Talk:Don Bradman/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Australian Broadcasting Corporation: a subtle but lasting tribute

Hi,

The ABC have the following national contact information (for Australia):

Mail: PO Box 9994 (in all capital cities) Phone: 13 9994

It took me until my mid-twenties to recognise the significance of those numbers.

It is a laconic tribute to a great australian, in an australian style.

It may be worth a mention in your great article. Sorry that I can not provide references with the history of the creation of these contact details. I am sure that the ABC (abc.net.au) will provide ample information if requested.

Regards, Hugo Connery (hmc at env.dtu.dk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.32.179 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is covered in the Donald Bradman in popular culture article; see the "Other" section there for more details. Loganberry (Talk) 15:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Don Bradman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs citations plange 00:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC) To achieve A from Biography, please work on adding inline citations, plus try to work on the lead per WP:LEAD - it should be a summary of the article (perhaps 2-3 paragraphs) and be careful of WP:PEACOCK phrases in your lead (an in the article). --plange 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

After cricket

Bradman's last cricket match was for the Prime Minister's XI against the [[Marylebone Cricket Club|MCC] on the 6th February 1963, when he opened the Bradman Pavilion at the Manuka Oval in Canberra and 10,000 attended the match. Bradman was mistakenly bowled for 4 by Brian Statham as the MCC wanted him to bat against his old foe Alec Bedser and get a few runs, but "the little man, after on brief look back at his broken wicket, walked quickly away, the step firm, the head erect, but the shoulders, one thought, now slightly stooped. He had made one scoring stroke, for four. The crowd watched him go and signed. How much they wanted just a half-hour, at least, of him - as the Englishmen had."When he reached the pavillion to the commiserations of the Prime Minister Robert Menzies and the Duke of Norfolk he told them "It wouldn't happen in a thousand years. Anyway that's my final appearance at the wicket". The batsman with him at the crease was the poltician Don Chipp.Philipjelley (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

References

World War Two

Is it worth mentioning that whilst 9 test match class players died in WW2, Bradman did not even serve as an army instructor? His cowardice was yet again on show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.232.215 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source saying Bradman was a coward, we will definitely include it. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Some mistakes ?

I think that there are some mistakes in the paragraph Later years and legacy: "The most significant of these legacy projects was a museum, opened in 1987 at the Bradman Oval in Bowral.[161] This organisation was reformed in 1993 as a non-profit charitable Trust, called the Bradman Foundation.[162]" seems to be false:

• "a museum, opened in 1987" : link of reference number 161 gives "In March 1989 the dressing shed was demolished and on the same site construction of the Bradman Pavilion commenced. The Pavilion was dedicated by Hon. John Fahey, M.P., on behalf of Hon. Nick Greiner, Premier NSW, in the presence of Sir Donald and Lady Bradman on 14 October 1989". More precisely, this one is entitled "Sir Donald Bradman's speech, opening Bradman Museum, 1989 - Excerpt from Sir Donald Bradman’s speech at the opening of the Bradman Pavilion, Bowral, NSW, 1989…".
• "This organisation was reformed in 1993 as a non-profit charitable Trust, called the Bradman Foundation." link of reference number 162 gives "The Bradman Foundation, a non-profit charitable trust, was established in 1987 with the full support of Sir Donald Bradman AC to promote cricket as a valuable cultural and sporting force within the community." The foundation seems to be older than the museum. I'm not sure for the year. This Cricinfo articles gives 1986 as the year of the birth of the Foundation.

I somebody have more precise sources, I think it would be useful to correct (I could do it but I prefer that somebody checks that).

OrangeKnight (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Two more links and I'm nearly sure : Foundation: 1987, Museum: 1989... But I'm to shy to correct this wonderful article and I'd like somebody checks what I say...OrangeKnight (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Be Bold mate - you've found some reliable sources to back up your claim, from what you've found it seems difficult to be 100% certain but I reckon you've got enough evidence to change it. If anyone disagrees, they can find more proof for their dates - although I doubt anyone will complain.–MDCollins (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, done it... OrangeKnight (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article as originally written was correct: the Bradman Museum Trust had its genesis in 1985 and was formally constituted in 1987. The Bradman Pavilion, the first stage of the project, was opened in October 1989. Initially, Bradman wanted nothing to do with the organisation because of his concerns about privacy, but later consented to sign over the intellectual property rights to his name and this caused the BMT to reorganise itself as the Bradman Foundation in 1993. You have confused the sequence of events: the Museum Trust was the forerunner to the Foundation; the pavilion was merely the first stage of the project. I have reverted to the original version, using new references.

59.101.227.1 (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

When discussing averages and comparisons, Mike hussey has been left out completely. As he nwo has the 2nd best average of all batsmen to play over 20 Innings I feel he should be included—Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenrudd (talk • contribs)

We are clear that we exclude current players. This is because most players suffer a decline in their average over the tail end of their careers. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Or at any point in their career, as has happened to Hussey since I posted above. This strongly demonstrates the wisdom of excluding people until they retire. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If averages exclude current players then neither Tendulkar, Sehwag nor Kallis should appear in the comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.146.215 (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Best cricket article on the site

I don't know what others think, but having read all of the FA and GA articles about cricket on WP, in my view this one is, like its subject, out on its own. It really is very good and those who deserve the credit know who they are. Well done. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree very much with BlackJack. (Although i haven't read nowhere near as many FA and GA about cricket) It is the best article on cricket i've read. I remember reading this a couple years ago and i was a bit surprised how it wasn't as good an article as others. Congrats to all the editors who have contributed. Aaroncrick (Tassie Talk) 07:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One of only 2 Australian sporting knights?

I'm racking my brains and have checked in various places, but I believe the only other Aussie sportsman who was ever knighted for services to sport was Jack Brabham (1978). Hubert Opperman was also knighted, but not for his services to cycling - his citation reads "High Commissioner to Malta" - [1]. If we can confirm this, it would make Bradman the only sporting knight at his appointment in 1949, until 1978 when he became the first of only two. Can anyone confirm this? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. Two other cases are worthy of mention. Sir Garfield Sobers is now a dual Australian-Barbadian citizen, but his 1975 knighthood predated his becoming an Aussie citizen, which happened in 1980 - [2], [3]. And I suppose I should mention Sir George "Gubby" Allen, who was born in Australia, but moved to the UK at a young age and went on to captain the England cricket team. He's a borderline (no relation to bodyline) Aussie at best. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It was said, though I'm not sure that any hard evidence has ever been produced, that Bill Woodfull was offered a knighthood but turned it down. JH (talk page) 09:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've read that, too. But if he declined it, it wouldn't count. I've also remembered Norman Brookes (my memory was jogged by reference to the Norman Brookes Trophy from the Rafa/Federer match last night). But like Opperman, Brookes' citation makes no mention of sport ("In recognition of service to public service" - [4]). I wasn't aware we had a Sporting Knights category till today, and Brookes, Bradman and Brabham are the only 3 Aussies mentioned (Bradman's in the sub-cat Cricketing Knights). I'm not sure Brookes even qualifies for that cat, since his knighthood wasn't for sport as such - but that's a separate issue I'll attend to elsewhere. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think, on balance, we have to count Norman Brookes as a sporting knight - see my note @ Talk:List of sporting knights and dames#Norman Brookes. So, Bradman wasn't the first, Brookes probably was. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Expand??

I know this is a long article already, but with Bradman's supremely giant status in the game, first as a player, and secondly as an administrator. There are actually articles about there that are FA with 30% more prose. I think it's needed to provide more information on the following things at least.

• Info about batting everyone out of the game. He was not much different from Ponting, even more extreme actually, in terms of setting extreme targets and not allowing enough time
• Undue weight of family to admin career, especially as he was regarded as the most important administrator of all time, long length of service
• Omission of Tallon in 1938; Miller for RSA 49/50; role in Cec Pepper never being selected for Australia after he made a rowdy lbw appeal against Bradman; Miller never being captain. Non selection of people who disagreed with him.
• Apartheid issue. Bradman was strongly against an apartheid boycott. It was only when a riot occurred at a rugby match that he agreed to call off, not because he opposed apartheid. Bradman estrangement with his son was in part due to this. His son was an anti-apartheid activist and protestor and Bradman viewed him as a punk. Other board members have alleged in the Haigh and Frith book that Bradman was a racist; although this is a bit obscure, the non-opposition to apartheid needs to be explained
• Witchhunt against Meckiff? Bradman called a meeting of state captains and then showed pictures of Meckiff throwing and then selected him anyway. Allegations that Bradman set-up Meckiff as a sacrificial goat. The Meckiff incident was the biggest thing in Bradman's time
• More info needed on WSC? Biggest upheaval of our times, and its genesis in Bill Lawry's sacking
• The 1930s infighting doesn't touch on the possibly religious nature of the problem, and doesn't name McCabe, Fingleton, O'Reilly etc specifically, and the infamous Catholic board meeting that turned into a cause celebre.
• Theory that Bradman was responsible for the Warner incident

There are probably more. I haven't read up on a Bradman biography, but from the Haigh and Frith book about cricket politics, there is a lot more that could be said. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections if you're up to it. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it's a nice, concise length now. Perhaps put just a bit more in, or go for another sub-article summary style... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 09:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

I think the opening paragrapgh that mentions him as the greatest batsman of all time needs to be removed. Sachin Tendulkar is considered by many as the greatest. Cricket was completely different to what it is now. Tendulkar has had to face far more teams and professional players who know how to play cricket than Bradman did well over 70 years ago. The game is a lot harder now and the view that Bradman is the greatest batsman of all time is heavily disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.220.42 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Heavily disputed" seems a bit dramatic. There are certainly people who argue that a variety of other players (Sobers, Grace, Tendulkar, etc) are more deserving of the title, but they are in the minority. The current statement is based on the ample references and statistics which still cite Bradman as the greatest, not only in cricket, but in possibly all professional sports. Manning (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Don Bradman Links

I have added some links to the 1946-47 Ashes series articles, namely;

1) "With the English team due to arrive for the Ashes series, the media and the public were anxious to know if Bradman would lead Australia." to "With the English team due to arrive for the 1946–47 Ashes series, the media and the public were anxious to know if Bradman would lead Australia."

2) "Controversy emerged as early as the first day of the series" to "Controversy emerged on the first day of the First Test at Brisbane"

3) "An appeal for a catch was denied in the umpire's contentious ruling that it was a bump ball." to "An appeal for a catch was denied in the umpire's contentious ruling that it was a bump ball."

Regards, Philipjelley (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Don's Italian Heritage

CRICKET may not rate a mention in football-crazed Italy, but it does have a profound link to the sport's grandest champion. Sir Donald Bradman had Italian blood, with his great-grandfather Emmanuel Danero (aka Neich) being one of the first Italians to migrate to Australia in 1826.

The revelation of Sir Don's Italian ancestry, one that even the Don Bradman Museum was unaware of, has been documented in Lina Moffitt's book on the quirky life of Danero.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/bradmans-italian-heritage-revealed/story-e6frea83-1111113044165

220.101.150.152 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So what? The rest of his ancestry was English. Why isn't that mentioned?

http://www.wargs.com/other/bradman.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.13.142 (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

HMS Bradman

HMS Bradman was named after the Don in 1936. This is a very significant legacy (even though the ship was sunk in 1940) and seems very early. I added a sentence, but it was reverted by User:Jenks24, who - quite rightly - noted that it didn't flow well. There is a section on later years and legacy, but this is a legacy from the height of his playing career. So - my question is, where does it fit, if anywhere? StAnselm (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've found a reference. Gideon Haigh's Inside Out: Writings on Cricket Culture, p. 122. It was originally a fishing trawler, taken over by the Royal Navy. There were also ships named after Larwood, Hammond and Jardine, who, it was hoped "would intimidate the U-boats by reputation." StAnselm (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be nice if we could add it somewhere and I felt a bit foolish reverting your addition as I'm hardly the best writer myself. Logically, it would go in the legacy section, but at the moment that section is very chronological and begins in 1963. I can't really see it fitting in the Test career section anywhere, so I think if it is added the best place would be towards the start of the legacy section. Jenks24 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have boldly split the section in two, in preparation for inserting something about the ship. StAnselm (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)