Sir Don Bradman and his surprising ducks

Tony I think you hit the key to the issue. It also has to do with what you train your body and mind to do and if you start young enough, it comes to a stage where no one else can compare. The same principle existed in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in the Hundred Years War. England used Welsh long bow men whose power and accuracy over huge distances made them lethal against opposing forces. The French couldnt counter even when they tried to use the bows or even trained the bowmen for years, because the Welsh bowmen had been trained from childhood in a particular technique which they repeated over and again until it became virtually instinctive. They developed the shoulder/arm strength and accuracy which also became set in their mental processes. There was no way to train anyone even from their teens into the process to be as effective. A lot of what Bradman did was find the right process and repeat it over and again until it became virtually instinctive

Dear sirs, When playing golf ball and stump 'Test Match' games against the Water Tank stand in the 8 foot space beside his boyhood 52, Shepherd Street, Bowral, family home, it is likely Don Bradman was developing to ability to 'Judge, React and Control' an erratic fast moving ball better than any player before or since. Experimentation and practice suggests such 'Control' is not possible when adopting accepted batting methods, but is when a co-ordinated and synchronized 'Rotary' action of the bat and body is employed. It is suggested Bradman simply adapted this assimilated 'High Skill' into the early timing and motion of the "Continuous Rotary Batting Formula" by which it is understood his remarkable runscoring was achieved. The ducks are one thing but from the list of very high scores it becomes clear that once set the repetitive nature of his DIFFERENT and versatile mode of play aloud him to carry on almost indefinitely. The Ray Martin TV interview:- "Why don't others play like you?" Don Bradman:- "I think it's because they are coached NOT to do it. It's a DIFFERENT technique." Surely it is time to recognize 'The Don's' "Different Rotary Technique".

I like Sir Don Bradman. A legend of all time.......hats offffff to u Sir......

My understanding is that Sid didnt play much test cricket, despite being a top liner because of a little incident in England when he and the team were invited to meet the King. He chose instead to attend an interview for , I think it was, being a journo reporting on the game, a little like Bradman had done. When asked why he had chosen the interview over meeting the King, he said that he had to think of the financial welfare of his family first...he could see the King later. The Establishment didnt see it that way and he apparently never played test cricket again. Is that a true story fellow Roarers?

Zubes i meant india, i thought you were an indian.btw,well if you don't wish to judge bradman and compare him with a modern great,it's perfectly ok.but you actually did when you said he surely had weaknesses, that was an imagined opinion and exactly what attracted me to give my view.

Zubes if we were talking about someone with an average of 65 against players of today with 55 your comment may have merit. But Bradman was so far ahead of any other batsman, that you cant possibly suggest anything else but that he was a once in perhaps a hundred years probably way beyond even that. No one has come close to dominating like Bradman did. You raise issues about scientific techniques of today and working out strategies etc and how he would fare against the WI at its best. But you ignore the fact that the grounds back then were much poorer, not protected, there were no helmets to give a sense of security, there were bowling strategies that are now illegal because they were so dangerous and there were fast bowlers back then just as fast and terrifying and with greater licence, as there have been in the last 50 years. Yes they would have used al scientific methods to counter Bradman today. But you forget that he would also then have those advantages himself and therefore be able to counter them. If you look carefully at cricket records, they are not seriously broken compared to what was happening in the 1920s. The best batsmen were averaging in the 50-60 range back then with a few above that. That is still the case today.Bradman broke the test record scoring 334 runs, yet 80 years later the record has only been increased to 400 with a lot more cricket played by individual players. The bowling figures were much the same. Only difference is that they play more cricket now but the average performance doesnt change much. Batsmen and bowlers back then were just as capable as they are today. Only difference is that they are fully professional and trained in a variety of cricket styles today. If Bradman lived in this era he would thrive on these advantages and I am confident he would be just as dominant today as he was back then. Human kind hasnt suddenly become superior. We are still the same just better trained.. And dont forget Bradman couldnt play cricket during the years when most batsmen are at their peak, that being his 30s, because he was fighting in a war then. How much greater would he have been if he had been able to play test cricket during what would have been his best years. Sorry Zubes but you are way off the mark. What other cricketer, batting or bowling has dominated in such an extraordinary manner. You speak of today's differences but then do remember that he retired only shortly before Sobers, the second best, appeared on the scene.

And which country is that Prosenjit? I am not disrespecting Bradman, merely questioning the conclusions people make about what Bradman's performance would be like if he played today. Modern greats such as Sachin, Viv, Lara and Ponting are judged on an entirely different plane since we can see and know so much more about their strengths and weaknesses. With Bradman we can't do any of that yet we are supposed to just accept with blind faith that he is some sort of superman who's performance in the era he played would transcend any other. Batting averages were higher in his time so i don't think uncovered wickets made much of a difference and frankly England in the 30s and 40s were far from the best ever side. If Bradman played the West Indies (and others) in the 70-80s and got a 100 (or less e.g 70-80) average then I would readily believe that he was the best of all time. I think too many roarers have a rose coloured view of the past and the standard of cricket played then. I would still consider it possible that Bradman might be the best ever but not twice as good as the next best as his average would suggest. I think a modern great would have a better chance of scoring an 80+ average in Bradman's time than Bradman doing the same in the modern era.

@david, who were the genuine quick bowlers you faced?

Would also like to add about Bradman. He liked to leg glance and when he got out once to the leg trap (2 leg slips) He just stopped playing the shot. People that say Bradman wouldn't do as we'll in the modern era don't understand how easily he adapted to strategies employed against him in his own era. Body line, he would pick the ball from the hand of the bowler. If it was a bouncer he'd step to the on side and play a cut. If it was a Yorker he'd play a defensive shot. He almost averaged 60 against body line. It took Steve Waugh about two years to overcome a shot that he was vulnerable to (was it the pull?)

Always remember the bowler who was ripping through Australia one day, but hadn't bowled to Bradman. First ball he bowled to the Don went for four from an on-drive. The shot of an inform batsman. This bowler wrote in his diary that after just one ball he knew the Don could read him and had him picked. None of this explains the ducks though

Tony, should we buy your book to learn more?

Don Bradman possessed a unique "Continuous Rotary Batting Process" which he would repeat ball by ball and the longer he stayed in getting accustomed to the conditions the better the formula would function in subconscious and unconscious fashion with strokes all round the wicket. This form of play is less mentally and physically tiring and stems directly from his development and boyhood training when playing his Shepherd Street 'Test Match' games with golf ball and stump. 'Test' history suggests the upper limit of accepted and taught orthodoxy possesses a scoring average of 50-60 which suggests it was the early timing and continuous motion of Bradman's 'Rotary' style which provided him with the added versatility and scope to produce a career average of 99-94. In a rare television interview Ray Martin asked the question:- "Why don't others play like you?" Don Bradman tellingly replied:- "I think it's because they are coached NOT to do it. It's a DIFFERENT technique." Surely it is high time the 'Bradman' debate was opened and the principles of his form of development which led directly to his 'Rotary' technique be recognized for the potential benefit of future generations of batsmen.

With due respect,i find david's comment on fast bowlers a little unusual.

Of course you meant Sidney Barnes from Australia rather than the Pom Sydney Barnes didnt you Clavers. With a test average of over 63 he looks the goods and was apparently well regarded by Bradman. But he only played 13 tests and 20 innings and was out for a duck once giving him a 5% quack rate. Hardly can be used as a comparison with the greats of the game though.

I just noted the time you replied Mr Lord. I dare say when cricket is 'on' you don't sleep much. The Skull is a treasure to listen to as is Jim Maxwell. Never a dull moment.

Bill O'Reilly thought that Bradman had a relative weakness against a well-pitched wrong'un, the delivery that got him out in his last test innings.

And Sydney Barnes

Fair enough, it's a tough question. Maybe there was no reason -- maybe it was just a random statistical anomaly. Perhaps Bradman in his was genius was prone to the occasional bit of overconfidence when he first took to the wicket, and set out to thrash the bowlers around before he had had a look at them. It might have been a good question to put to the man while he was still alive.

OK, wasnt aware of that. As a kid I saw Viv Richards, and said no one could ever been better than him... my dad saw Bradman as a kid, and said no one was better than Bradman. If the Don was better than the master blaster he must have been real good ;-)