed by them as a representative.
>
>thank you.
>
employment is somewhat different from sponsership.
Note that arrangement finished before the bodyline series.
>>
>> >he had a newspaper column,
>>
>> when exactly?
>> AFAIK he did not write a newspaper column consistantly until after he
>> had retired from cricket and then it was normally only on a tour by
>> tour arrangement.
>>
>> He signed on to do media work before the bodyline series but please
>> tell me when he regularly wrote newspaper columns in the 9 or 10 years
>> between then and him starting his stockbroking firm.
>
>please point out to me where 'he had a newspaper column' equates to 'write a newspaper
>column consistantly', especially given the trouble it DID cause in 32/3.
>We both acknowledge he had a newspaper column at some time.
>
so you say 'had a newspaper column' when you mean was signed to
provide a newspaper column which he didn't write because he was
released from the contract.
>>
>> >he was paid by the ACB & NSW.
>>
>> afaik he received match fees and expenses when he played. There was
>> probably an additional amount for him as captain compared to other
>> players.
>> In real terms he probably did worse out of cricket than some of the
>> players in the late 1800s and early 1900s who shared profits from
>> their tours of England...
>
>source?
>
Trumper: A Biography by Ashley Mallett.
>>
>> in addition he hadn't been playing for NSW for about 8 years by the
>> time that his employer went bust.
>>
>> >This was deprsession era Australia, lots of people had NO jobs.
>> >Perhaps not the most affluent time in the nations history, but I don't believe that
>> >the Bradman family was struggling.
>> >
>> again, that's not the point being debated.
>> Neither my parents, my sisters or I are really struggling (given
>> another couple of months between jobs I might have been) but my father
>> isn't the best paid doctor in Australian history, my oldest sister
>> isn't the best paid doctor in New Zealand history, my other sister
>> isn't the best paid Engineer in Australian history and I'm not the
>> best paid computer scientist/engineer in Australian history.
>>
>> I am not saying that Bradman was broke, living from hand to mouth etc.
>> I am addressing the particular claim that Bradman is the highest paid
>> Australian Athlete in history.
>>
>
>at the time, I'd be pretty sure he was.
>
Counting what income?
>>
>> by 1943 or so Bradman had started working as a stockbroker about 8
>> years earlier, now I'm not entirely up on the historical payments for
>> stockbrokers but that would put him up the earning scale at the time.
>> Against that there are the facts that
>> a) he had spend time in the armed forces, I think that was much of 39,
>> maybe early 40...
>> b) there was an extended period of recovery after he was kicked out of
>> the service on medical grounds. I believe that was 9 months
>> c) he was owed money by his employer went it went bust
>>
>> armed forces pay, 9 months without income and being a creditor
>> suggests that he might not have been overly flush at the time...
>>
>> However that's still not relevent to the point of whether he was the
>> highest paid athlete in Australia's history. Money that Bradman earned
>> as a stockbroker is not money earned as a cricketer, so it doesn't
>> count towards the claim that he was the best paid athlete in
>> Australian sporting history.
>
>which is basically a nit pick.
No, not when the entire debate was started by my critique of an
article which makes the claim that he is the highest paid athlete in
Australian history.
(and if money earnt from stockbroking or a company director counts
then I'll put forwards Kerry Packer who apparently was a very good
polo player and I'd also suggest that Richie Benaud's earnings from
Channel 9 would also count...)
>Perhaps there was someone else paid better than him in the 30's who neither of us have
>heard of.
>But to make out he wasn't well off is spurious.
at what stage of his life?
>And demonstrably so.
>
>> >>
>> >> I find it quite easy to believe that the demands made by the above
>> >> factors would have meant that the money was spent, note that's
>> >> different from gone.
>> >> If you spend money on a house the house is (depending upon your
>> >> definitions) an asset, however it is not a liquid asset and losing
>> >> your house is a rather bad thing financially...
>> >>
>> >
>> >yes.
>> >But that can happen to anyone. I have an acquaintance who is a senior partner at
>> >Andersons, he stands to lose his house if the poo hits the fan. He's been very well
>> >paid for a number of years.
>>
>> You reckon that by 96 Greg Norman was in any danger of losing a house?
>>
>> If Bradman had been earning more than Greg Norman, Darren Bennett or
>> Luke Longley in real terms for 15 years then he wouldn't have been in
>> any danger of losing a house...
>
>you just don't get it, do you.
>
I read the article that I responded to, I know what it claimed. You
don't seem to.
>> >> >
>> >> >Gideon Haigh is a highly regarded cricket writer.
>> >>
>> >> in your household anyway.
>> >
>> >someone else (not me) on this group described him as one of Australia's premier
>> >cricket writers.
>>
>> and AK says that Miandad is a better bat than Tendulkar.
>
>I was trying to illustrate that it's not just 'in my house'
>
I've had a bit of a look for Haigh on the web, he's written a book on
Iverson, a book on Arstrong, The Cricket Wars and has done editing on
others and at least was involved with Australian Wisden.
>>
>> >You describe him as an offsider of Kerry Packer.
>>
>> Yes, and as I recall the situation he was involved in the WSC side of
>> the split.
>
>when he wrote the book, what position did he hold in the Packer empire?
>
Not my claim.
I believe that he was affiliated with Packer during WSC days.
I understand that he is now a freelance writer but have no idea who he
writes for or works for now...
>>
>> >What is it about his writings that you so dislike, aside from the fact that he wrote
>> >that Bradman was very much on the ACB side of the WSC dispute (which, incidentally,
>> >wasn't the main theme of his book on that anyway)?
>> >
>> Learn to read Kenny.
>> I state that an offsider of Packer may not be the best source for an
>> unbiased view of the happenings around the time of WSC.
>
>but not neccessarily the worst.
>Someone involved in the actual dealings may know somethings unavailable to an outsider.
>You're happy to believe Bradman on the Fingleton affair, yet he's hardly a detached
>observer
Please state what of my comments on Fingleton are sourced from
Bradman...
>>
>> If Haigh was involved with the Packers the odds are that he wasn't on
>> the best of terms with the ABC at the time and as a freelance
>> journalist having the Packers on-side would be a pretty large
>> advantage for him.
>
>proof?
>
As I've said, I think Haigh was involved in WSC. Nobody's come up with
anything to say that I'm wrong yet. If evidence is put forwards I'll
look at it.
> >>
>> >> >He may or may not have worked
>> >> >for Packer at some time, but to write off his contribution as non biased or
>> >>
>> >> So you're saying that Haigh's writings were biased then?
>> >
>> >sorry, a typo.
>> >I don't think they were, you appear to hold the opposite view.
>> >Why?
>> >
>> Reread what I wrote.
>> As I recall things Haigh was close to the main movers for WSC, to me
>> that means that his relations with the ABC were unlikely to be all
>> that good.
>
>so he basically lied in his book?
>
No, lying is deliberate.
Bias is not necessarily so.
>> >>
>> >> >some sort of apology for WSC indicates to me that you haven't read the book.
>> >>
>> >> Read what I wrote.
>> >> Justify the step from what I wrote to 'some sort of apology for WSC'
>> >
>> >you claim that you cannot take his claims seriously because he is an offsider of
>> >Kerry Packer.
>>
>> No, I claim that if he was an offsider of Packer he is not the best
>> source for what was happening on the ABC side of things.
>
>but Bradman is?
>
Please find where I've used Bradman as a source for the ABC's
reactions to WSC...
>>
>> I'd like to know what sources he used to justify the claim that
>> Bradman was unsympathetic to the idea that cricketers needed more
>> money in the 70s.
>> Did he interview Bradman for the book?
>
>Why don't you read the book?
>
Because I've got a heap of other things to do at the minute.
>> >You claim that he is a respected cricket writer only in my household.
>>
>> No, I put a one liner suggesting that he's not actually that famous as
>> a cricket writer.
>
>!!
>
>> The only book of his that I can recall being
>> mentioned much is The Cricket Wars which is more about the politics of
>> cricket than cricket itself and if I'm right about his links at the
>> time I am somewhat suspicious about his evenhandedness in treating
>> both sides.
>> Checking finds a few more but Amazon uk has 8 books of his currently
>> available. Not a huge amount of books.
>
>for starters:
>
>The Big Ship : Warwick Armstrong And The Making Of Modern Cricket / Gideon Haigh.
>
> Gideon Haigh's Australian Cricket Anecdotes.
>
>
> Mystery Spinner : The Story Of Jack Iverson / Gideon Haigh. .
>
>1999
> 5
>
> On Top Down Under : Australia's Cricket Captains / Ray Robinson And Gideon
>Haigh
>
>1996
>
> The Summer Game : Australian Test Cricket 1949-71 / Gideon Haigh.
>
>Is reasonably impressive?
>
Haven't read them.
You might want to have a look at how many books some other people have
written.
>>
>> >Your remarks toward him are disparaging, yet you don't actually say what it is about
>> >his writing that you find so inaccurate.
>>
>> Please reread what I wrote.
>
>just did.
>Now, answer the question (I don't mind if it takes you another month)
My comments on him are not disparaging, my comment is that the
position that I think he was in means that he was not well positioned
to know what was going on at the ABC. That's not disparaging.
The snippets and columns I found suggest that he's somewhat
anti-Bradman and him claiming that Bradman is Australia's highest paid
Athlete in history casts severe doubts upon his research as Greg
Norman springs to mind as an immediate counter example...
I can't see why Bradman would have written so highly of Hammond's
batting in The Art of Cricket and Farewell To Cricket and during
interviews in the 80s & 90s and picked him as 12th man in his best
team and produced that responce in the 80s.
It doesn't make sense to me...
>>
>> Bradman wrote about Hammond in aFtC and rated him amonst the top
>> batsmen he ever saw. In The Art of Cricket Bradman uses Hammond as an
>> example of cover drives and the photo has the caption "A most glorious
>> study of W.R. Hammond making a cover drive. It is a perfect study in
>> grace, power and balance and gives a true picture of the full
>> splendour of this great batsman's stroke production."
>>
>> Your claim that Bradman responded to a question about Hammond's
>> batting by saying that he was underrated as a bowler doesn't jibe with
>> anything else that I've ever read from Bradman or heard Bradman say in
>> interviews.
>
>so my source is plain wrong?
>
I'd give better odds of it being wrong than of Bradman changing his
views on Hammond after his books were written and changing his views
again in the late 80s or early 90s...
>
>> Also note that Hammond was listed as 12th man for the team that
>> Bradman picked according to Roland Perry.
>> Hammond wasn't going to open, Bradman was always going to be #3,
>> Sobers was always going to be there and the team as selected only had
>> 5 specialist batsmen. Suggests that Bradman rated Hammond in the top 4
>> middle non-opening batsmen around...
>>
>> Given Bradman's comments on Hammond over more than 50 years I find it
>> hard to believe that he'd have made that comment. It just doesn't fit
>> with what he said before and after. Given 1 alleged quote in 50 years
>> and multiple sources from before and after that paint a different view
>> I believe that there is considerable doubt about the view that you've
>> put forwards that Bradman didn't rate Hammond as a batsman.
>>
>> A review of Hammond: The Reasons Why at
>> http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/INTERACTIVE/REVIEWS/BOOKS/OLD/HAMMOND_FOOT.html
>>
>> makes no mention of the comments you attribute to Bradman in the book,
>> I'd have thought it was worth mentioning...
>
>I hardly think so.
>It was about Hammond, not Bradman.
>
>Why not read the book?
>
Because I don't have infinite time and infinite money?
I choose the books that I buy and read based on what interest me.
>> >>
>> >> > and the context being Bradmans work habits during his playing career, ie
>> >> >30 years previously
>> >>
>> >> Reread the quote.
>> >
>> >and what will that tell me?
>> >
>> " That could not happen today. There are so many addition tours ...
>> Cricketers must be professional."
>>
>> might give you a hint.
>>
>> It was really only in the 70s that cricket started to become a
>> professional affair in Australia...that was when players started
>> touring so often that it became impractical to have a career at the
>> same time.
>
>and?
>
and if you could think you might get the point being made...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Certainly that source appears to be ocnsiderably kinder to Fingleton
>> >> >> >> than what I've heard and read would justify. Looks to me like he may
>> >> >> >> be trying for a bit of poppy lopping himself....
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Hamish,
>> >> >> >over time, I've seen you as a big Bradman fan.
>> >> >> >I'm not trying to say you're posting a load of hokey here, but I reckon
>> >> >> >your interpretation of events is rosier than some others might be.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> I am a Bradman fan.
>> >> >
>> >> >you don't say.
>> >> >
>> >> >> I _don't_ think that Bradman is perfect or never made a mistake.
>> >> >
>> >> >neither do I.
>> >> >Neither was I trying to portray him as some sort of ogre.
>> >> >
>> >> I addressed what I saw as weaknesses in the article.
>> >
>> >I was under the impression that you didn't believe it and asked for sources
>> >
>> I don't believe it in some areas.
>> Other areas are far from proven but are put forwards as if certainly
>> correct.
>
>no they aren't.
>They are views that I hold, based on what I've read.
Kenny Kenny Kenny, you've forgotten that the debate was about the
article at
http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
that's the article that I was referring to
>You asked for sources and I've given them to you.
>If you took the trouble to read them yourself, perhaps you'd be ina better position to
>comment.
>
"it's in the national library sound archives somewhere" is not a
source..
>>
>> I think the idea that Bradman was the highest paid athlete in
>> Australian sporting history is ludicrous.
>> I've put forwards a few names that I think would beat him hands down
>> for money.
>>
>
>You misrepresented that.
>
the quote is reproduced above and is at the link
http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
please state how I misrepresented it...
>>
>> The report on the summoning of various players before the board in
>> 35-36 appears to be focusing entirely upon the fact that the people
>> summoned were Catholic rather than the question of whether there was
>> any reason to summon them before the board or whether Bradman had
>> anything to do with them being summoned.
>
>IYNSHO
Read the article at
http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
>>
>> I supplied quotes that suggested that it was fair enough to summon
>> them and Bradman has always denied all knowledge of them being
>> summoned. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that there were
>> enough rumours going around to have justified the summons and I
>> certainly would believe that Fingleton would have been one of the main
>> movers in any plot to get rid of Bradman.
>
>IYNHO
>
I've provided the quotes in an earlier article.
Watch The Bradman Era and you'll see O'Reilly comment on Bradman's
captaincy being under supsicion from some quarters...
>>
>> To me the quoted comments from Bradman according to Charles Williams
>> look bloody dodgy, I'd be amazed if Bradman was being literal when he
>> said that the players were met by priests in cassocks. It reads much
>> more as a slang expression to me rather than anything literal.
>>
>> If there had been that much tension between Bradman and McCabe I doubt
>> that McCabe would have been vice captain in 38.
>
>why?
Why would you pick a Vice Captain and tour selector who was at odds
with the captain?
>
>>
>> I have no doubt that Bradman and Fingleton didn't get on. I suspect
>> that it does come down to jealousy from Fingleton because I've read
>> enough quotes from Fingleton that back that pretty strongly. (e.g.
>> I've seen him quoted that Bradman's huge scores meant that other
>> people were ignored, his claims of unusually dry English summers and
>> his ignoring any wet wicket where Bradman had success to back his case
>> that Bradman couldn't play on rain affected pitches)
>>
>> I've seen no evidence presented that Bradman made any decisions as a
>> captain, selector or administrator based on any reason other than
>> cricketing ability or what was best for the game.
>
>that is simply not true.
>I've provided you with evidence.
>You simply choose to ignore it.
What evidence have you presented that Bradman made decisions as a
cricketer, selector or administrator based on any reason other than
cricketing ability?
>>
>> "It is a matter of record that, during his time as a player and an
>> administrator, Bradman clashed with a range of Australian cricketers."
>>
>> Bradman was the head of the selection panel for a long time, of course
>> there are going to be some clashes.
>>
>> As to the quote
>> 'Lord Williams told Amanda Smith in August 1996 that, when Bradman was
>> on tour, he became irritated that Catholics "on board ship ¤ went off
>> together to Mass on the Sunday". Especially since "they made a point
>> of doing that in a ¤ pointed manner". He could only have got this
>> information from The Don himself. '
>>
>> What utter crud.
>> Williams can't have gotten it from another source? Say Fingleton's
>> brother?
>
>You aren't serious, are you?
>
So Williams can't possibly have heard that from anybody but Bradman?
Wow, I guess I must have been present when Churchill made some of his
speeches because I've heard of them...
I guess the fact that people misquote movies constantly proves that
there are alternative shots that have the words attributed to them in
the quote.
There is no way that Lord Williams could have 'only go this
information from The Don himself' he could have been told the story by
somebody else...
>> 'However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
>> state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
>> stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
>> for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
>> breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s. '
>>
>> By that time Bradman was not in a main position on the board.
>
>but still with *plenty* of influence.
>
Obviously the president of the board would never even considered
ignoring Bradman to show that he was his own man. Obviously Bradman
was devoting as much of his time to cricket administration as he did
when he was holding down more positions...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However when it comes down to Bradman vs Fingleton Bradman has much
>> >> >> more credibility IMO.
>> >> >> Fingleton certainly appears to have done the best job he can to have
>> >> >> cut Bradman down to size (claiming that Trumper tried to get out past
>> >> >> 50 and hence was a better bat, not counting rain affected wickets as
>> >> >> wet wickets if Bradman made runs, accusing him of running away from
>> >> >> bodyline etc)
>> >> >> Given Fingleton's writings on Bradman I don't trust him as far as I
>> >> >> can throw him for comments on Bradman and allegations about Bradman.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's fine, I respect your position.
>> >> >However, not all the material I've referenced has come from Fingleton, and you
>> >> >seem equally sceptical of any of that.
>> >>
>> >> I've queried Haigh because I believe he had fairly tight links with
>> >> Kerry Packer during the WSC days.
>> >
>> >you describe him as Kerry Packers offsider.
>> >I don't know where you get this view from.
>>
>> Because I think he was tight with Packer and the WSC people at the
>> time. Maybe I'm wrong but it certainly hasn't been disputed that he
>> was.
>
>The reason that I haven't disputed it is because I'm not sure. I know he now works as an
>author. What he did 25 years ago, I don't know.
>What is your reason for believing he was a Packer man?
>
Because I remember reading about him being involved in it. I don't
know the source and I wouldn't swear to it under oath but in any case
the claim on Bradman's finances suggests that he's either iffy on
research or has problems with Bradman...
>>
>> >>
>> >> I asked for the source, and now the quote, for O'Reilly commenting on
>> >> Bradman against bodyline because it doesn't mesh with what I've heard
>> >> and read him say about it in the past. I suspect that you've
>> >> misunderstood him.
>> >
>> >I think it would be best to view the source before saying I misunderstood.
>> >
>> well gee, you've narrowed the source down to the National Sound
>> Archives, you can't provide the exact quote...
>
>can and have done........
>
according to a search on the groups on the deja archives you hadn't
until this message.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Given that Bradman was _1_ board member in the time when WSC was
>> >> >> happening and his public utterances were affected becasue he was on
>> >> >> the board and could hardly go against them the criticiism of his view
>> >> >> on the 70 pay is somewhat iffy...
>> >> >
>> >> >Well I beg to differ on the i Board member issue.
>> >> >He was the pre eminent figure in Australian cricket for an awfully long time,
>> >>
>> >> Yes, however that does not mean that he was in control in the late
>> >> 70s. England was one of the dominant military forces for a long time,
>> >> they weren't by the 1950s.
>> >
>> >England (or Britain) has a veto on the UN board, along with US, Russia, France &
>> >China, based on the power that they were a long time ago, if that's the analogy you
>> >want to use.
>>
>> Please find the article from the Australian cricket board consitition
>> in the 70s where Bradman had veto rights...
>
> please find the bit where I said he had one
Then the point that the UK is on the security council doesn't mean
that much does it?
>
>>
>> >If you believe that Bradman had no influence on the events of the late 70s, then you
>> >ought to brush up on some of those events.
>>
>> Please compare 'no influence' with 'in control'
>> Bradman was a board member, he had influence. He was not in control.
>
>so any criticism of him would be unwarranted?
>
The quote in the article at
http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
was
"However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s. "
By the time that Ian Chappell was a major force in Australian Cricket
Bradman wasn't a major administrator in the game.
Unless the minutes are available we don't know anything about what
went on in ABC meetings.
>>
>> > I recall Chappelli recounting a story of
>> >going to see Bradman & smoking a cigar at the time, a sign of disrespect. He
>> >specifically mentioned Bradman. I wonder why?
>> >
>> Because he went to see Bradman.
>> Possibly because Bradman and Ian Chappell both lived in Adelaide.
>>
>> Possibly because he thought that Bradman was more likely to give him a
>> fair hearing than other administrators...
>
>or possibly because he thought Bradman would have the most influence.....
>
Yes, a board member is obviously the one with all the power compared
to the CEO or president of a body..
>> >>
>> >> >his views were often deferred to, him being an almost legendary figure.
>> >> >Yes, reports I've read on him vis WSC are less than flattering, but don't
>> >> >forget he was nearly 70 at the time. Perhaps his views/opinions were simply out
>> >> >of step with the views of the time, hardly a mortal sin, is it?
>> >> >(neither does it reflect on his ability as a crciketer)
>> >>
>> >> Read the article that I was addressing and what it claims.
>> >
>> >read my replies and what I have claimed
>>
>> Have done.
>
>you give very little impression of having done so.
Now tell me how your comments prove that
"However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s. "
is accurate...
>
>I'll give you two months to compose your reply to this......
--
Mad Hamish
certainly not now.
Ken Higgs
Mad Hamish wrote:
I believe, from various sources that I have read, that Bradman WAS the source of the leak.
I don't think that having been the source of the leak would have precluded him from being made
captain. Further, seeing as it has never, to my knowledge, been proven where the leak came from,
I very much doubt that Bradman would've been denied the captaincy on a rumour.
FFS, Warne was made vice captain of Australia, they'd take Adolf Hitler if they thought he'd get
the job done.
>
> I'm am not saying that Fingleton certainly is the source for the leak,
> I am saying that I've never seen any source suggesting him as a leak
> before Fingleton put it forwards.
>
most of this happened before both of us were born Hamish.
>
> When Fingleton put it forwards the person who he claimed told him was
> already dead so nobody could check the claim independently.
>
which, in your eyes, makes it suss.
>
> It looks highly likely to me that the theory that Bradman was the leak
> originated with Fingleton
>
source?
>
> If you've got counter evidence please produce it rather than making
> accusations about me.
>
I'm sorry?
Aren't you the one making accusations about me?
Every single item I have produced, you have stopped just short of calling me a liar.
>
> I don't trust Fingleton about Bradman.
>
I don't trust Bradman about Fingleton.
>
> I've posted some reasons to back that up.
me too
>
> >>
> >> >I'm interested in
> >> >where you got your facts from. A source would be useful, especially as you have
> >> >demanded a source for every statement I have made.
> >> >
> >> Learn to read Kenny.
> >> You wrote
> >> "I've heard that leak attributed to Bradman on a number of occasions
> >> from a number of sources.
> >> Perhaps they all go back to the same sourse, I dunno."
> >>
> >
> >Learn to read Hammy, I said I didn't know, not that "they all asuredly come from the same
> >source."
> >
> Context Kenny, the next sentence makes things clear.
Please provide proof that all the accusations vis Bradman originate from the same source.
Either provide it or drop it.
I speculated that perhaps they all originated form the same source, I also speculated that this
(the leaking of the words by Bradman) was the reason for Woodfull's antipathy toward Bradman
(given that he always refused to speak about it), you have seized upon this speculation as proof
that they all originate from the same source.
>
> >>
> >> I have given my opinion that the same source is Fingleton, I have
> >> previously quoted Roland Perry
> >>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> this bit here.
>
> It's my opinion that the source for Bradman as a possible leak is
> Fingleton. If you can produce an earlier source please do so.
>
Ah, yes, Roland Perry. And we should believe this source for what reason?
Because he's an acknowleged Bradman fan? Because I can find 4 cricket books by him, three of
which are about or including Don Bradman?
And you dismiss Haigh because he's only written six cricket books.!
>
> >> "According to Roland Perry in The Don Warner asked one of the
> >> journalists the source on the day and was told it was Fingleton.
> >> Fingleton claimed years later than Bradman told the journalist the
> >> remark at a clandestine meeting, funnily enough the journalist in
> >> question was dead by the time and so not in a position to comment."
> >
> >The book by Roland Perry has also been questioned as a hagiography of Bradman.
> >It has no more validity than other contemporary sources.
> >
> Well it does have the advantage of not being written by somebody who
> could have made the leak. Fingleton is a suspect for the leak so a
> claim by him has to be considered as somewhat iffy...
It also has the disadvantage of being written by someone who is an unabashed admirer of Bradman
(as well as being written after the death of virtually every one of the parties involved
*except-Don-Bradman*).
If you wish to use this as proof, perhaps you'd be a bit less scathing of my sources.
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >But hey, it had to have come from *somewhere*.
> >> >> >> >Any suggestions?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If I was betting on anybody I'd bet on Fingleton.
> >> >> >> Ashley Mallett suggests Grimmett as a possible source for the leak.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >source?
> >> >> >
> >> >> Grimmett, The Bradman of Bowlers by Ashley Mallett is the title iirc.
> >> >> The book is currently in transit.
> >> >
> >> >It's interesting that you feel you cannot believe Fingleton because he made the
> >> >claim supposedly after some of the protagonists were dead, yet you can believe
> >> >Mallett, who would've made his claims at a much later date.
> >> >
> >> Who said I believed Mallett?
> >> I said that he put Grimmett forwards as a possible source, I didn't
> >> say that I thought it was Grimmett.
> >
> >Them's typical weasel words Hamish, and you know it.
> >So why did you bring it up, if not to strengthen your claims.
>
> "If I was betting on anybody I'd bet on Fingleton.
> Ashley Mallett suggests Grimmett as a possible source for the leak."
>
> Exactly how would suggesting Grimmett as a source strengthen my
> position that Fingleton is the most likely suspect?
>
> I mentioned it because it is another theory. I don't think it's a
> strong theory but I thought it was interesting.
>
You dismissed Fingletons claim because he made it after several people had already died.
Ashley Mallett provided a good example because he also provided his theory after most people had
died.
Though looking back, the best example would've been Perry, who waited right until the end.
>
> >>
> >> I don't think that there is conclusive evidence to prove who did it. I
> >> believe that it was Fingleton based on several factors (Warner
> >> allegedly being told it at the time, the timing when Fingleton
> >> released his version of events etc) but that's not proof.
> >>
> >
> >And I believe otherwise.
> >Based on several factors too.
> >
> what 'several factors' would those be?
Don't start that again.
I've already given you several reasons and sources for why I suspect that the culprit was
Bradman.
You don't like them because they disagree with what Roland Perry said.
Repeating them is not going to make them any more agreeable to you.
yup
>
> a quick stop at a library site finds 480 minutes of O'Reilly on reel
> to reel.
> http://ilms.nla.gov.au/webpac-bin/wgbroker?042301480534332+1+search+select+1+7
>
> the transcript is 244 pages...
>
yup
>
> I don't know if it's possible to get it sent to Tasmania but I don't
> have a reel to reel player and I don't particularly want to sit
> through 8 hours to try and check a quote that you can't provide
> especially without even knowing that it's the source...
>
Because you don't want to believe it.
Yet I'm supposed to believe what a self confessed Bradman wrote in 1995 as somehow more valid?
>
> Doesn't quite look like "I don't want to check it"
certainly does.
yes it is.
Already proven to be so
>
> >
> >as I've already posted today
>
> where?
> Hasn't turned up on my newsreader and google doesn't find it
> either....
Are you for real?
'Novice needs to impress...' posted two hours before I posted this.
And you expect me to believe you when you claim to have researched this and done a search on
that?
Christ, you can't even search Google
>
>
> >'but against the short fast stuff, he absolutely wouldn't have it, walked away from it'.
> >
> Funny how Larwood couldn't get him out in 1930 then isn't it?
>
Funny how O'Reilly said that and, IIRC, he was playing in those Tests.
And where were you?
What part of the ground did you sit in?
Beside Ashley Mallett?
In front of Roland Perry?
>
> Or do you think that Larwood was bowling gentle half-volleys all
> through Bradman's 334 and his 232?
>
dunno, I'll ask Roland Perry.
>
> also funny that Bradman's best shot was the pull shot and I've seen
> many shots of him playing the hook as well...
>
funny how O'Reilly reckons Bradman was suspect against the short hostile stuff.
If it comes down to your word or O'Reilly's, I'm afraid you don't even get in the frame
>
> >Yep, one man's opinion (albeit shared by Jardine and a few others).
> >But stop saying I don't have proof.
> >If you disagree with that, fine, but this continual denial that any thing exists (or that I
> >haven't provided it) is getting tiresome.
>
> Exactly what are you claiming to have proven?
>
That O'Reilly said what he did, you know, the quote that you claimed I made up.
>
> You have not provided a quote from O'Reilly until now, you have not
> provided a source for the quote even now "something in the national
> library sound archives" is not a source.
>
Hang on, not only have I provided the quote, but you are happy to claim that your source for
Haigh being a Packer offsider is that someone once told you this. How is that different?
>
> and you are _well_ away from proving that Bradman stepped away due to
> fear rather than as a tactic against Bodyline...
You ought to read more about Bodyline
Plenty of people thought he bottled it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >Whether that be due to accident or design is a moot point.
> >> >
> >> So you can't provide the quote, can't narrow it down beyond 'somewhere
> >> in the national sound archives' and say that it's because I've avoided
> >> O'Reilly...
> >
> >I'd say that because you've dropped off this thread a month ago, I haven't had an earlier
> >chance to provide you with the *exact* quote.
>
> Sure you have Kenny.
> I asked you for the quote in the post on the 30-3
Crud.
I gave you an incomplete reference.
Seeing as you then dropped off the thread, it didn't seem worthwhile chasing it.
I happened to look it up a few days ago on an entirely unrelated matter (and when I had the
time).
However, even if I had taken 3 months to provide the quote, it doesn't mean the quote doesn't
exist. It quite clearly does.
>
> ">> >> Fingleton was hugely critical of Bradman's efforts against
> Bodyline,
> >> >> claiming that he ran away because he was scared.
> >> >
> >> >yes, but so was O' Reilly.
> >>
> >> Source?
> >
> >National Library Sound Archives
>
> Exact Quote?"
>
> Humh, you responded on 2-4
>
> "dunno.
> If interested, I suggest you track it down, that, after all is the
> point of having
> references."
>
> looks like you had a chance and couldn't be bothered...
>
No, I didn't have the time.
I've provided it.
Now, let's have some answers
>
> >Now cut the misrepresentation and get back to me with something a bit more pertinent.
> >> >>
> >> >> Getting inside the ball does expose you to less risk than backing
> >> >> away.
> >> >
> >> >I didn't speak about getting inside a ball, that is your surmise
> >>
> >> So you think that because of Bradman's fear of getting hit he exposed
> >> himself to more danger by backing away instead of moving inside the
> >> line of the ball...
> >
> >I said this, where, exactly?
> >
> So you think that the safest way of dealing with a bouncer isn't to
> move inside the ball?
>
provide proof that I think this or retract
>
> If so doesn't that mean that Bradman chose not to take the safest
> approach because he considered that he could best oppose Bodyline by
> other tactics?
go away and find another straw man to fight.
>
> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Considering Fingleton's comments on Bradman vs Bodyline, his crap
> >> >> >> about Bradman on wet wickets (omitting at least one wet wicket where
> >> >> >> Bradman made a double 100) and him stating that Bradman had only
> >> >> >> previously succeeded in England due to dry summers when Wisden states
> >> >> >> that 1930 was hugely affected by rain he's well short of unstinting
> >> >> >> praise of Bradman as a cricketer.
> >> >>
> >> >> The claim was
> >> >> "This in spite of the fact that the likes of Jack Fingleton and Bill
> >> >> O'Reilly were unstinting in their praise of Bradman as a cricketer."
> >> >>
> >> >> _UNSTINTING_ is an important word in that sentence. A definition of
> >> >> unstinting is above. Read the definition, read the claim.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fingleton's sniping about Bradman means that, IMO, he falls well short
> >> >> of being unstinting in his praise of Bradman. Frankly based on what
> >> >> I've read of Fingleton he appears to give Bradman the absolute minimum
> >> >> of praise that he can get away with.
> >> >
> >> >Umm, I'd say that Fingleton, O' Reilly et al were pretty unstinting in their praise
> >>
> >> Now now Kenny, your basic stupidity is showing through again
> >
> >I'd say it's your basic inability to see anything rationally when it comes to Don Bradman
> >that is shining through here.
>
> So you don't think that Fingleton ignoring a double 100 on a rain
> damaged pitch when looking at Bradman's record on wet wickets casts
> severe doubt about his honesty?
No.
>
> >
> >>
> >> "Certainly the facts don't support the claim that Fingleton was
> >> unstinting in his praise of Bradman the cricketer. O'Reilly was, but
> >> then O'Reilly's criticisms of Bradman in other areas are more
> >> justified."
> >>
> >> I have not queried O'Reilly's comments on Bradman the cricketer, so
> >> what are you doing dragging him back in here?
> >
> >oh for crying out loud.
> >
> Well you've already spat the dummy so a howl or two from you isn't
> unexpected...
you have continually cast doubt on what O'Reilly said.
Now that I have provided the exact quote, I'm interested in your response
>
> >>
> >> >of Bradman, they had some minor quibblesm eg his ability vs fast hostile bowling,
> >> >but apart form that, the term is fair enough.
> >>
> >> "Considering Fingleton's comments on Bradman vs Bodyline, his crap
> >> about Bradman on wet wickets (omitting at least one wet wicket where
> >> Bradman made a double 100) and him stating that Bradman had only
> >> previously succeeded in England due to dry summers when Wisden states
> >> that 1930 was hugely affected by rain he's well short of unstinting
> >> praise of Bradman as a cricketer."
> >>
> >> So you think that Fingleton ignoring at least on double 100 on a wet
> >> wicket, lying about the conditions in tours of England to back up the
> >> claim that Bradman couldn't play on wet wickets _doesn't_ cast doubt
> >> upon Fingleton as an unbiased observer of Bradman?
> >
> >OK, so in your book, Fingleton is a liar.
> >
> Read Brightly Fades the Don, have a look at Fingleton commenting on
> Bradman on wet wickets. Read a Farewell to Cricket and have a look at
> the quotes from the English press that Bradman quotes about the final
> test of 1930.. ask yourself if it's a wet wicket...
and then what?
>
> >>
> >> >Now I'd say that Bradman gave Hammond the absolute minimum of praise that he could
> >> >get away with, for sure.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, listing him as up there with Hobbs, Compton and Hutton as the
> >> best of the English batsmen he'd seen in A Farewell to Cricket,
> >> revealing that Bradman had actually picked a particular bowler
> >> because he felt that he was the best chance of removing Hammond and
> >> saying that the ball that Fleetwood-Smith bowled Hammond with was a
> >> ball that won a test match is obviously the minimum of praise that he
> >> can get away with..
> >>
> >> all of the above come from A Farewell To Cricket.
> >
> >yet asked about his batting in a book about Hammond, he said 'he was underrated as a
> >bowler' (after a pause, authors note).
> >Ever hear the phrase 'damming with faint praise'?
> >
> I find that hard to credit with all the other comments from Bradman on
> Hammond that I've seen...
>
so are you calling me or the author a liar?
>
> I find it extremely hard to credit that at some stage in the mid 80s
> he suddenly went anti-hammond and then picked him to be in the top few
> middle order batsmen when it came time to pick an all-time world XI
> (or of cricketers he's seen or whatever)...
you haven't read the book.
You read a laypersons review on Amazon.
>
> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >He was the No.1 sporting celebrity of his day, given, I think, GBP1000 on
> >> >> >> >his return from the 1930 series by a wealthy admirer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> iirc during the tour
> >> >> >> He wasn't the only person who that benefactor donated money to
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >source?
> >> >>
> >> >> iirc
> >> >> A Farewell To Cricket by Sir Donald Bradman and The Don by Roland
> >> >> Perry both cover the donation.
> >> >
> >> >I haven't come across the idea that others got the mony too, but I'll check it out.
> >> >BTW, who were the others who got money?
> >> >
> >> dunno, but Bradman states in A Farewell to Cricket that in 1930 that
> >> he believed it was a joke but other team members assured him that the
> >> person who gave him the money had done it before
> >
> >assuming, of course, that we believe him......
> >
> I can't see any reason to believe that he'd have lied about it. He
> names the benefactor and at the time when A Farewell to Cricket was
> written there were still a lot of people from that tour who were still
> alive (hell the benefactor might well have still been alive)
I have read that he alone recieved the thou.
And Bradman was forced to change his position, was he?
>
> Bradman _may_ have been attempting to face the board down, or he might
> have believed that he had signed a contract and he was honour bound to
> fulfill it.
>
He refused to change his mind.
Haigh was not interviewed. A quote of his (The Age June 6 1996) was used.
From what is quoted there (totally without context), it's not entirely clear as to whether he
meant at the time or for all time. Common sense would suggest the former.
If this is one of the reasons you claim that Haigh is an unreliable source, I think you're on
thin ice.
>
> The claim made means that Bradman was the highest paid athlete in our
> history (to that stage) which, as I recall the dates, includes
> Bennett, Longley and Norman...
>
Nope, it certainly does not say that. The exact quote is "Bradman became comfortably the
best-paid athlete in our history". You choose to claim that it means up to 1996 (and hence gives
you a reason to cast Haigh as an unreliable researcher), I believe (and perhaps the quote is not
full) it means at the time, as in 1930s.
>
> Note that I used the phrase 'real terms' that means that I'm not doing
> a direct dollar to dollar comparison (or pound to dollar) but adjusted
> for spending power...
nowhere does Haigh (or the Henderson) mention real terms or dollar for pound.
>
> >>
> >> _Maybe_ if you include what he made later as a stockbroker or company
> >> director but I still wouldn't bet on it, and in any case that's
> >> somewhat different from being 'the best paid Athlete in our history'
> >>
> >
> >I think in historical terms, it has some validity.
> >This was the Depression era.
> >
> Greg Norman has owned private jets and, iirc, he currently leases a
> 747...
>
At the turn of the previous century, the richest man in the world was reckoned to be Cecil
Rhodes, with a fortune in excess of 100 mill GBP.
I wonder how many private jets he owned?
>
> I'm not a basketball fan but check what Longley was pulling down in
> the NBA or Bennett in the NFL..
Hamish, this is laughable.
You are making Haigh out to be unreliable on a quote of his that you have no context of and was
used in someone else's article.
>
> >>
> >> Richard Branson is probably the richest man to try and fly around the
> >> world in a hot air balloon, it doesn't mean that he was 'the best paid
> >> balloonist in history'
> >
> >I think you'll find that he probably was
> >(check out how much sponsorship he recieved form a Japanese soft drink company, I think
> >their product was, prosaically, named 'Sweat'. Source "The Virgin King").
> >
> Well somebody else has made the trip around the world iirc and I'd
> also check the early pioneers...
source?
so the Montgolfier Bros owned how many airlines?
Branson had a partner for the trip, yes, Branson paid him, he didn't get as much as Branson got.
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> He started as an independent stockbroker because him employer went
> >> >> >> bust and owed Bradman money at the time.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Hamish, you've admitted that a wellwisher gave him GBP1000 (without demanding a
> >> >> >source), a huge amount of money for the time.
> >> >>
> >> >> I ask for sources for information that sounds dodgy, I know that
> >> >> Bradman was given money by somebody on the 1930 tour of England.
> >> >
> >> >why is it dodgy?
> >> >Bradman was certainly given a gift of GBP1000, you don't deny it yourself.
> >>
> >> again Kenny, I am adressing the claim
> >> 'As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian, has
> >> demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in our
> >> history"'
> >>
> >
> >I think he probably said (or meant) 'at the time'.
> >
> From the article that started this debate at
> http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
>
> 'On the ABC-TV Lateline program last Monday, Roland Perry claimed that
> Bradman "made very little money out of the game". This is
> questionable. As Gideon Haigh, Australia's finest cricket historian,
> has demonstrated, "Bradman became comfortably the best-paid athlete in
> our history" (Sunday Age, June 2, 1996). '
>
> so either Haigh claimed it in the Age or else it's another strike
> against the accuracy of the article that I was questioning...
Yet you're happy to believe the part about Fingletons brother.
Funny that........
Besides, I thought you claimed Haigh was the equivalent of AK on rsc?
>
> >
> >> _that_ is what I want sources or evidence for, not that Bradman
> >> received 1000 pounds. I know that, I've said in the thread that it
> >> happened.
> >>
> >> That would be you misrepresenting me again
> >
> >No, it'd be you misrepresenting a published source.
> >For the umpteenth time
> >
> The quote and reference is directly above Kenny...
yup.
And nowhere is it unequivocally clear in what context that Bradman was the highest paid
sportsman in Australian history.
>
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly how huge 1000 pounds was in 1930 is a matter of record. It was
> >> >> a large amount of money but, as I recall comparisons with average
> >> >> earnings, less money than a top level modern player would get for a
> >> >> base contract now.
> >> >
> >> >I didn't claim that it was comparable to a modern day cricketer. Supposedly Waugh is
> >> >on around $700 000 as a base from the ACB. I'm not making that comparison.
> >> >But as a young man he bought a house in Waverton. You know Waverton?
> >> >I do. It is not, and was not, a down market suburb.
> >> >Soon after Bradman started playing, from what I read, he was quite an affluent young
> >> >man. That he lost money in a business venture (or employer went bust) does not mean
> >> >that he was poorly paid in cricket
> >> >
> >> again you are applying the wrong criteria for the issue being debated.
> >> I am addressing a particular claim.
> >> If somebody claims that Mark Waugh is a better batsman than Tendulkar
> >> then me arguing against it does not mean that I believe that Mark
> >> Waugh wasn't a good test batsman.
> >>
> >> The point is not that Bradman wasn't well paid for the time, the point
> >> is that the article made a particular claim which looks very dodgy,
> >> that affects the credibility of other claims in the article.
> >
> >The point is that he *was* well paid at the time.
> >Not compared to Michael Jordan, but certainly compared to his contemporaries.
> >
> Again Kenny the claim in the article was that he was the best paid
> athlete in Australian history. Read the original article if you don't
> believe me. The link is above.
I'd suggest you read it too Hmaish.
That's assuming you can find it.
I think we've already establishd that your powers of research are considerably worse than Gideon
Haig's.
The article does *not* make the claim you say it does. You have misrepresented it.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> >If this had all gone, who's fault was that?
> >> >>
> >> >> at what stage?
> >> >> iirc Bradman would have started his own stockbroking firm around 1943.
> >> >>
> >> >> 13 years after the money was given to him, after the depression, after
> >> >> his first child had died, I _think_ after his daughter had cerebral
> >> >> palsy, after Bradman have been invalidated out of the armed forces and
> >> >> had about a year in convalesence,
> >> >> after he'd gotten married and moved to South Australia to learn a way
> >> >> of making money outside of cricket.
> >> >
> >> >I'd be surprised if that 1000 was all he had for over 10 years.
> >>
> >> That wasn't the point being made.
> >
> >yes it was
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >In fact I know it wasn't.
> >> >He had a sponsorship with, I think, Mick Simmons Sports;
> >>
> >> actually he was employed by them as a representative.
> >
> >thank you.
> >
> employment is somewhat different from sponsership.
>
Is it?
Is that why they changed the shamateur rules for the Olympics?
>
> Note that arrangement finished before the bodyline series.
Note that I never claimed otherwise.
>
> >>
> >> >he had a newspaper column,
> >>
> >> when exactly?
> >> AFAIK he did not write a newspaper column consistantly until after he
> >> had retired from cricket and then it was normally only on a tour by
> >> tour arrangement.
> >>
> >> He signed on to do media work before the bodyline series but please
> >> tell me when he regularly wrote newspaper columns in the 9 or 10 years
> >> between then and him starting his stockbroking firm.
> >
> >please point out to me where 'he had a newspaper column' equates to 'write a newspaper
> >column consistantly', especially given the trouble it DID cause in 32/3.
> >We both acknowledge he had a newspaper column at some time.
> >
> so you say 'had a newspaper column' when you mean was signed to
> provide a newspaper column which he didn't write because he was
> released from the contract.
Yup.
He signed a contract.
He never refused to do it.
>
> >>
> >> >he was paid by the ACB & NSW.
> >>
> >> afaik he received match fees and expenses when he played. There was
> >> probably an additional amount for him as captain compared to other
> >> players.
> >> In real terms he probably did worse out of cricket than some of the
> >> players in the late 1800s and early 1900s who shared profits from
> >> their tours of England...
> >
> >source?
> >
> Trumper: A Biography by Ashley Mallett.
so what did he say?
exact quote please?
>
> >>
> >> in addition he hadn't been playing for NSW for about 8 years by the
> >> time that his employer went bust.
> >>
> >> >This was deprsession era Australia, lots of people had NO jobs.
> >> >Perhaps not the most affluent time in the nations history, but I don't believe that
> >> >the Bradman family was struggling.
> >> >
> >> again, that's not the point being debated.
> >> Neither my parents, my sisters or I are really struggling (given
> >> another couple of months between jobs I might have been) but my father
> >> isn't the best paid doctor in Australian history, my oldest sister
> >> isn't the best paid doctor in New Zealand history, my other sister
> >> isn't the best paid Engineer in Australian history and I'm not the
> >> best paid computer scientist/engineer in Australian history.
> >>
> >> I am not saying that Bradman was broke, living from hand to mouth etc.
> >> I am addressing the particular claim that Bradman is the highest paid
> >> Australian Athlete in history.
> >>
> >
> >at the time, I'd be pretty sure he was.
> >
> Counting what income?
all his income.
You like to mention Greg Norman.
his sponsorship outweighs his prize money by the power of what?
>
> >>
> >> by 1943 or so Bradman had started working as a stockbroker about 8
> >> years earlier, now I'm not entirely up on the historical payments for
> >> stockbrokers but that would put him up the earning scale at the time.
> >> Against that there are the facts that
> >> a) he had spend time in the armed forces, I think that was much of 39,
> >> maybe early 40...
> >> b) there was an extended period of recovery after he was kicked out of
> >> the service on medical grounds. I believe that was 9 months
> >> c) he was owed money by his employer went it went bust
> >>
> >> armed forces pay, 9 months without income and being a creditor
> >> suggests that he might not have been overly flush at the time...
> >>
> >> However that's still not relevent to the point of whether he was the
> >> highest paid athlete in Australia's history. Money that Bradman earned
> >> as a stockbroker is not money earned as a cricketer, so it doesn't
> >> count towards the claim that he was the best paid athlete in
> >> Australian sporting history.
> >
> >which is basically a nit pick.
>
> No, not when the entire debate was started by my critique of an
> article which makes the claim that he is the highest paid athlete in
> Australian history.
>
Crud.
It is a misrepresentation by you.
>
> (and if money earnt from stockbroking or a company director counts
> then I'll put forwards Kerry Packer who apparently was a very good
> polo player and I'd also suggest that Richie Benaud's earnings from
> Channel 9 would also count...)
>
Of course you would, but there's not much you wouldn't stoop to
>
> >Perhaps there was someone else paid better than him in the 30's who neither of us have
> >heard of.
> >But to make out he wasn't well off is spurious.
>
> at what stage of his life?
>
1930
>
> >And demonstrably so.
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I find it quite easy to believe that the demands made by the above
> >> >> factors would have meant that the money was spent, note that's
> >> >> different from gone.
> >> >> If you spend money on a house the house is (depending upon your
> >> >> definitions) an asset, however it is not a liquid asset and losing
> >> >> your house is a rather bad thing financially...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >yes.
> >> >But that can happen to anyone. I have an acquaintance who is a senior partner at
> >> >Andersons, he stands to lose his house if the poo hits the fan. He's been very well
> >> >paid for a number of years.
> >>
> >> You reckon that by 96 Greg Norman was in any danger of losing a house?
> >>
> >> If Bradman had been earning more than Greg Norman, Darren Bennett or
> >> Luke Longley in real terms for 15 years then he wouldn't have been in
> >> any danger of losing a house...
> >
> >you just don't get it, do you.
> >
> I read the article that I responded to, I know what it claimed. You
> don't seem to.
I know what it claimed.
You have taken one line, one quote, that has an amibiguous interpretation and have used it as a
vehicle to ridicule the whole article.
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Gideon Haigh is a highly regarded cricket writer.
> >> >>
> >> >> in your household anyway.
> >> >
> >> >someone else (not me) on this group described him as one of Australia's premier
> >> >cricket writers.
> >>
> >> and AK says that Miandad is a better bat than Tendulkar.
> >
> >I was trying to illustrate that it's not just 'in my house'
> >
> I've had a bit of a look for Haigh on the web, he's written a book on
> Iverson, a book on Arstrong, The Cricket Wars and has done editing on
> others and at least was involved with Australian Wisden.
Yes, but your powers of reseaerch are woeful.
I actually listed six books in this very thread.
>
> >>
> >> >You describe him as an offsider of Kerry Packer.
> >>
> >> Yes, and as I recall the situation he was involved in the WSC side of
> >> the split.
> >
> >when he wrote the book, what position did he hold in the Packer empire?
> >
> Not my claim.
> I believe that he was affiliated with Packer during WSC days.
> I understand that he is now a freelance writer but have no idea who he
> writes for or works for now...
Not your claim?
who's claim is it?
The first reference to him in this capacity I can find is on 22 March.
you say:
"By an offsider of Kerry Packer isn't it?
Perhaps not the best source for an unbiased view of an establishment
figure."
Who else made this claim?
>
> >>
> >> >What is it about his writings that you so dislike, aside from the fact that he wrote
> >> >that Bradman was very much on the ACB side of the WSC dispute (which, incidentally,
> >> >wasn't the main theme of his book on that anyway)?
> >> >
> >> Learn to read Kenny.
> >> I state that an offsider of Packer may not be the best source for an
> >> unbiased view of the happenings around the time of WSC.
> >
> >but not neccessarily the worst.
> >Someone involved in the actual dealings may know somethings unavailable to an outsider.
> >You're happy to believe Bradman on the Fingleton affair, yet he's hardly a detached
> >observer
>
> Please state what of my comments on Fingleton are sourced from
> Bradman...
sorry, Roland Perry, self confessed Bradman nut.
>
> >>
> >> If Haigh was involved with the Packers the odds are that he wasn't on
> >> the best of terms with the ABC at the time and as a freelance
> >> journalist having the Packers on-side would be a pretty large
> >> advantage for him.
> >
> >proof?
> >
> As I've said, I think Haigh was involved in WSC. Nobody's come up with
> anything to say that I'm wrong yet. If evidence is put forwards I'll
> look at it.
OK, I'll come up with it now.
I did a search on Haigh. I can't find any reference to him working for Packer. I can find plenty
on his cricket and sports writing.
what reference have you for him working for Packer?
>
>
> > >>
> >> >> >He may or may not have worked
> >> >> >for Packer at some time, but to write off his contribution as non biased or
> >> >>
> >> >> So you're saying that Haigh's writings were biased then?
> >> >
> >> >sorry, a typo.
> >> >I don't think they were, you appear to hold the opposite view.
> >> >Why?
> >> >
> >> Reread what I wrote.
> >> As I recall things Haigh was close to the main movers for WSC, to me
> >> that means that his relations with the ABC were unlikely to be all
> >> that good.
> >
> >so he basically lied in his book?
> >
> No, lying is deliberate.
> Bias is not necessarily so.
why would he be biased?
There is no proof available that he ever worked for Packer?
>
> >> >>
> >> >> >some sort of apology for WSC indicates to me that you haven't read the book.
> >> >>
> >> >> Read what I wrote.
> >> >> Justify the step from what I wrote to 'some sort of apology for WSC'
> >> >
> >> >you claim that you cannot take his claims seriously because he is an offsider of
> >> >Kerry Packer.
> >>
> >> No, I claim that if he was an offsider of Packer he is not the best
> >> source for what was happening on the ABC side of things.
> >
> >but Bradman is?
> >
> Please find where I've used Bradman as a source for the ABC's
> reactions to WSC...
You claim that Haigh is a Packer offsider.
What is the source of this accusation, other than you disagreeing with what he wrote?
>
> >>
> >> I'd like to know what sources he used to justify the claim that
> >> Bradman was unsympathetic to the idea that cricketers needed more
> >> money in the 70s.
> >> Did he interview Bradman for the book?
> >
> >Why don't you read the book?
> >
> Because I've got a heap of other things to do at the minute.
Looks like you had a month or more to do so.
Can't be bothered would seem more likely
Yes, Barbara Cartland has written many more than six.
I wonder what her opinion on Bradman is?
Romantic lead?
But how many books has Roland Perry written?
More or less than Haigh?
>
> >>
> >> >Your remarks toward him are disparaging, yet you don't actually say what it is about
> >> >his writing that you find so inaccurate.
> >>
> >> Please reread what I wrote.
> >
> >just did.
> >Now, answer the question (I don't mind if it takes you another month)
>
> My comments on him are not disparaging, my comment is that the
> position that I think he was in means that he was not well positioned
> to know what was going on at the ABC. That's not disparaging.
>
Why don't you think he was in a position to know?
because no-one has ever told you that he didn't work for Kerry Packer?
Hello.
No-one has ever told me that you, or anyone else on rsc for that matter, doesn't work for Kerry
Packer.
Does that mean that they all do?
>
> The snippets and columns I found suggest that he's somewhat
> anti-Bradman and him claiming that Bradman is Australia's highest paid
> Athlete in history casts severe doubts upon his research as Greg
> Norman springs to mind as an immediate counter example...
notwithstanding your misrepresentation of a quote of his that was used (probably unauthorised),
and if we want to talk research skills, your complete inability to find something that I wrote
yesterday
He doesn't pick Hammond, despite him having one of the highest averages around and being more
than useful as both a bowler and a fielder.
>
> It doesn't make sense to me...
read the freakin book
>
> >>
> >> Bradman wrote about Hammond in aFtC and rated him amonst the top
> >> batsmen he ever saw. In The Art of Cricket Bradman uses Hammond as an
> >> example of cover drives and the photo has the caption "A most glorious
> >> study of W.R. Hammond making a cover drive. It is a perfect study in
> >> grace, power and balance and gives a true picture of the full
> >> splendour of this great batsman's stroke production."
> >>
> >> Your claim that Bradman responded to a question about Hammond's
> >> batting by saying that he was underrated as a bowler doesn't jibe with
> >> anything else that I've ever read from Bradman or heard Bradman say in
> >> interviews.
> >
> >so my source is plain wrong?
> >
> I'd give better odds of it being wrong than of Bradman changing his
> views on Hammond after his books were written and changing his views
> again in the late 80s or early 90s...
I'd say that he was never that enthusiastic anyway.
>
> >
> >> Also note that Hammond was listed as 12th man for the team that
> >> Bradman picked according to Roland Perry.
> >> Hammond wasn't going to open, Bradman was always going to be #3,
> >> Sobers was always going to be there and the team as selected only had
> >> 5 specialist batsmen. Suggests that Bradman rated Hammond in the top 4
> >> middle non-opening batsmen around...
> >>
> >> Given Bradman's comments on Hammond over more than 50 years I find it
> >> hard to believe that he'd have made that comment. It just doesn't fit
> >> with what he said before and after. Given 1 alleged quote in 50 years
> >> and multiple sources from before and after that paint a different view
> >> I believe that there is considerable doubt about the view that you've
> >> put forwards that Bradman didn't rate Hammond as a batsman.
> >>
> >> A review of Hammond: The Reasons Why at
> >> http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/INTERACTIVE/REVIEWS/BOOKS/OLD/HAMMOND_FOOT.html
> >>
> >> makes no mention of the comments you attribute to Bradman in the book,
> >> I'd have thought it was worth mentioning...
> >
> >I hardly think so.
> >It was about Hammond, not Bradman.
> >
> >Why not read the book?
> >
> Because I don't have infinite time and infinite money?
Or because you don't want to be provd wrong
>
> I choose the books that I buy and read based on what interest me.
good for you.
So do I
Get it?
>
> >> >>
> >> >> > and the context being Bradmans work habits during his playing career, ie
> >> >> >30 years previously
> >> >>
> >> >> Reread the quote.
> >> >
> >> >and what will that tell me?
> >> >
> >> " That could not happen today. There are so many addition tours ...
> >> Cricketers must be professional."
> >>
> >> might give you a hint.
> >>
> >> It was really only in the 70s that cricket started to become a
> >> professional affair in Australia...that was when players started
> >> touring so often that it became impractical to have a career at the
> >> same time.
> >
> >and?
> >
> and if you could think you might get the point being made...
Bradman did not spend 5 days a week cooped up in an office
>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Certainly that source appears to be ocnsiderably kinder to Fingleton
> >> >> >> >> than what I've heard and read would justify. Looks to me like he may
> >> >> >> >> be trying for a bit of poppy lopping himself....
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Hamish,
> >> >> >> >over time, I've seen you as a big Bradman fan.
> >> >> >> >I'm not trying to say you're posting a load of hokey here, but I reckon
> >> >> >> >your interpretation of events is rosier than some others might be.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I am a Bradman fan.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >you don't say.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I _don't_ think that Bradman is perfect or never made a mistake.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >neither do I.
> >> >> >Neither was I trying to portray him as some sort of ogre.
> >> >> >
> >> >> I addressed what I saw as weaknesses in the article.
> >> >
> >> >I was under the impression that you didn't believe it and asked for sources
> >> >
> >> I don't believe it in some areas.
> >> Other areas are far from proven but are put forwards as if certainly
> >> correct.
> >
> >no they aren't.
> >They are views that I hold, based on what I've read.
>
> Kenny Kenny Kenny, you've forgotten that the debate was about the
> article at
> http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
>
> that's the article that I was referring to
yup, me too.
>
>
> >You asked for sources and I've given them to you.
> >If you took the trouble to read them yourself, perhaps you'd be ina better position to
> >comment.
> >
> "it's in the national library sound archives somewhere" is not a
> source..
'no-one has ever told me he didn't work for Kerry Packer so he must've done' is even less
authoritative.
>
> >>
> >> I think the idea that Bradman was the highest paid athlete in
> >> Australian sporting history is ludicrous.
> >> I've put forwards a few names that I think would beat him hands down
> >> for money.
> >>
> >
> >You misrepresented that.
> >
> the quote is reproduced above and is at the link
> http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
>
> please state how I misrepresented it...
it doesn't say for all time. In fact it's quite likely that it means at the time
>
> >>
> >> The report on the summoning of various players before the board in
> >> 35-36 appears to be focusing entirely upon the fact that the people
> >> summoned were Catholic rather than the question of whether there was
> >> any reason to summon them before the board or whether Bradman had
> >> anything to do with them being summoned.
> >
> >IYNSHO
>
> Read the article at
> http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
>
have done
>
> >>
> >> I supplied quotes that suggested that it was fair enough to summon
> >> them and Bradman has always denied all knowledge of them being
> >> summoned. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that there were
> >> enough rumours going around to have justified the summons and I
> >> certainly would believe that Fingleton would have been one of the main
> >> movers in any plot to get rid of Bradman.
> >
> >IYNHO
> >
> I've provided the quotes in an earlier article.
>
> Watch The Bradman Era and you'll see O'Reilly comment on Bradman's
> captaincy being under supsicion from some quarters...
yep
>
> >>
> >> To me the quoted comments from Bradman according to Charles Williams
> >> look bloody dodgy, I'd be amazed if Bradman was being literal when he
> >> said that the players were met by priests in cassocks. It reads much
> >> more as a slang expression to me rather than anything literal.
> >>
> >> If there had been that much tension between Bradman and McCabe I doubt
> >> that McCabe would have been vice captain in 38.
> >
> >why?
>
> Why would you pick a Vice Captain and tour selector who was at odds
> with the captain?
Like Border & Hughes?
Waqar & Wasim?
>
> >
> >>
> >> I have no doubt that Bradman and Fingleton didn't get on. I suspect
> >> that it does come down to jealousy from Fingleton because I've read
> >> enough quotes from Fingleton that back that pretty strongly. (e.g.
> >> I've seen him quoted that Bradman's huge scores meant that other
> >> people were ignored, his claims of unusually dry English summers and
> >> his ignoring any wet wicket where Bradman had success to back his case
> >> that Bradman couldn't play on rain affected pitches)
> >>
> >> I've seen no evidence presented that Bradman made any decisions as a
> >> captain, selector or administrator based on any reason other than
> >> cricketing ability or what was best for the game.
> >
> >that is simply not true.
> >I've provided you with evidence.
> >You simply choose to ignore it.
>
> What evidence have you presented that Bradman made decisions as a
> cricketer, selector or administrator based on any reason other than
> cricketing ability?
>
what?
>
> >>
> >> "It is a matter of record that, during his time as a player and an
> >> administrator, Bradman clashed with a range of Australian cricketers."
> >>
> >> Bradman was the head of the selection panel for a long time, of course
> >> there are going to be some clashes.
> >>
> >> As to the quote
> >> 'Lord Williams told Amanda Smith in August 1996 that, when Bradman was
> >> on tour, he became irritated that Catholics "on board ship ¤ went off
> >> together to Mass on the Sunday". Especially since "they made a point
> >> of doing that in a ¤ pointed manner". He could only have got this
> >> information from The Don himself. '
> >>
> >> What utter crud.
> >> Williams can't have gotten it from another source? Say Fingleton's
> >> brother?
> >
> >You aren't serious, are you?
> >
> So Williams can't possibly have heard that from anybody but Bradman?
>
> Wow, I guess I must have been present when Churchill made some of his
> speeches because I've heard of them...
>
I doubt you were, however, I've never heard any one say you weren't.......
>
> I guess the fact that people misquote movies constantly proves that
> there are alternative shots that have the words attributed to them in
> the quote.
>
> There is no way that Lord Williams could have 'only go this
> information from The Don himself' he could have been told the story by
> somebody else...
>
> >> 'However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
> >> state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
> >> stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
> >> for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
> >> breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s. '
> >>
> >> By that time Bradman was not in a main position on the board.
> >
> >but still with *plenty* of influence.
> >
> Obviously the president of the board would never even considered
> ignoring Bradman to show that he was his own man.
highly unlikely
You'd better come up with a source pretty soon.
You're in a minority in describing him as iffy
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I asked for the source, and now the quote, for O'Reilly commenting on
> >> >> Bradman against bodyline because it doesn't mesh with what I've heard
> >> >> and read him say about it in the past. I suspect that you've
> >> >> misunderstood him.
> >> >
> >> >I think it would be best to view the source before saying I misunderstood.
> >> >
> >> well gee, you've narrowed the source down to the National Sound
> >> Archives, you can't provide the exact quote...
> >
> >can and have done........
> >
> according to a search on the groups on the deja archives you hadn't
> until this message.
>
according to the group and Google, I most certainly have done
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Given that Bradman was _1_ board member in the time when WSC was
> >> >> >> happening and his public utterances were affected becasue he was on
> >> >> >> the board and could hardly go against them the criticiism of his view
> >> >> >> on the 70 pay is somewhat iffy...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well I beg to differ on the i Board member issue.
> >> >> >He was the pre eminent figure in Australian cricket for an awfully long time,
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, however that does not mean that he was in control in the late
> >> >> 70s. England was one of the dominant military forces for a long time,
> >> >> they weren't by the 1950s.
> >> >
> >> >England (or Britain) has a veto on the UN board, along with US, Russia, France &
> >> >China, based on the power that they were a long time ago, if that's the analogy you
> >> >want to use.
> >>
> >> Please find the article from the Australian cricket board consitition
> >> in the 70s where Bradman had veto rights...
> >
> > please find the bit where I said he had one
>
> Then the point that the UK is on the security council doesn't mean
> that much does it?
and that quote is?
>
> >
> >>
> >> >If you believe that Bradman had no influence on the events of the late 70s, then you
> >> >ought to brush up on some of those events.
> >>
> >> Please compare 'no influence' with 'in control'
> >> Bradman was a board member, he had influence. He was not in control.
> >
> >so any criticism of him would be unwarranted?
> >
> The quote in the article at
> http://www.thepavilion.com.au/halloffame/2001/03/06/FFXDGXPGYJC.html
>
> was
>
> "However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
> state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
> stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
> for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
> breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s. "
>
> By the time that Ian Chappell was a major force in Australian Cricket
> Bradman wasn't a major administrator in the game.
> Unless the minutes are available we don't know anything about what
> went on in ABC meetings.
So how do you know that he had no influence?
>
> >>
> >> > I recall Chappelli recounting a story of
> >> >going to see Bradman & smoking a cigar at the time, a sign of disrespect. He
> >> >specifically mentioned Bradman. I wonder why?
> >> >
> >> Because he went to see Bradman.
> >> Possibly because Bradman and Ian Chappell both lived in Adelaide.
> >>
> >> Possibly because he thought that Bradman was more likely to give him a
> >> fair hearing than other administrators...
> >
> >or possibly because he thought Bradman would have the most influence.....
> >
> Yes, a board member is obviously the one with all the power compared
> to the CEO or president of a body..
In this case, most certainly.
Why do you think Chappell went to see him?
>
> >> >>
> >> >> >his views were often deferred to, him being an almost legendary figure.
> >> >> >Yes, reports I've read on him vis WSC are less than flattering, but don't
> >> >> >forget he was nearly 70 at the time. Perhaps his views/opinions were simply out
> >> >> >of step with the views of the time, hardly a mortal sin, is it?
> >> >> >(neither does it reflect on his ability as a crciketer)
> >> >>
> >> >> Read the article that I was addressing and what it claims.
> >> >
> >> >read my replies and what I have claimed
> >>
> >> Have done.
> >
> >you give very little impression of having done so.
>
> Now tell me how your comments prove that
>
well, you've not been able to answwer them very satisfactorily, have you?
>
> "However, when a senior cricket administrator at both national and
> state levels, Bradman showed little interest in the requests by such
> stars as Ian Chappell that they, too, should receive a fair day's pay
> for a fair day's play. This sparked the resentment that led to the
> breakaway World Series Cricket in the late 1970s. "
>
> is accurate...
you're saying this is inaccurate?
>
Higgsy
Winston Churchill
but a weeny bit of snipping would go a long way...
cheers
--
Winny
th...@yahoo.com
In office since 1997
jpbe...@gmail.com
> that it does come down to jealousy from Fingleton because I've read
> enough quotes from Fingleton that back that pretty strongly. (e.g.
> I've seen him quoted that Bradman's huge scores meant that other
> people were ignored, his claims of unusually dry English summers and
> his ignoring any wet wicket where Bradman had success to back his case
> that Bradman couldn't play on rain affected pitches)
This certainly helped batsmen like Bradman and Bill Ponsford whom Fingleton says always struggled on wet pitches, largely through lack of effort rather than the natural ability that would no doubt make today's recognised batsmen look like "Hopper" Read or "Father" Marriott under such conditions (if Wisden's comments in 1985, 1991 and 2001 are remotely correct).
The difference weather made (though nobody notes such) was probably not significant because on the fertile English soils many a pitch in a wet summer is very easy because it needs sun to make a spin bowler like Verity or Charlie Parker unplayable through spinning the ball much more quickly than possible on today's covered pitches. It's for this reason that even if Bradman never mastered sticky wickets (a point i have not heard argued), his form never declined significantly during very wet spells in England.
It did, though, decline a lot during the very wet weather of the first half of the 1936/1937 Ashes series when Allen and Voce were deadly on treacherous wickets on soils where dense rooting allows fast bowlers to get a much easier foothold than possible in england.
Mike Gooding
>
> The difference weather made (though nobody notes such) was probably not significant because on the fertile English soils many a pitch in a wet summer is very easy because it needs sun to make a spin bowler like Verity or Charlie Parker unplayable through spinning the ball much more quickly than possible on today's covered pitches. It's for this reason that even if Bradman never mastered sticky wickets (a point i have not heard argued), his form never declined significantly during very wet spells in England.
>
As for Fingleton, there was the whole Irish - English thing going on at the time, which coloured his opnion.
Mike Gooding
--------------
Mike Holmans
<michael...@yahoo.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Saturday, 29 March 2014 12:11:36 UTC, jpbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> The difference weather made (though nobody notes such) was probably not significant because on the fertile English soils many a pitch in a wet summer is very easy because it needs sun to make a spin bowler like Verity or Charlie Parker unplayable through spinning the ball much more quickly than possible on today's covered pitches. It's for this reason that even if Bradman never mastered sticky wickets (a point i have not heard argued), his form never declined significantly during very wet spells in England.
>>
>I've read that Bradman didn't (allegedly) excel on stickies because he felt he didn't have to, as another belter would be along soon enough.
unplayable, whereas English ones weren't, so they were covering
wickets in Aus for domestic cricket before Bradman started. He thought
uncovered wickets were a silly idea, and didn't see the point of
learning how to play on them because he hardly ever had to.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Mad Hamish
Firstly I'm not sure that Australian wickets were covered in domestic
cricket at that stage, however his first test came very early in his
career and he's stated that he'd never seen a wet turf wicket before
the Brisbane 28/29 test where Tate rolled Australia on a wet wicket.
The description of the last 1930 test suggests that he wasn't
completely hopeless on wet wickets (the English quicks were getting
the ball to jump sharply at him and Jackson)
He wasn't as good a wet wicket player as, say, Hobbs - probably the
best ever - or probably Sutcliffe but there's no question that
Fingleton overstated the case by
a) leaving out innings from his list where Bradman did make runs on
wet wickets
b) stating that several of his tours of England were really dry
summers when other sources (such as Wisden) state the opposite.
Mike Holmans
<newslaw...@iinet.net.au> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:52:07 +0100, Mike Holmans
><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 03:36:24 -0700 (PDT), Mike Gooding
>><michael...@yahoo.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>>
>>>On Saturday, 29 March 2014 12:11:36 UTC, jpbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The difference weather made (though nobody notes such) was probably not significant because on the fertile English soils many a pitch in a wet summer is very easy because it needs sun to make a spin bowler like Verity or Charlie Parker unplayable through spinning the ball much more quickly than possible on today's covered pitches. It's for this reason that even if Bradman never mastered sticky wickets (a point i have not heard argued), his form never declined significantly during very wet spells in England.
>>>>
>>>I've read that Bradman didn't (allegedly) excel on stickies because he felt he didn't have to, as another belter would be along soon enough.
>>
>>I think it was slightly different. Australian stickies were completely
>>unplayable, whereas English ones weren't, so they were covering
>>wickets in Aus for domestic cricket before Bradman started. He thought
>>uncovered wickets were a silly idea, and didn't see the point of
>>learning how to play on them because he hardly ever had to.
>>
>I don't agree with that entirely.
there's any writer who knew Bradman better, and he says in some of his
writings, including the essay about Bradman on wet wickets, that he is
hardly unbiased when it comes to writing about his idol. When his
self-confessed contemporary hagiographer says Bradman wasn't good on
wet wickets and it was because he didn't really think them a fair sort
of cricket, I'm inclined to believe him.
Cheers,
Mike
--
alvey
stickies (Aust ones) was that Bradman simply didn't think that they were
worth batting on.
Luckily there's something else you've written that I can take issue with.
Your repeated inferences about Robbo being a Bradman fanboi is inaccurate.
Robbo loved 'em all. He was one of those long dead cricket writers who
would rather say nothing than say anything harsh about *anyone*.
alvey
in Bne, also noting that, iirc, Robbo never wrote a book on any individual
player.
dmike
if we talking just about tests, the only slump he had
was during bodyline, and even there he averaged over 50.
mike
jzfredricks
> if we talking just about tests, the only slump he had
> was during bodyline, and even there he averaged over 50.
I'm not sure how this compares with his peers, which means it's hard to read anything into this. It could have been the nature of cricket and the pitches back then. It might have been a technical flaw (heaven forbid).
willsutton
jzfredricks
> so looks like a case of get him early or suffer
If you didn't get him out for a duck, his average was 111.
If you didn't get him out for 20 (or less), his average was 143.