Talk:Don Bradman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

B?

You can't be serious. What a kick in the guts for all those that have sweat blood and tears on this article. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyslexicbudgie (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If one of the projects overseeing this article, such as Cricket or Australia, judges (ideally by consensus) that the article is pretty much complete and well referenced, then it can assign an A-Class to it. That's exactly what A is for - if the article is essentially "done" but it needs a few technical aspects polishing before it will reach FA. Looks A to me, but I'm not qualified to judge. Walkerma (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad statistics by Charles Davis

I stumbled upon Charles Davis' statistics in this article, and I am amazed. Davis must be a bad statistician. I am not saying that Bradman was a bad sportsplayer. I don't want to discuss if he was the best sportsplayer ever. I only want to discuss the numbers. Talking about Pele, it says that once in every 9300 players, a person of Pele's calibre will show up. This is obviously ridiculous. There are one million soccer players in the Netherlands alone. This would mean that, on everage, about 100 Dutch soccer players are of Pele's calibre in goalscoring. This is definitely not the case. Charles Davis obviously made a big mistake: assuming normal distribution for goal average/batting average/whatever.

Some other statistics: Eddy Merckx entered 1582 cycling races as a professional cyclist, of which he won 445. If we assume that there are only 10 cyclists in every race (there are many more), and that every cyclist in the race has equal probability of winning, then the binomial distribution tells us that such an achievement (or better) has a probability of only 0.0000(130 zeroes)002 %. This would imply that Eddy Merckx was a much better sportsman than Donald Bradman.

This is also bad statistics, because I compare things that should not be compared in this way. I looked up information about Charles Davis, and it is clear that he is a big cricket-fan. Nothing wrong with being a cricket-fan in general, but it is bad to let a cricket-fan decide which method will be used to determine the best sportsman of all time, and not frown upon the result that a cricket-player comes out best.

I understand that Davis wrote a book about it. I haven't. But I feel Davis should stick to cricket-statistics, and wikipedia should not use his other-sports-statistics, because he clearly (in my opinion) fails here. I hope that I made that clear. Although I understand statistics, I am not a statistician myself. There must be some real statistician that saw this strange result, and said something about it. Unfortunately, I don't know who did this and where. What is above here is only the opinion of one wikipedian (although according to me it is a fact ;)). I could just remove the flawed statistics, but I have the feeling that it would reappear soon. If somebody can find the statistician that explained that these statistics are wrong, put the info here. Then the bad statistics can disappear. --213.46.8.134 (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Davis: A bradmanesque achievement isTennis: 15-20 Grand Slam titles in 10 years. Margaret Court won 20 single Grand Slam titles from 1960 to 1970. Steffi Graf won 21 single Grand Slam titles between 1987 and 1996.

And statistically unbeatable: the ice skater Eric Heiden. In a professional career of about 4 years, he won 4 times the world sprint skating championship, 3 times allround (and 1 time second place), and 5 olympic golden medals (all medals available for ice skating). He won every race he could win, only coming second once in the world allround championship. Clearly these three sportspersons show better statistics than Bradman. I don't claim they were better sportspersons, I only claim their statistics are better. Margaret Smith Court and Steffi Graf show better statistics even according to Davis' own rules :S --213.46.8.134 (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is fascinating (I even understood some of the maths) but without RS your opinions, no matter how reasonably argued, are OR. --Dweller (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, that's why I did not change the article. There are two things I want to do: 1. Ask other wikipedians, when they see RS that disagrees with Davis, to put it here. 2. Make clear that Davis is not a reliable source here. Davis' list of best sportspeople fits well on a fan site, but not in an encyclopedia. I explicitly want to make clear that I do NOT want to include MSC, Steffi Graf nor Eric Heiden on this list; I say we should remove the list altogether, because the source is not reliable in this context.--213.46.8.134 (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me that a lot of people don't understand statistics and particularly standard deviations. Let me clear up a simpler misunderstanding. "Once in every 9300 players, a person of Pele's calibre will show up" is correct. This does not of course mean 9300 casual players, it means 9300 international footballers who are a rather rarer beast. Davis claims Bradman comes out ahead in his sport and in the other sports he looked at in terms of standard deviations. The performance of cricket batsmen follows a more or less perfect bell curve - a normal distribution with a low variance - with very few over 50 and just 4 at an average of 60 plus, 1 at an average above 61, Bradman, out of the thousands that have batted in tests. These 60 plus guys are already a couple of standard deviations away from the norm. It is beacause of the lack of variance over so many players that Bradmans singular average is so many SD's from the mean. Compare this to the number of tennis players bandied about as Bradman beaters. Well the fact we can name Court, King, Graff, Federer, Sampras and Borg as exceptional players suggests that the variance in tennis is much higher than that in cricket, the very fact that there are so many extremely successful tennis players means that they are not as far in terms of SD's from the mean as each one adds to variance. The ice skating guy doesnt even come close, a 2 second scan of the history of champs in his events show guys that have won more often than him! As for the supposed maths about cycling that simply proves that the sport measures a skill and that the cyclist is skilled in that skill, rather than simply random results. Or to put it simply, it just says taht cycle races have an element of skill, they are not simply random events. Try to bear in mind that Davis is a professional statistician and as such if your thinking disagrees with his, most likely you are wrong. --LiamE (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on the "ice skating guy"; some guys have won more, but in a longer career. Davis is a professional statistician, but it looks like his love for cricket disturbed his statistics. Cricket is a good sports for statistics. Other sports are not. If you want to compare tennis players with cricket players, what do you compare? Points won? Games won? Sets won? Matches won? Tournaments won? Any statistician can tell you that the result depends on the rule you choose. Davis choose a set of rules. A set of rules that might look ok on first sight, but should be examined more carefully. But Davis is a statistician, so I will assume that he did this well. But there is the simple fact that according to Davis' own rules, Court and Graf are better than Bradman. Now you can choose to make a new set of rules (not looking at standard deviations anymore, but looking at how many exceptional players we can name for a sport), but then you make the set of rules after the 'experiment', and that is pseudo-science. Bradman was good at cricket. Graf was good at tennis. Who was better? Uncomparable. --Pie.er (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that they are comparable in terms of standard deviations from the mean in their own sports. If you don't understand that you simply have no place even reading what a statistician has to say let alone question it. --LiamE (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparable, of course. No one doubted that. Of course there is very large correlation between persons that are "several standard deviations better" in their sport, and persons that are the only exceptional player in their sport. But, as you of course understand, they are not the same. Davis chose to use the standard deviation criterion, (which can be argued to be a good choice), and in that criterion Graf is better than Bradman. And in real science, you shouldn't change the method only because you don't like the result... --Pie.er (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is better to remain silent and appear stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Throwing in terms like real science still won't deflect from the fact that you know jack about statistics. Where are your results for Graf? You are talking rubbish, you have neither calculated the variance not the SD of tennis grand slam title winners nor shown that Graff is more than 4.4 standard deviations from mean for a pro tennis player so how can you say she is better than Bradman "in that criterion"? The standard deviation is not a criterion, it is the result used for comparison. Davis did not change criteria to suit, he used the best available for each sport he looked at. The criterion for tennis was grand slam title wins, for cricket the batsman's average, for baseball batting average etc... in each case a solid choice for each sport in question. The only one that I noticed that could be questioned was using goals per game for footballers as that is not a commonly used stat. Please stop trying to critique what you clearly do not understand. "Of course there is very large correlation between persons that are "several standard deviations better" in their sport, and persons that are the only exceptional player in their sport" What the hell is that meant to mean? What correlates between them? If you can find a good cite to say the Davis' work is flawed then cite it otherwise stop trying to flog the dead horse of your bogus OR here thanks very much. --LiamE (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. Check the archives of this page, to find the source of the section in the article. You will see that it was Charles Davis who said that a tennis player achieves a bradmanesque achievement when he/she conquers 15/20 grand slam titles in 10 years. Not me. Charles Davis did the maths. Charles Davis is a statistician. There is no need to go into deep statistical analysis here, because Charles Davis already did this. And his result was that Bradmans achievement is at the same level as a tennis player that wins 15/20 grand slam titles in 10 years. All I do is point out the fact that Steffi Graf did this. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't have to do statistics ourselves (which is good because you even seem to be unaware of correlation), it's just simple logic. (btw: Davis' work is not peer-reviewed.) But check out Phanto's comment below, this might solve some things.--Pie.er (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking correlation does not make the highlighted sentence above make any more sense. --LiamE (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Try making points without being abusive, LiamE. I'd like to point your in the direction of the "No personal attacks" link at the top of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.43.39 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point: Davis is attempting to measure the gap between Bradman's batting average and the next best batsmen, then comparing it to other sports and selecting the best statistically performed player and measuring the gap to the second best. It's that simple; I haven't read the book so I don't know the methodology but that is the basis of the comparison, not "Bradman is better than Steffi Graf/Ty Cobb/Tiger Woods/that bloke what won 78 world championships in some sport most people have to have spelled to them to know what it is". The reason the table is in the biog is that Bradman is the only sporting figure about which it is claimed he is the best sports person ever. Of course it is a matter of opinion and can never be resolved; but the fact that the claim is made is notable. Look up Michael Jordan's article, is this claim made? no. Pele, uh-uh, no. So all Davis is trying to do is apply a statistical basis to a matter of opinion and help contextualise Bradman's dominance of his sport, particularly for the many people unfamiliar with cricket. Phanto282 (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree with this. But then the article is not clear... --Pie.er (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather late into this discussion, but I thought I'd make a couple of points. (Disclosure: I have occasionally corresponded with Charles Davis on matters of cricket statistics.) Firstly, the figure of 15 to 20 Grand Slam titles in tennis refers only to men's tennis. The number of titles required to match Bradman in women's tennis would probably be different, because there is probably a different standard deviation across the women's game compared to the men's.

Davis's analysis of soccer looked at goals per game, with (I think) some factor for length of career. Given this, I suspect that Gerd Müller would have a higher z-score than Pelé, though not quite as high as Bradman's.

Davis also didn't look at champions in other sports, most notably ice hockey and cycling, where Wayne Gretzky and Eddy Mercx could well have z-scores up near Bradman's. I've done a bit of work myself on Gretzky and I think he's comparable to Bradman. Obviously that doesn't belong in the article, because it's original (and not all that rigorous) research. But what I would suggest is that it hasn't been demonstrated that Bradman is the most dominant "in all major sports". It has been pretty well demonstrated that he's more dominant in cricket than those greats mentioned in the article in tennis, basketball, soccer (probably), golf, and baseball. Pappubahry (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no-one comparable to Bradman and that is obvious by inspection :-) The difference between Bradman and the Second best batsmen was the same difference between the second best batsmen and basically the worst batsmen (99.94 - 61 - 23). For Gretzky to be comparable his performance would need to be as far ahead as the second greatest ice-hockey player as that player is ahead of the worst pro-players. This is what makes Bradman incomparable. Not how far ahead of the average he is. But how far ahead of second best he is. The only comparison I can think of is Bob Beamon's long jump when he took the world record from 8.35m to 8.90m. Then imagine him doing that for his whole career rather than just once. That's how good Bradman was. Being from the U.K. there is no Australian bias here! Macgruder (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is the best?

Is bradmen the best batsmen so far or is Tandulker the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattav2 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tendulkar is a fine batsman. He does not compare to Bradman, however. --LiamE (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Rainwater tank

I have unsuccessfully looked for references to Bradmans childhood golfball/cricket stump game, in that the rainwater tank he played against was made of corrugated iron. I can recall this from my childhood, but without a reference I am hesitant to add this information, though I believe it to be important as it emphasises the difficulty required. Can anyone verify my anecdote? Nazlfrag (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He hit the ball into the stand supporting the tank, not the tank itself.

Phanto282 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added it. See Donald_Bradman#Youth_and_early_career --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Table of Completed Test Career Batting Averages

The table of Completed Test Career Batting Averages near the end of the article has Everton Weekes' nationality as ENG when it should be WI, but I couldn't find a way to change it, so someone more familiar to the page needs to have a look. (08/03/2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.93.8 (talk • contribs) 8 March 2008

I've fixed this. Thanks for pointing it out. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I heard that when he visited his grandfathers melon farm, he would run wildly with a stick and puncture them. The moment a pip flew out of them, Bradman would 'hit it for six' with said stick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.200.94 (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The table is outdated aswell,hussey,kallis and ponting would now be included in the top 15 now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanbhag.rohan (talk • contribs) 07:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed the fact that the table only includes players who have retired from international cricket. This is because of many reasons, not least of which is that many players' averages decline late in their careers, making the comparison less useful. It's also to ensure it doesn't need constant updating. All of those players are still playing international cricket. --Dweller (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

oh,seems logical then —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanbhag.rohan (talk • contribs) 03:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Shanbhag.rohan 03:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bradman v. O'Reilly

FA article Tiger O'Reilly set in the section "Conflict with Bradman" that there were religious issues in the Australian cricket team at this time, between Catholics (and among them O'Reilly) and Protestants (Bradman). I didn't find anything in this article (and not in the article about the controversies involving Bradman, too... the religious issue is not clearly stated in these two articles...) about that fact, that is rather crucial. Doesn't it worth to be written here ? OrangeKnight (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just spotted this. According to an article about Bradman in the 2008 Wisden, the religious divide thing has been overplayed by some writers. Unfortunately the article does not seem to be available online at Cricinfo. JH (talk page) 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC Drive issues

1. Popular culture section seems to have too many bitty subsects, some of which are really too trivial for this article, IMHO
2. Ref #4 (about no-one averaging more than 61) is really a footnote. It would be useful if we differentiated - there are other needs for footnotes elsewhere
3. All links need to be double checked
4. Someone needs to complete the referencing for the mathematician's book

More to come, probably --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bradman Cookies

I thought this to be somewhat relevant, but could not figure whther to put it here or in Donald Bradman in popular culture

source: http://www.hindu.com/mp/2005/03/23/stories/2005032300640400.htm

In 2005, an Australian biscuit company was given the right to name their line of chocolate chip cookies manfactured in India after Bradman, as they would be donating 2% of the proceeds for the "development of India's underprivileged children"

Also, I'd like to help in any other way that I can. Abeer.ag (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Too trivial for the main biog, but may be appropriate for the popular culture one. --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fingleton's injury Oval 1938

From a source on the spot, so to speak. "Fingleton too had retired from the contest with a badly torn leg muscle" - Bradman, Don Farewell to Cricket p. 108 -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fluffy triv?

I'd like to leave the stamps and coins info, but remove the arterial road for being fluffy triv. Any objections? --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the coin, I do have one in my collection. Would it be a good idea to add a small image of it in the section towards the end called "Later years and legacy", or would I need a fair use rationale? Schumi555 (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden comments

Just note that there are about half a dozen hidden comments (and a hidden bunch of ELs). If you click "edit" on the article page and then Ctrl-F, search for <!-- to find them. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed ELs

I have removed the ELs below from the article. Most have been hidden for some time. Does anyone want to argue strongly for the retention of any of these?

• Bradman interviewed before the fifth Test in 1930 – Australian Screen
• The Bradman Trail
• Babe Ruth was the Don Bradman of America – Brisbane Courier-Mail
• Sir Donald Bradman Tribute Section
• Obituary in Wisden by EW Swanton
• BBC tribute to Bradman
• ABC tribute to Bradman
• Bradman and the British
• Protestant Bradman felt uneasy among Catholic teammates
• Bradman's career as a selector
• Video footage of Bradman in full flight

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

I make it 37 citations needed, plus two entire uncited sections, at the moment. All help welcomed. --Dweller (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a bunch of them, dunno how many needed now. Abeer.ag (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added some more, too. Now down to 25 + 1 section. --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Now 21+1. The remaining unreferenced section comes wholesale from the Bradman Museum website. According to the page, it's not been updated since 2005. We may need to go through this line by line and cite every record to show it still exists. Some of the records are rather low profile ones and may be difficult to cite: I'd suggest that this demonstrates less notability and they should be removed from this biog article. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Perosnally, for whatever my opinion is worth, I think they should remain there. I added a few refs there and too other sections too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeer.ag (talk • contribs) 08:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. To be picky, the source for "Most centuries scored in a single session of play" is from 2005 and can't be relied upon for being still current. I'm very happy to include all the ones you've referenced and hopefully we can find up to date sources for the remaining few, or they'll have to go. --Dweller (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, we now just need 18 citations, mostly about Bradman's family life. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Added some-very few left now.Abeer.ag (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Five, to be precise. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Number 66 is invalid. Abeer.ag (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Standard deviations and probabilities

Probabilities removed, per discussion at [1] --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nickname

The infobox at the moment lists Bradman's nickname as "The Don". This was certainly used by the general public but the nickname used amongst his teammates was "Braddles". Looking for a reliable source for this I found this site but I am having trouble convincing myself that it is reliable enough for use in this article. Does anyone have a better RS. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 04:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The website is the Bradman Museum's official website. It is definetly reliable enough. Abeer.ag (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Once you've added it, Matt, I'll add both Braddles and Boy from Bowral to the infobox, methinks. --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation Reliability

I don't know about 334notout.com, but I can confirm the reliability of rediff.com and oneindia.in: they're two one of India's most popular portals. www.leski.com.au seems like a genuine auctioner's website. The polio link isn't really needed (it just states that there was a polio epidemic in Adelaide in the years stated), and can be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeer.ag (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see this till now. All were picked up at the Peer Review and have been replaced. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"...widely acknowledged"

This term (used in the opening sentence) is the result of considerable debate at the article's second Peer Review and the Cricket WikiProject.

As such, it has been arrived at following much thought among those familiar with our processes and with cricket history. It is a term arrived at by consensus. Therefore, tempting as I know it is, please do not amend it unilaterally.

Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Clique?

"A clique of players who were openly hostile toward Bradman formed during the tour. For some, the prospect of playing under Bradman was daunting, as was the knowledge that he would additionally be sitting in judgment of their abilities in his role as a selector."

This section may need some work. It seems to me to be a touch POV and weaselly. Firstly "clique" is a word with a negative colouring, its use here instantly portrays Bradman as a virtuous victim of a secret cabal, so secret that the names of the clique members are not known. Secondly, the wording as it stands seems to suggest that there was no justification for any hostility other than jealousy and fear of being dropped from the team. I find this hard to believe; there is no reason to believe that Fingleton, O'Reilly et al (I assume these are the clique) were less than honourable men who would not be likely to carry grudges without cause, and at least in O'Reilly's case, fear of non-selection is surely not a factor. The infamous meeting of the board with O'Reilly, O'Brien, McCabe and Fleetwood-Smith (all Roman Catholics of Irish descent in a sectarian time) where an implicit suggestion of disloyalty to Bradman was made, has not been included either. Discussion of cliques without including this incident seems to me unbalanced.

There are legitimate reasons why Bradman may not have been universally loved in the dressing room, including his single mindedness and his seeming unwillingness to socialise with team mates. These don't involve taking a position that jealousy and fear were the driving force behind his detractors, which in its current form is a little weaselly anyway. For example, who actually said "the prospect of playing under Bradman was daunting". It has the feel of journalistic psychoanalysis from a distance.

The article is coming along very well and for such a monumental figure in cricket and Australian sporting culture, it is reasonably well balanced. There are mentions of his percieved failings throughout the article. I do think however, we need to ensure that we bend over backwards to avoid hagiography; there are plenty of these written about him elsewhere. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point - I shortened this section a while ago when I was trying to reduce the size of the article and used the word "clique" as a shorthand with the intention of forking an article on the sectarian divisions etc that occurred in the 1930s. However, the article hasn't been created yet. You are assuming that the clique is the four who fronted the board + Fingleton, but on the SA tour it included Richardson and Grimmett, and possibly Oldfield; the first two had their careers finished on their return, while Oldfield was a controversial omission from the 38 tour. O'Reilly tells the story of a conversation before the 36-7 series when Bradman asked, who is better, Grimmett or Ward? Bradman ignored all opinion and Ward was picked. Several lesser-remembered players, such as Hans Ebeling and Cec Pepper, supposedly had their international careers truncated after clashing with Bradman on the field. Keith Miller's omission from the 49-50 SA tour was never explained. The point about all this is Bradman's power during the second half of his career - he was captain, selector and administrator - an unprecedented combination in Australia's cricket history. If you look at the 36-7 series, only McCabe and O'Reilly (and maybe Fingleton) were certain selections throughout the series. This is a complex issue perhaps best handled in a separate article, but the disharmony within the team during the late 30s must be addressed in some form in this article. The original source for the quote above was Williams: he devotes a fair bit of space to it. I'm not quite sure what's weaselly about it.

Phanto282 (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think in the scope of this particular article, it's best addressed by changing "clique" to "group", which is NPOV. I suggest the other material, which is fascinating (and I've heard it ascribed to drinkers v teetotaller too) goes into the Controversies involving Don Bradman daughter article. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading my comments back, they read a little more trenchant than I intended. I shouldn't post to talk pages when I am tired and cranky :-) I take your point Phanto about my assumption and your explanation of the reasoning is exactly what I was looking for as balancing content in the article. As it stands the article seems as if the group were malcontents for no real reason. On reflection, the weasel words are very minor in nature and I have no objection to them being retained, but really "the prospect of playing under Bradman was daunting, as was the knowledge that he would additionally be sitting in judgment of their abilities in his role as a selector" is only Williams' opinion and not an observable fact and probably should be attributed to him. And Dweller, my (extremely lapsed) Catholic background probably makes this comment safe: Irish Catholic and drinkers were seen as sets with a large common overlap! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that you wrote trenchantly; debate is important. Just before the famous board meeting with the four players, Johnny Moyes (a close friend of Bradman) wrote: "There is a growing conviction that Bradman is not being properly supported and that conviction is spreading through the ranks of officialdom. It is not an easy thing to prove and possibly it has its origins in the fact that for years since his marvellous tour of England in 1930 there has been in certain quarters in this state [ie, NSW] an antagonism which has made Bradman's cricket life anything but happy. If any of this feeling still survives - it had its origins in jealousy - officials and selectors should at once take prompt disciplinary action". Just after the meeting, the Sun News Pictorial wrote: "The least the board can do now is to issue a statement which will scotch at once all the foolish stories of dissension and cliques that have gained circulation through the impulsive methods of its own special executive." This, of course, did not happen. The four players appeared before only four board members: Dr Allen Robertson (the board chairman), Aubrey Oxlade, Harry Hodgetts (Bradman's boss) and Jack Hutcheon (the arch-conservative Queenslander). From a modern perspective, Gideon Haigh (a Bradman iconoclast of the first order) wrote: "It was simply too easy for the players to conclude that they had been victims of sectarianism: a perception influenced by the fact that Oxlade and Hodgetts, like Bradman, were masons". I think clique is the right word, and I chose it carefully after bearing in mind the varied assortment of other players who are known to dislike Bradman - eg Richardson, Grimmett, Oldfield (himself a mason); a recent biography of Ponsford claims that he retired early from Test cricket as he didn't want to play under Bradman. On the other hand, Bradman was close to Hassett and Chappie Dwyer, both Catholics (Hassett wasn't part of the clique that clearly existed on the 38 tour). If there is a commonality within the clique, it is more to do with geography, ie NSW and later SA, where Bradman played his domestic cricket.

Phanto282 (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My copyediting

I'm currently copyediting the article. In my copyediting, I removed the part "The relationship between Bradman and his wider family is less clear." I didn't really think the sentence was necessary, but if I'm wrong, please say so. Thank you, RyRy5 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he didn't attend the funerals of his parents, and he had nothing to do with his brother, who was his polar opposite (ie, a drinker & a ladies man who divorced). You never hear anything of his three sisters. His nephew called him a snob and a loner (after Bradman's death) and accused him of neglecting his connections in Bowral. How many cooks are attending this copy-editing broth?

Phanto282 (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're wrong. RyRy5, this edit [2] changed the meaning of the sentence entirely, and this [3] has moved from good to bad grammar. I'm reverting both. Moondyne 14:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for letting me know. That is my mistake. I was asked to help copy-edit the article, but I'm not too experienced with cricket related ones. Um, may I introduce you a user who has great experience in cricket related articles? He/She could probably help. -- RyRy5 (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Two leg guard

[4] I came across a statement that says that Bradman took a "two leg" guard - arising from an "imaginary line drawn from the batsman's middle stump through the back of his head, coming out between the eyes and continuing down the pitch to the bowler's middle stump" Worth adding? Abeer.ag (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fascinating, but I think it just oversteps into being too technical for this medium. For an article for a cricket site (like, erm, Cricinfo!) it's perfect, but... Does anyone disagree with me? --Dweller (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be added to Donald Bradman's batting technique?Abeer.ag (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely more justifiable. --Dweller (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)