The boy who was better than Bradman

Was the Bradman/Jackson 243 run partnership the one where the english noticed Bradman was not keen on the short stuff? Poor old Archie went close to Bannerman's record 165 ret hurt aussie debut. Jackson 164 Wessels 162 Phillips 159 Walters 155 Clarke 151 Seriously boys, had you never read an Australian cricket records book?

The other batsman of that era who would have fit into that high class batting bracket with Hookes and Border whom I consider a lost talent is Kim Hughes, who was undone more by circumstance through a powerful Australian cricketing cartel than by ability. He could play spin as good as or better than Border, but did not have his sheer bloody mindedness to succeed in tough times. If he was playing today, he'd have got all of the psychological help he needed before he quit the captaincy Nov 26 1984 and afterward as well. He has said that before his last 10 or so innings which were against the West Indies (away and home) he averaged 42 or 43 before it dropped to 37. World Series Cricket did a lot of good for Australian cricket, but there was also collateral damage where players like Hughes and Hookes suffered.

Bradman may have made that quote regarding Sid Barnes, but he also made it during Stan McCabe's innings of 132. McCabe was another batsman who some thought of as superior to Bradman -- maybe in style and technique, but certainly not in run making ability. Bill O'Reilly was a vocal supporter of McCabe, but he was not exactly a mate of Bradmans.

A shout (as in a round of drinks).

What is "Wally Grout" used as rhyming slang for?

I always love the quote from Bradman to the rest of the Australian Team in 1938 “come out and watch him. You won’t see better than this.” He was referring to Sid Barns. For those of a Gen X vintage the best comparison is to say who would you rather watch: Steve or Mark Waugh? One would bat forever against anyone. The other would have time and grace to play shots that nobody else :sick: could.

I'm sure I've heard a quote from Bradman at one point where he said something along the lines of suggesting other batsmen around were potentially more talented of "better" batsmen than him, but the difference was the level of concentration to keep going making runs on and on without making the error that gets you out. But in reality, that's a big part of batting. It's like when the commentators comment on an awesome shot that went straight to the fielder. Since placement is a big part of shotmaking, it's not an awesome shot unless you find the gap. Same being that you can have all the talent and shots in the world, but if you regularly lose concentration and play a lose shot you aren't a great batsman.

Enjoyable article. People are getting hung up on the title, but it’s more about celebrating a lesser known great of the game.

At least Grout had a full Test career. Jackson will always be the "what if" career. Plus Grout had his name is immortalised in Australian rhyming slang.

Could be wrong but I think Bradman was only 13 or so when he scored his first double hundred in grade cricket. That's country grade cricket though, not Sydney.

JW - I'm perfectly settled thank you.

Sir Donald bradman was the best.

sorry, was meant to reply to Sheik below.

Settle down please. You missed the point of the article which was to remember a young man whose life was tragically cut short (let's all also remember how lucky we are for modern medicine and the relative peace we have today). The title was probably chosen by the editor and even if not, it says the BOY who WAS better than Bradman. As a 15 yr old or 17yr old, maybe he was. I have no idea what Bradman's stats were at 15.

Settle down please. You missed the point of the article which was to remember a young man whose life was tragically cut short (let's all also remember how lucky we are for modern medicine and the relative peace we have today). The title was probably chosen by the editor and even if not, it says the BOY who WAS better than Bradman. As a 15 yr old or 17yr old, maybe he was. I have no idea what Bradman's stats were at 15.

What a shame Archie Jackson suffered from such a terrible illness at such a young age. Certainly it would appear he was a very special talent. Maybe he was our second best behind Bradman, maybe he could have been Australia’s greatest? We will never know much the same as young Phil Hughes who was the youngest player to score back to back centuries in Test cricket and the first to score 100 on debut in ODI’s.

I'll give you a relatively more recent comparison, Hookes vs Border. Both were born in 1955, Hookes in May & Border in July. Hookes made his Shield debut in 1975/76, Border a year later. Hookes belted 4 or 5 centuries (I can't remember exactly) in 1976/77 to catapult into the Centenary test team of 1977. In the 2nd innings he made 56, belting English skipper Tony Greig for 5 successive 4s. He was the hottest young batsman in Australian cricket, & was quickly signed for WSC, where he became a mainstay of a super Aussie XI. Border came along quietly, & made his test debut halfway through the 1978/79 series against England, when the selectors picked him more on hope than proof. By the time unification between the ACB & WSC occurred in mid-1979, the character of both players was clearly defined. By the start of the 1979/80 season, Hookes was an aggressive but loose batsman adept against pace but all at sea against spin. There was only one useful spinner in WSC, England's Derek Underwood. Border learnt to graft in a struggling team, developing a keen sense of how to build an innings. His apprenticeship was complete when he toured India in late 1979 & learnt to play quality spin effectively. Hookes was the more heralded batsman early in their careers. But Border, partly by chance, had a better grounding & quickly became the better batsman, while Hookes never really mastered his two weaknesses, impatience & a poor technique to spinners.

Sorry Alex, This is an incredibly presumptuous & pompous article on your part. I don’t know if the heading is also yours, but it’s rubbish. A lot of people confuse potential (MIGHT do it) with performance (DID do it). Jackson might have been better than Bradman at age 19-20, but Bradman quickly outperformed him. Bradman & Jackson played together in 3 series 1928-30, before illness began to wrack Jackson’s body. Bradman averaged 94.95 in 14 tests, with 8 centuries. Jackson averaged 47.40 in 8 tests, with his century on debut remaining his only test century. We can only wonder what Jackson might have achieved had he not passed away so young at age 23 in early 1933. But to suggest he was better than Bradman shows ignorance of the severe steel, single purpose, ruthless mind of Bradman. As good as Jackson might have been on ability & potential, he simply didn’t possess Bradman’s utter ruthlessness. You want another example, compare Ponsford & Bradman. Ponsford was a run machine in Shield cricket, but suffered from surprising confidence in tests. Only in his last series in 1934, did he lift his test average from just good (early 40s) to very good (high 40s). Ponsford, like Jackson, lacked Bradman’s utter ruthlessness. Now give yourself an uppercut & write out 100 times: “Potential does not equal performance”. Oh, & take no notice of anything Percy Fender said. He miscalculated massively on Bradman achieving success in England in 1930, his credibly was completely torn to shreds.

Nice article about a player worth remembering. Not sure if the headline was really meant by Alex or contributed by editors. Obviously it’s a stretch to say he was better than Bradman, seeing he only averaged 45 in 70 first class games while Bradman was powering at close to 100. He only had a modest tour of England in 1930, not a phenomenal one: he averaged only 34 in all Test and county games, and played only two Test innings, scoring 73 in the 243 run stand with Bradman. He was dropped after four Tests against a weak West Indies the next year. But he was racked by ill health through these seasons. And some people did claim at the time (before or early on in the 1930 tour) that he was better than Bradman. He did pip Bradman to state selection and to a national team tour of NZ despite being a year younger. His 164 remains the second highest for any Australian batsman on debut (behind the 165 n.o. by Charles Bannerman in the first ever Test).

I believe Jackson was considered a better bat than Bradman, because the experts of that era didn't think too much of the Don's technique. Obviously we'll never know the truth of this, given Jackson's early passing. Two very different legacies were created; one of the best batsman of all time and the other of a cricketer sadly dying before his full potential could be realised. Nice story Alex.