Don

good obituary. bad english. improve on your writing or get stuff edited. The numerous language errors are not befitting in an obituary to The Don, the perfect.

Read Umair Hoodbhoy`s day of the bowler. That is good english and a great piece of writing.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: anamika # 5

As everyone on this site knows, I am not a fan of cricket. I do not know if it is my Americanized attitude or a lack of an adqueate attention span, more likely the latter, but I would like to lodge a protest against your comments.

The article was a tribute to the Sir Donald Bradman, whom I personally think was a great practioner of the game during his day. What ever cricket may have devolved in the years since Sir Donald batted and played is another debate for another time.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but please try to avoid saying things, which diminish the memory of some one who is dead. The article was about the memory of Sir Donald and all the interacts, were a reflection of that sentiment.

Your animosity against cricket, for what ever reasons, should not cast a pale of denigeration on a memory of a man, who was, and is, considered as the very symbol of the game.

You may disagree with the commercialization of cricket and its mal effects on the various tradtions of India and Pakistan, but can you offer something more viable in return of cricket?

The Australians loved Sir Donald, because during the bleek days of depression, he offered them a moments escape from the daily hopeless grind of their existence.

In many ways, cricket offers an escape to the yoked humanity of India and Pakistan from their daily travails and what ever may be bad about cricket, if it makes the life of an Indian or a Pakistani bearable for one day, then in the overal scale of redemnation, I am willing to live with a little evil if some good comes from it!

Ciao!

A fitting obituary!

Donald Bradman

Mar 1st 2001

From The Economist print edition

Sir Donald George Bradman, the greatest batsman, died on February 25th, aged 92

[Hulton Getty]

LOOKING at a picture of Donald Bradman in his heyday, perhaps the first thing you notice is that he is not wearing the armour that makes cricketers these days resemble Hannibal Lecter. Cricket seemed less brutal then; it still retained some of its flavour of a summer’s game “invented by the English to give themselves some concept of eternity”, as an anonymous wit put it. Would Sir Donald, as he subsequently became, have done so well in modern conditions, creating records that are unlikely ever to be beaten? No one knows, and to take sides can lead to a bar-room quarrel. But it is reasonable to say, under the journalist’s protection of fair comment, that he would have had a tougher time of it, as indeed he did during the great bodyline bowling epic.

Cricket historians tend to hasten over this episode as being unworthy of the game. But it has persisted in public memory, if only because it is a drama easy to understand without needing to know the more arcane aspects of the game. Here was young Bradman, aged 24 and already a batting phenomenon feared wherever cricket was played, which in those days was at least all of the British empire. He was the weapon with which Australia looked forward to crushing the English team on its visit in 1932-33.

The English captain, Douglas Jardine, though, was equally determined to humiliate the Australians. Whether he called them “the convicts” has never been confirmed. It would have been in character. As the Australians sneeringly observed, he was a toff. Jardine decided to use a tactic called “leg theory”. Despite its fancy name, in essence this amounted to sending down a very fast ball aimed at the batsman. Trying to avoid the missile, the batsman would fumble and deliver a catch to a nearby fielder.

The Australians were dismayed as their stars hobbled off the ground wounded. Even their Don was hit. Worse, he wasn’t getting the huge scores he was used to. One time he managed only 13 runs against the English bowling tornado Harold Larwood. The dispute became political. Words were exchanged between the British and Australian cabinets. Eventually things calmed down. Bodyline bowling, it was seriously agreed, was not cricket.

The heroic years

Less serious people said it had been jolly exciting and welcomed home the victorious Jardine. But new rules ended bodyline. Jardine and Larwood were sacrificed from the English team. Donald Bradman resumed getting impossible scores. Australia won the next six encounters with England. A kind of awe developed around this self-taught batsman from the Australian outback whose very presence on the field depressed England’s finest. Stories of his prowess reached the United States, which also has its favourite bat-and-ball game. An impressed observer on the New York Times wrote, “He simply keeps hitting and running until some sensible person in the stands suggests a spot of tea.”

His more adulatory fans have suggested that not only was Sir Donald the greatest of cricketers but perhaps the greatest of all sportsmen, a claim that might be disputed by admirers of Pelé and Joe DiMaggio. It is said his exploits may have cheered up Australia in the 1930s, when the country was badly hit by the Great Depression. No one wanted its raw materials, and about a quarter of the workforce was jobless. But did families feel less hungry when word came over the radio that their hero had hit another couple of centuries?

Some who lived then have said this happened, and Sir Donald’s beatification as an inspirational force in time of trouble has been much paraded since his death this week. “Australia’s Churchill,” declared a normally sober cricketing writer. John Howard, the Australian prime minister, simply thanked God for him and ordered a state memorial service. Sir Donald was Mr Howard’s perfect Australian, anti-republican, admirer of royalty and politically a conservative. In every way except his mastery of the bat he seems to have been a fairly ordinary chap. As athletes do, he slowed down while quite young. In 1948, when he was 40, he was dismissed without scoring in his last game against England.

Sir Donald prospered as a stockbroker and for many years helped to select Australia’s cricket team. He saw cricket developing into the gladiatorial game it is now, with fast bowlers challenging the restrictions brought in to end bodyline. Batsmen, in turn, were seeking more reliable protection than the rulebook. As well as leg-pads and gloves, a player these days will wear a helmet with face guard, thigh pad and protection for chest, arms and abdomen. Running at all requires a special effort.

The game that in the 18th century had featured underarm bowling by players in lace shirts and knickerbockers has sought to keep its audience interested. As bowlers get ever faster, padded suits and strengthened helmets could make cricketers look like American footballers. Players may be wired up to get advice from their trainers. Cricket may move indoors to avoid the weather. Whether Sir Donald would have coped will be argued. The luxury of being remembered is his reward for being the best of his time.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Where can I obtain a copy of ``Bodyline``?.

Latif,

Thanks for the info, ... yes I meant Larwood and not Hayward.... what a foul up. Character of D Jardine in Bodyline always seemed to me so larger than life...

Yasser Hamdani

Dear Studebaker:

You said: `` India lost by 10 wickets,Tendulker run out.With 2 days to spare.Where was he rushing to catch the bus to church gate??????``

Tendulkar wasn`t run out. As he was beating the bejeezus out of the Aussies, he hit a full blooded pull shot into the Forward shot leg`s back and the ball ricocheted to square leg where Ponting pulled off the most amazing of catches.

You said: ``Im glad Shariff &Kasif was dropped.``

I can only assume that you are referring to Zaheer Khan & Mohammad Kaif.

Please stop smoking pot while watching cricket. Maybe then we`ll talk!

Khoodahafiz

Latif Chappu

Re: YLH

I have `Bodyline` on tape.

When you say Hayward I assume you mean Harold Larwood. The others in the battery were Bill Voce (with the wrong footed action), Bill Bowes & Sir Gubby Allen.

Gubby was the token amateur in the team and also a man of great stature. Which is why Jardine couldn`t do much when Gubby refused to bowl bodyline. As it turned out, Gubby took 21 wickets, second only behind Larwood`s 33.

Another man who refused to play bodyline of course was the Nawab of Pataudi Sr. But him being a brownie was summarily sacked by Jardine even though he scored a century on debut the match before.

When Pataudi told Jardine, ``I can`t play your way, Douglas my friend``, Jardine snapped back, ``Then you`ll never play test cricket again``.

As it turned out, Iftikhar Pataudi did play test cricket again, for India.

Latif

No doubt the Don was a great batsman--and statistically unrivalled and unlikely to be either-but was he really better than Sir Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards at his peak? I think that had Bradman played in the modern era-what with Holding and Co., and Waqar and Wasim etc. roaring in over after over his average would still have been outstanding but no way near the 100 mark. He averaged 57 in the bodyline series [the tv series is great!]--I would argue that the cricket played in the 70s and 80s especially during the heyday of the Windies pace quartets was even more fierce than bodyline--and that his average would have been closer to that figure than 99.94. Cricket as it is played now is a TOTALLY different game to the one the Don played.

Of the current players I think Sachin is the best although when both are in full flow no one can touch Lara.Both are touched with rare genius.

I think that in terms of ability both these (and a few others o the recent past) were as good as Bradman.

But, I agree with Ian Botham when he says that Viv in his opinion was the greatest player ever.

Re : has anyone seen ``Bodyline`` the series?

Way back in 1987, I had seen this epic movie. It is very well produced, highlighting the British tactic ever so well. Its a great film. with some romance and stuff thrown in for good measure as a backdrop to some very exciting and `frightening` cricket.

Bradman is protrayed as the calmest customer in cricket, which he inevitable was. They mappede his strokes on the oval field. Thre was not a direction on the field in which he had not played a stroke, and from both bowling ends. It was amazing;a mesh of lines emanating in 360 degree, from the two focii of the oval playground. :)

Asim

Asim

Thankyou for your kind words and advice, and you too studebaker. I will make a note of it.

Coming to the late Sir Donald Bradman, two other men I think need mention in this most amazing sage are Douglass Jardine and Hayward... has anyone seen ``Bodyline`` the series?

Yasser Hamdani

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: ylh

``Couldnt she have found another medium, or another forum for her ``cricket-bashing``... ``

Perhaps she could have. Could you not have ignored her emarks and taken the high moral ground as opposed to dropping to such rabid and pointless namecalling.

I feel, the fact that you hold much revernce for cricket and the late Mr Bradman. Yet that is no excuse to lose your temperament; for by doing that, despite your excellent credentials as a conscientious, well edcuated, and intelligent guy, you come across as anything but.

We as a nation are too quick to overreact, not a redemming feature at all. That is not say that i dont do it. Yet nowadays i make a conscientious effort to tone down my response, despite my inner emotions. Why let them know that they have gotten to you very bad. Its something, u need to learn to control for doing business negotaitions or as mundane as salary negotiations.

The above is not menat in any patronising sense. Just some advise my dad gave to me, which i had always found useful though difficult to stick to.

All the best. Indeed Mr Bradman was a cricketing marvel!

Sincerely,

Asim

It was the insensitivity of her comment, in wake of a grave loss to the cricketing world and Australia.

Couldnt she have found another medium, or another forum for her ``cricket-bashing``... sure she is entitled to her views stupid or otherwise... but why express them on an obituary for a great man?

Re: Studebaker

In the Tendulkar era, the Indian team has been a collection of 10 mediocre players (especially bowlers) and one truly great one. As evidenced by the first test against the Aussies, it is not Tendya that is `choking` or not `delivering` but the rest of the twerps. Surely you don`t `blame` him for not having a halfway decent team around him.

And you are right! Tendulkar`s average of 58 needs to be seen in the light of how cricket is played these days.

I wonder what Sir Donald George Bradman`s average would have been had he been playing for a team with a .375 winning percentage and three of his team mates including his captain `fixing` games.

If your take is that even though Tendulkar averaged 68 over the last 10 matches he`s `finished` because he hasn`t `delivered`; then I must concur with your earlier admission that your are no student of cricket.