Is Michael Clarke set for another big score at Perth?

Ditto as they say

Bearfax, Enjoyable exploring of minds. 'The Don' taught himself. They all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was 'Rotary'. All the very best Tony and Brian

Granted guys. Its been fun bantering with you over this. I'm not convinced and ask the obvious question, 'Who taught Bradman' and in that lies the key. No different to 'Who taught Mozart'. You're right, given time some very good batsmen may learn his particular style but as I indicated, the genius, the inate quality of Bradman was that he had a natural and formidable talent and because he was pre-disposed to it, his inate receptiveness to it allowed him the inspiration to develop something probably never attempted or even conceived of before. And what is genius but that ability to see outside the boundaries, that moment of almost unique inspiration, something the vast majority of us will probably never do, unless we have a natural insight to do so.

Bearfax, I agree whole heartedly with `pre-disposed Genetic characteristics`, but this is the point we are trying to make; this is not genetic. Its just a batting style he learnt, this has nothing to do with genetics. I know you said earlier that he being a champion is more than that - and maybe your right - but we feel this technique he used is a cut above all other techniques. Maybe there is another technique unkown that is even better than the `Continuous Rotary Batting Process`, but that remains to be seen as of yet. Although going off the subject a bit, cricket is a relative new comer on the scene compared to other sports. Maybe this is why all the styles have not come into fruition yet. No doubt Japanese Swordsman learnt the best style of weilding a sword over 1000`s of years, cricket has not had this time limit to be fully discovered yet. Bradmans technique is there right beneath our eyes though and yet there is a refusal to look at it and break it down. Is the cricket coaching hierarchy really that ignorrant ?

Bearfax, Our findings reflect the words Bradman spoke, wrote and revealed at interview. Ray Martin:- "Why don't others play like You? Bradman:- "I think it's because they are coached NOT to do it. It's a DIFFERENT technique." Through experimentation and practice we have discovered his 'seemingly inate eye-hand-ball co-ordination' was, unwittingly, developed by means of 'Shoulder Rotation' while playing his boyhood golf ball and stump 'Test Match' games. Once assimilated, it is suggested he simply adapted the skill to making runs. Greg Chappell:- "Understanding the core principles of motion as they apply to natural human movement, not technique, is what makes successful cricketers". By our understanding, Bradman's mode of play represents the 'Core principles of motion' in the form we can only define as a "Continuous Rotary Batting Process' If the scientific fraternity can study and adopt 'Einstein', Why not a similar appreciation for Don Bradman?

I am not for one moment trying to dispute the value in training, style development, repetitious and unconscious reaction development etc. Of course those arguments are valid and I accept that batsmen can improve their averages through technique adaptions, otherwise young Hughes would have no hope of future stardom (and I think he'll make it) My argument regards that which is not based on nurtured development, that being genetic pre-disposition. Anyone perceptive enough will note that some children, without any apparent external encouragement or influence, have a tendency for certain behaviours and skills. Its the Mozart quality, where a five year old boy is writing astonishing musical pieces and describes how he virtually sees music. I believe all people are born with certain pre-dispositions and we generally tend to follow that path and become successful in that behaviour. Having been a parole officer for almost 35 years it became particularly evident that many of the people I supervised and of whom I learned much of their childhood and upbringing, had a pre-disposition for certain behaviours, some of which lent themsleves to a tendency for anti-social behaviour. This was evident whether the person came from a good and supportive family or not. This is not to say criminality is genetically pre-disposed...that's rubbish. It is the tendency to a particular behaviour which may lead to anti-social actions...but also may not. Psychologists and geneticists the world over have been examining these pre-dispositions for decades, the most famous being the Thomas Bouchard findings at the University of Minnesota concerning sixty identical twins separated at birth. The findings were remarkable in that behaviours, tastes, vocations even selection of partners were found similar or identical in these twins later in life. One geneticist even suggested an 80% similarity factor. It seems we are all born with certain genetically pre-disposed characterists and that those characteristics give us an advantage in certain areas, whether it be maths, science, empathy, music or cricket. Sometimes those pre-dispositions are powerful enough to give a profound advantage as Mozart found. Certainly training development is imperative but with such a pre-disposition, that would come naturally, if one is introduced to it early enough. What I am saying is that Bradman, was probably the batting Mozart of his time, pre-disposed to the characteristic that gave him an advantage at batting and instilling in him a predelection for seeking to enhance that skill through whatever method advantageous to him.

Ho hum. Excuse me while I just go out and look up a few books on inventions. I'm sure I could emulate Galileo if I tried.

Thats exactly the point Sir, nobody has tried to emulate the style because its entirely different and so complex; its seeming near enough impossible to break down to understand. Its criminal with todays technology they havent bothered to try to understand this. Ive followed this style and even changed my style around to use this method (to Tony and Brians dissaproval because i dont do it perfectly and therefore labelled a `hybrid`), and have felt to a lesser extent what this feels like. One year when i put work in i scored 894 runs in 32 knocks at decent 1st team level, on occasions I got a feel of it. Even Greg Chappells book mentions he would make his backlift and rotation start from crease to 2nd slip to straight. Bradman mentioned of how he thought his bat went there and not gully as some would have you know.

Ahhhggg. I'm being attacked from all sides. And they are all using different 'batting styles'. Not suggesting that Bradman had a unique style but dont you think after 70 years, hundreds of other young budding batsmen would have tried to emulate it. Dont suggest to me that all test cricketers styles are borne out of the same production line. Hughes style is quite different, Pollocks also, even Cowen's stance isnt conventional and what about Warner. All batting styles are different, some slightly, some significantly. I've no doubt that different styles have been developping for generations otherwise bowlers would have worked out the fundamental weaknesses of all batsmen long ago. As it is all batsmen seem to have differing weaknesses, suggesting differing styles, if only slightly. And certainly adapting styles does how the potential of improving outcomes and I'm sure thousands of batsmen have had to do that...but to what outcome. It may improve an average by five, ten if you're very lucky, but by almost 50..I dont think so and the fact that there is no example of that is proof that its highly unlikely. If there is please give empirical evidence rather than hypotheses. But when you come to Bradman, you're talking about someone whose talent surpassed all others by a long way (not by a mere 30% as implied....determining percentage by simply saying he scored 30% per innings more than anyone else is misleading and not statistically valid). Just think of the number of great batsmen, each with their own styles, who struggled just to average 55. 15 runs per innings less and he's a good first class batsman but average test player. Another 15 runs less and you're describing a bowler who can bat a bit. Thats 30 runs and yet the difference between the great test player at 55 and Bradman is yet another 10 runs beyond that difference. Now dont get me wrong here. If the rest of the world played cricket to the standard of the best cricket teams around now, there may very well be a couple of other Bradmans out there..maybe even one or two who surpass his ability. But within the world of cricket as it is Bradman had as I said some seemingly inate eye-hand-ball co-ordination and concentration that seems to have been superior to all other batsmen to date.

Sorry to butt in on this discussion, but I have to agree mainly with Tony and Brian about this. There is some weight in your argument Bearfax, but the problem is there are ALOT of test cricketers who have averaged over 50 in their career. They mainly are all experts of the orthodox style, especially Kallis and Tendulkar, who represent the upper limits of this. Bradmans style is COMPLETELY different, Tony and Brians study (btw there is a film, numerous booklets and a book on this with sections of this in Bob Woolmers Art and Science of Cricket) clearly shows that there is evidence of this difference in his champion style. Tony and Brians quest is to get this accepted to be taught in mainstream cricket as an alternative to the orthodox style but in order for that to happen it would have to be broken down by the due authorities. Surely it is time for the authorities, with all the technology available today to take a look at this ????

Well with all due respect to these'experts' and might I say 'experts' have existed throughout history and have often been proven wrong, the comments here when you break it down, are saying exactly what I said.They dont know!. They surmise and given the best information and testing available they can make hypotheses, but in the end they Dont Know. I indicated that there is probably an X factor, an inate quality that a Bradman had which all truly outstanding geniuses in their respective feilds probably have, but in the end I Dont Know what that is. I am less convinced that it is some physical action and training alone. Certainly I take notice of what a expert may say and certainly such information assist us in knowing more. But too often, concepts proposed and even accepted as most probable by the majority of experts, have been too often found incorrect. We are human and cant known ultimate truths. Consider the scientific communities firm belief in the past concerning the non existance of coninental drift, of Ice Ages, of the age of the universe being measured in bilions of years, etc. Today we are still trying to understand issues relating to Quantum Mechanics, super string theory, black matter and energy, or more locally how prions work etc. Having worked most of my life in a behavioural field and got to know literally tens of thousands of people personally and behaviourally, I can say unequivocably that there is much about human characteristcs that remain unknown and sciences associated with such areas are struggling to understand even the basics of such. To make blunt statements about human abilities, inate qualities and human endeavours is fraught with much danger and at best guessing.

Bearfax, With the kind support of Professor A. Lees, Liverpool John Moores, University. Professor T. D. Noakes, Capetown, University and the findings of Professor M. Land, Sussex and Oxford Universities, Brian and I have spent well over 20 years experimenting and studying what Bradman said, wrote and showed on film, so are confident of our ground. Bob Woolmer's 'Art and Science' of Cricket, pages 172-183 Quote:- "It is imperative that we investigate why one individual was able to have a 'Test' average 30% better than the next best average in the history of the game. Biological factors alone cannot explain this significant a difference - they do not differ by 30% between the very best and the next best human in any particular activity. In fact, a fundamental teaching in science is that it is dangerous to presume a cause unless it has been proven. Since we have no evidence that Bradman was biologically superior, we must entertain the possibility that Bradman's brilliance might have been the result of his superior and unorthodox batting technique." Don Bradman:- "My entire cricketing experience has been a practical one." Our work tells us Bradman solved the old 'Nurture-Nature' argument through the timing and motion of his 'Rotary Action'.

In other words its the old nurture-nature argument. In my mind its a combination of both. Bradman learned his skills through years of practise and disciplining himself to the task. But he also had something inate, that is the nature, which he was born with, that gave him that X factor, that special quality that made him the champion batsman that he was. Without that nature, all the nurture development that conditioned his mind and body and may have made him a very good batsman, still would never have made him the champion he became. We're each born with special qualities that often lead us to our destinies in life, and sometimes those inate qualities make us a Mozart, a Michaelangelo, a Socrates, a Newton, a Pele, a Bradman. Opportunity and hard work gives us the chance to use those gifts, but nature supplies the raw materials, and its different in all of us. Without that diveristy of special inate abilities we would never have become the species we are.

Bearfax, Indeed, 'Any competitive sportsperson' may know and utilize the skills you mention, but in what form were they harnessed and assimilated to provide - The Hand-Eye Co-ordination, Action of bat and body to react and play with such scope, Quickness and sureness of foot, Flexibility of wrist and above all 'The Balance' which allowed Don Bradman to produce figures 'The Cricket World' is now familiar with? Given Einstein was able to define physical processes into simple formulas, so the young Bradman applied them to implement the timing and motion of his own 'Batting Formula' and had done so by the age of Eleven. Our aim is for the principles and application of Bradman's mode of development and their transfer into the essence of his "Continuous Rotary Batting Process" to be recognized for the benefit of others as his 'Lasting gift and true Legacy to Cricket '. Considering the availability of today's hi-technology we are surprised such an acceptance has yet to take place! Bradman's X Factor? Fusing Brain, eye and muscle through 'Shoulder Rotation' as a means of' 'CONTROLLING' the fast and erratic golf ball .

Sorry guys but all you've done is to demonstrate how such activities can improve your reaction, shoulder and rotary action, subconcious/unconscious hadit forming processes to assimilate a skill and reach a stage of judgement of action etc, which any competitive sportsperson knows and utilises. There is is nothing profound in that. The issue is how some people, with apparently similar body types and desire using those proceedures become good sportspeople while others become champions, and even champions well beyond the peformance of others going through identical methods. Nothing you've said identifies that X factor. As I said I suspect it is something inate in the makeup of the person, beyond the apparent physical qualities and training, no different to an Einstein with a high IQ becoming a genius able to define physical processes into simple formulas which no one else could achieve while others with similar IQs and training become just competent physicists..

Bearfax, It is not the importance of the 'Golf ball and stump' training in itself but understanding and applying the co-ordination of the 'Human Senses' playing the game engenders. Not batting technique, but the development of good old fashioned 'Hand, eye co-ordination'. Having hit many types and size of ball against the wall and on to concrete thousands of times in an 8 foot space, I can assure readers the co-ordination of 'Mental intentions and physical actions' are induced 'Through Shoulder Rotation' and 'Playing Through the ball' so becoming a subconscious, unconscious habit. The simple transfer of this assimilated 'Skill' to the requirements of batsmanship would have induced the timing and motion of the "Continuous Rotary Batting Process". Don Bradman:- "Eventually a batsman should reach the stage where his judgement of whether to play forward or back becomes instinctive rather than deliberate. The sight of the ball seems to trigger off a corresponding reaction so that movement becomes almost a habit." The runs are in the scorebook and the proper application of 'The Rotary Action' is submitted as being the REASON.

Bearfax, It is not the importance of the 'Golf ball and stump' training in itself but understanding and applying the co-ordination of the 'Human Senses' playing the game engenders. Not batting technique, but the development of good old fashioned 'Hand, eye co-ordination'. Having hit many types and size of ball against the wall and on to concrete thousands of times in an 8 foot space, I can assure readers the co-ordination of 'Mental intentions and physical actions' are induced 'Through Shoulder Rotation' and 'Playing Through the ball' so becoming a subconscious, unconscious habit. The simple transfer of this 'Rotary Skill' to the requirements of batsmanship would have induced the timing and motion of the "Continuous Rotary Batting Process". Don Bradman:- "Eventually a batsman should reach the stage where his judgement of whether to play forward or back becomes instinctive rather than deliberate. The sight of the ball seems to trigger off a corresponding reaction so that movement becomes almost a habit." The runs are in the scorebook and the application of 'The Rotary Action' is submitted as being the REASON.

Takes more than measurable physical characteristics to make a champion in anything. The old golf ball and stump story has been around as long as Bradman told it over 70 years ago and many aspiring cricket hopefuls have no doubt spent years trying to develop the same skill. The outcome? No one has got within 35 test runs average per innings to Bradman. Its something else undefined that makes a champion like that. He was a once in a millenium freak because no one has come anywhere near close to his efforts. I am probably as tall and once similar in physique to young Bernard Tomic. Like Tomic, as a young lad, I picked up a tennis racket and for years practised against a wall and on an uneven grass lawn, just as Tomic said he did to refine his skills and reactions. I became a better than average social tennis player. Tomic may become No 1 in the World. What's the difference...certainly not physique and even reaction time...I was very quick. It is that undefined something that makes a champion. Physiique and reaction time are important but its something to do with being able to transfer your mental intentions directly to your physical actions and few people can do that as successfully as a Bradman.

Dear Spiro, To Bearfax. In the contrary, Don Bradman was not a freak, he was a 5 foot 7 inch man who when the Professor of Physics at Adelaide University tested his eyesight the reaction time was minutely slower than that of the average University Student. Bradman did not learn to bat in any normal sense, but with golf ball and stump in an 8 foot space he co-ordinated the 'Human' senses while discovering the 'Rotary' action necessary for controlling the erratic fast moving golf ball. Once assimilated he transferred the skill into the "Continuous Rotary Batting Process" by which all those runs were made. The immediate and sustained manner of this high scoring throughout a 30 year career played on uncovered pitches confirms his 'Different Rotary Technique' had been formed and was in place by the age of Eleven. Bearing in mind Bradman's:- "My entire cricketing experience has been a practical one." perhaps it is time for those in the game to consider 'Not what he achieved but what enabled him to do so' for the benefit of others as his "Lasting gift and true Legacy to Cricket" Sincerely Tony Shillinglaw and Brian Hale

From the article above: "So we have 15 innings here, four centuries and five scores under 10, seven under 14, with one not not out, for an impressive average of over 61 but with a median score of 22/23. " Sounds like much feast and much famine.