Jeff Thomson's comment posted on cricinfo: On a rest day during the Indian tour in 1977-78, Don Bradman was around in the nets. I was bowling only legspin to him, but he had a couple of young blokes trying to get him out. With no pads, no nothing ... for a 68-year-old, he belted the hell out of them on a turf wicket. And he hadn't batted for 20 years. I went back in and said, "Why isn't this bastard playing with us tomorrow?" That's how good I thought he was.

Overall fielding has been improving by day, but there were great fielders in Don's era too. For instance, Wally Hammond's brilliance in the slip cordon may have been matched but never surpassed. At least in Don's case the fielding/catching doesn't make a huge difference for 2 reasons. 1) Bradman's placement was impeccable and even if there were 9 Jonty, the difference would be minimal 2) Catching would hardly matter as Bradman rarely hit the ball in the air

Anyway, it's always easy to argue against but I feel Bradman was way better than his numbers suggested:
1) He lost his best 8 years to WW II 2) He played a number of Test series with extreme illness that would be severe enough for the modern day "greats" to sit out for months 3) They played 10 times more tour matches and hence the total number of actual on-field days is as many as now if not more 4) He couldn't serve in the army because he had a poor eyesight 5) Uncovered wickets, ground sizes, lack of protection gear, diet ..

The list is endless, anyway responding to some of your statements: *There aren't many footages on pre WW II pace bowlers, but there were heaps more than merely Tyson and Trueman in the next two decades. *Verity was almost as good as O'Reilly and it's no exaggeration to say that Bradman would've averaged over 150 IN England had it not been for Hedley. *I assume you tried to be funny in terms of wicketkeepers' agility. Again, going by the brilliance of those in the 50s and 60s, it's safe to assume that keepers were as good if not better. *I believe attributing Don's failure (by his standards) in the Bodyline series to the "leg-theory" is absurd. He faced equally hostile attacks before and after; but without that particular field and hence with the current laws of cricket WI quartets wouldn't have a made much of a difference. *It's quite stupid to assume reverse swing is harder to play than a genuine conventional swing. It's just that we don't have many genuine swing bowlers around now!

To follow up from RM. Yes, the issue with bodyline was neither the pace nor the short pitched bowling, but the stacked leg side fields, which are now illegal (as are 6 bouncers per over!). Furthermore, if the game really is so much more difficult today, then why don't batsmen in general have lower averages now than in the past? If you break down all batsmen with a test average of more than 50 by the decades they appeared in from the 20's on (excluding the 40's because of WWII), you get 6 batsmen in the 20's, 8 in the 30's, 8 in the 50's, 5 in the 60's, 8 in the 70's, 7 in the 80's, then 14 in the 90's and 14 in the last decade (1999-2008). So the last 20 years has hardly been the hardest on batsmen - the 60's appears to have that honour sewn up. The fact that for me epitomises Bradman's uniqueness, which would translate to any era in cricket is that apparently he was never once hit on his hands. As he told Steve Waugh, "You'd have to miss the ball to do that."

I would like to know the view of people how good would some of the modern batsmen have been at Bradmans time. Maybe only Lara & Tendulakar and maybe Ponting would have had the same level of success

If batting in that age was really easier than it is today, then we would have expected batsmen of Bradman's age IN GENERAL to have a higher average than the current crop. But they don't. That suggests to me that along with modern fielding techniques that might be making a batsman's life more difficult, there might be other factors that are tilting the balance back the other way - i.e. making it easier for batsmen. Covered pitches come to mind straight away.

Either way you look at it, if batting was easier fifty years ago, then it must have been easier for ALL batsmen playing in that era. The numbers clearly don't bear that out. Even in that era, batsmen struggled to keep their averages over 50 (if anything, it has become easier now to average 50 in test matches).

There simply is no explanation for someone to dominate an entire history of sport like Bradman has done. Maybe it's better we stop looking for one.

Face it, guys, the man's a genius among geniuses.

I think Bradman would have been the greatest batsman of this generation too, and would probably adjust to any type of bowling. But average 99.94? What about changes in the laws? As I understand it, in his time you could only be given out LBW if the ball PITCHED in line with the stumps. We don't know how many times he might have been LBW under the current law where the ball can pitch outside off...

Regarding the point about Bradman never facing O'Reilly or Grimmett in Test cricket, he did face them both at Sheffield Shield level, and I believe that he averaged over 100 for both South Australia and New South Wales. So I think it's fair to assume that he could have suceeded against them at Test level, and against Warne and Murali too.

I also agree with RM's comment- that if someone's good enough at placing the ball and timing it well, then it should be able to beat the field anyhow. Besides, I'm sure the weightier bats with the bigger sweet spots than the ones in the 30's would compensate for any difference.

Whether Bradman would have been any good against top-class fast bowling is unknown, since he hardly ever faced it. You refer to Tyson and Trueman but neither of them made their first-class debuts until after Bradman retired and are completely irrelevant.

Bradman chose his time very well if he was keen on avoiding fast bowling in Test cricket.

During his career, England possesed Larwood for a couple of series in which he would bowl four spells of three or four overs a day, Gubby Allen, who was quick when he was young but not by 1936-37, and Ken Farnes, who, like Larwood, could only keep high pace up for a dozen overs a day, if that.

Australia had none at all.

RM's fantasy that he faced attacks equally hostile to the one mounted in 1932-3 is amusing but wildly inaccurate.

This is easy to resolve. We compare him to his contemporaries. Hammond, Hutton, Ponsford, Morris, Harvey, etc. are all considered legends of the game. They also averaged just over 50.

If anything, averages are higher today - 50 is not necessarily a guarantee of greatness. That figure is now about 55.

Perhaps Bradman would have averaged 104.94 today.

Along with all the above factors mentioned by RM and Brad and ofcourse Thommo's observation, if he were playing today, he wouldn't be caught on a 'sticky dog' ever. Hence Harvey might just have been nearer to right. He might have averaged 100+ . As far as bowling is concerned. Talking about spinners, old grainy footages show that he was lightning quick on his feet and it would have been a treat to watch him take on Murali and the likes, ofcourse he wouldn't have faced Warne who would have been his teammate! The helmet would have taken care of the "bodyline" factor too. So what chance bowlers? The only thing that could have happenned is that he might have had slightly slower strike-rate with outfielding standards improving rapidly since the advent of one-day cricket.

Covered pitches. It's been said that Bradman wasn't a sticky-wicket performer, so in that case, how would he perform in an era when there aren't any stickies to drag his average down?

But as to WI quartets, let's not forget that, field placings or no, Bodyline was largely in the hands of Larwood and Voce only, Bowes playing in only the one Test, and at an over-rate unheard of today. I think the likes of Roberts, Holding, Garner and Croft at their foot-dragging 72 balls per hour would have troubled even the Don a little, and I think the famous assault on Edrich and Close in '76 was as nasty as anything in Bradman's time. That said, he had a keen cricketing brain and would likely have worked out the best way to score off them with as little risk as possible, much as he did with any other kind of bowling attack.

I like the "Mate, you couldn't get Merv Hughes out..." story, but I'm out of space here. Readers will know the one I mean, I'm sure. :)

But seriously folks, no cricketer from Bradman's era would be anywhere remotely competitive today.The speed,stamina and athleticism of modern players would be unimaginable in the 1930's.Bradman played at only 10 Test venues in 11 series over his entire career, never once being required to bat at a ground he hadn't played at many times before.Test players in the 21st century can play at 10 different Test venues in 6 months with little opportunity for preparation.Remember that any comparison you make with Bradman you will have to apply equally to everybody else.Neil Harvey's ridiculous comment that Bradman would average 199.9 today implies that any cricketer averaging 35 in Bradman's day would average 70 today, or that a bowler like Shane Warne who averages 25 would average 50 if he had played in the 1930's.

I think the greatest difference between the Bradman era and the modern era is the quality of pitches. In those days the pitches were not covered and many must have been horrors on which to bat after a thunderstorm. Imagine Bedser on a rain affected wicket? If Sir Don had the benefit of the plush, covered featherbeds of this generation he may have become so bored with the ease of it all that he got out - after he reached another double century! That's how good I think he was - unfortunately I never saw him play!

It is fruitless to compare players of different eras but even if Bradman had faced less gifted bowlers then those who emerged after WW2 it is notable that in those 60 years since his retirement from cricket no batsman has approached his Test and career averages.The consistency of his proflic run making has never been equalled and we have seen that even the greats of our eras have struggled to match this continous and clinical ouput of runs.Bradman must have been not only a great batsman but also possesed a remarkably indomitble spirit of character and great unwavering thirst for runs and CRICKET.I don't believe our present environments are condusive to producing his likes again.Nature had a lot to do with Bradman's character but technology has made those environments relics of the past

The only thing that I could think of against the performances of Bradman is that he played on a limited number of grounds and against a very limited number of oppositions. However I beleive comparing players of different eras is just masturbation of the mind. We should leave the legend of the Don alone. And we shouldnt downgrade the legends of Tendulkar's and Lara's either by comparing him to Sir Don. They are all geniuses. Lets not compare them. Lets just enjoy them as special talents of different eras.

1. "At a time when we are reminded that the great man narrowly missed out more than one triple figure landmark, averaging 99 with the bat and a mere 92 in life" - Bradman _TOTALLED_ 92 in life, you can't average 92 in _one_ life :)

2. I'm sick and tired of this 'I would have averaged 50' anecdote. There're so many versions floating around (Dean Jones asking him, Tom Moody asking him, Patrick Patterson asking him, Richie Benaud asking him)

3. The only videos I've seen of Bradman are the ones that keep getting shown on TV (actually, if someone came in without any sort of idea, he'd think that he was a pretty crappy batsman to get out to a googly from an unknown leggie!). Going by what I've read over the last (at least) 15-18 years, I'd say he'd have averaged above 70 for sure (Remember, that Mike Hussey averaged over 80 until 6 months ago!) over his career, given the ease with which his technique would have been dissected by opponents & better bat & protective technology available now

I think I'll take the expertise of Harvey and Thompson - and plenty of other cricketers past and present - over the views of ignorant detractors. There will always be those who simply cannot accept the fact that Bradman was in a class of his own.

There has never been a more complete example of a sportsman playing before his time. To Average 100 when most others were 50ish shows a player that could have played today's game to a very high standard. i.e 55-60 average.

But seriously Richie T - are you really saying that players from that era would be totally unable to compete against the current crop of mainly mediocre batsmen & bowlers?
I am sure that Neil Harvey's remark was entirely facetious. He is too experienced to be serious about that; I believe he was trying to emphasize the extent to which the Don was probably even better than his stats indicate.
If the players of the 1930s were playing in today's era, then the training techniques, fitness routines and high tech equipment would be available to them too - think about that! Garry Sobers, Rohan Kanhai, Don Bradman, Dennis Compton, .... the thought is mind blowing!

If he played today, with heavier bat, I bet he would exceed that century average. And he would have been a great ODI and T20 batsman as well. The IPL auction would have crashed the ceiling just to get him onboard, and Indians would have nominated him to become their PM!

Players of the modern era are stronger, fitter and generally better players than those of the bygone era. The point is, however, that given Bradman grew up in modern society given the benefits of modern sporting science he would flay many a modern attack. Give him a top class piece of willow, protective equipment, good flat pitches, bowling machine practice and gym work and the Don would be absolutely carving up the present era of bowlers. He had all the attributes of a great with good balance and quick, agile footwork backed up with second to none hand eye coordination. Given an opportunity in the present day he would surely be averaging at least 65.

I'm wondering whether the "I'm 83..." quote was from the Ray Martin interview he did shortly after he turned 80. It rings a bell.

If someone like a Lara can bat for days on some of the flat tracks we have around nowadays, I'd hate to see what sort of damage Bradman would do to an attack.

I also believe that the Don would have averaged 100+ easily had been playing today. As for facing the attacks of the late 70s and early 80s including the likes of Roberts, Holding, Garner, Marshall, Croft, Imran, Hadlee, Safraz, Bedi, Chandra, Venkat, Qadir and co., who were far more lethal than today's overall bowling caliber, he may still have averaged 100 but as,I think, he once said it would have taken him much longer to get those 100s.
For those who think he had a far easier time just think of the opposition he had - most of the time it was England, a quality England with bowlers such as Maurice Tate, Larwood, Voce, Bowes, Allen, Farnes, Bedser & Verity. And then of course there were the uncovered pitches.
I think he would have loved playing today.

Bradman must have a standout batsman in his time but how good would he have been if he was playing spinners such as mendis, romesh powar or ojha for that matter. This is sthing we cant really answer with precision. But he would have been definately a treat to watch against teams such as bangladesh or zimbabwe even kenya.

I'd say without hesitation that Bradman would not have scored as many runs today for two simple reasons:

(a) there would be fewer overs to score from- he would be lucky to get 90 overs a day, as opposed to 120-130, which was pretty much the norm in his time.

(b) we no longer have the timeless tests that were frequent in Bradman's time- captains would be hurrying to declare.

Bradman would surely have adjusted to fielding standards, changes in laws, etc, but he would have had far fewer balls to score from in this day and age.

I think that people should stop comparing Bradman. This is a fruitless exercise. I note that many people use the name of Bradman and Tendulkar to increased their readership.

Richie T.

I've obviously never seen any of Bradman, Hammond, Headley etc. play, but I imagine that many of them would be excellent athletes. Just think about how many of them served in the wars- just think about how much more first-class cricket was played in an English season, and how much longer it took to tour. Maybe they wouldn't have dove around as much back then (I don't think anyone did until Bland in the '60s) but if they were brought up today they'd surely have the ability and stamina to compete with today's fielders.

Two different questions are being mixed up here. The first is "if Don Bradman were picked up from 1938, transported through time and put into the current Australian test line up, would he be able to go straight out against, say, England and score a century?". The second is "if Don Bradman were born 1978 instead of 1908, would he have gone on to average 100 in his test career?". I think the answer to the second question is undoubtedly yes. Human beings haven't intrinsically become better athletes in the 100 years since Bradman was born - improved performance is simply a matter of improved technology, nutrition, professionalism etc. He was twice as good as his contemporaries and so he would be if he was born in a different era. The answer to the first question is trickier. I believe he would take some time to adjust to the differences in equipment, pitches, style of play etc, but after a short period, his innate genius would mean he would dominate just as he did in his own era.

Ah here we are again, a speculative cricket debate where reason & logic go hand in hand with vociferous opinions & contradictory statements. I will contribute with my special brand of madness. I think the Don wouldnt have been as good today: wet pitches but tiny seamed ball vs flat tracks & swinging balls, bigger fields vs better fielders, 1 90 mph bowler on one team vs 2-4 90 mph on modern teams,using modern gear(bats & helmets etc) also means opponents can break down your action/technique on a laptop @ 1000 frames a second (we saw what happened when his technique got targeted after 1 visual observation)Yes changes have occured, but some are offset by others. 1 thing though there's no subsitute for a great eye & balance which the Don had. Another thing to consider: if modern wickets are "featherbeds" then how good would Mcgrath have been in 1933 on a wet track even using an old ball? How about warne/murali/kumble? Maybe Waqar or Wasim? Would they have had averages of 10?

good one . don is the greatest batsmnan ever without a doubt though i still feel that garry sobers is the greatest cricketer ever . when we compare the challenges faced by batsman in diffrteent era's overall it evens out in my veiw .

6 batsman come to minds in last 60 years who were capapble of reducing the gap between don and next best ( atleast on papers , average wise ) . geairge headly , lara , sobers , richards , tendulkar , barry richards . george played most of his 22 tests on bowler frtiendly tracks and yet got 10 100 . garry sobers they say didn't played/batted in all matches very seriously others he had the ability of producing knocks like 254 , same for lara . viv richards - had he shown more patince he could have averaged a lot more but than we wouldn't have called him the king . tendulkar was threatning that level in 98 before back problem stopped that stroke play of his . barry richards is the most talented right hander of last 60 years but his was cut short unfor

Braddles lost atleast 8 of his most productive years during the War + uncovered wickets + no helmets. He would have been successful in any era

One other thing to consider: the Dons weakness against agressive short bowling was not exploited by Jardine alone. He got a duck in a rapid short bowling spell by Eddie Gilbert the aboriginal bowler from QLD in a GABBA shield game. As i have mentioned before Bradman led the charge to have Gilbert banned after throwing accusations. They did not meet again until four years later on "a tame track" @ Adelaide, the Don made 233 & even bragged about his revenge in "A Century of Summers." He failed to write about their next meeting Jan 10th 1936. Bradman dropped himself down the order to avoid Gilbert.It didnt work & he fell to Gilbert after another rapid short spell (4 runs off Gilbert.) During this period some reports indicate that Bradman was being shielded by his partner from Gilbert, & when he did face Gilbert he backed down leg & then got caught out fending a short ball on his offstump & "was not partial to short bowling even without a leg field." These things say a lot about character

I agree with Ritchie T that today's players have to play in different countries, different wickets and almost all through the year. All of this takes effort (and talent to continue to perform) and so this in itself is a challenge. And then there are third umpires for stumpings and run-outs, etc.

Then there is the issue of reputation. Nowadays a marginal decision against Tendulkar or Lara would be given. We are not sure how many such decisions against the Don might not be given for his sheer reputation.

Mike Holmans. Larwood and Farnes had great stamina. (Both were faster than Trueman). See Larwood's efforts in 28/29. Note Farnes' stamina in Trent Bridge in 34 and Melb in 37. Allen was fast in 36/7. See Hammond's comments on his pace in the Gents/Players game in 36.
Fast bowlers in Bradman's day: Larwood, Voce, Farnes, Allen, Read, Clark, Nichols, Bowes, Tate, Nissar, Amar Singh, Matindale, Constantine, Francis, Griffith, Hylton, Johnson, Cowie, Pritchard, Dickinson, Crisp, Bell, Bissett, Gregory, McDonald, McCormick, Wall, Gilbert, Nash...Don't thank me mate. It was a pleasure. Its reward enough that I set you right.

The facts are these:

Sir Donald Bradman was the single greatest statistical anomaly not just from cricket, but when compared to other sports, from all games. This has been proven. The numbers don't lie, and personally I feel, with covered pitches, shortened boundaries, 4 piece balls, helmets and other body armour (although, I can't recall a story of him ever being hit anyway), bats that make the old ones look like toothpicks and above all his love for the game, I feel he would have averaged 5 - 10 greater than he did when he played.

That film of his cover drive was enough to convince me, without all these factors. He was truly awesome. Would he have dominated today as he did back then? In my mind, unquestionably.

These are just academic conversations. Its hard to compare different eras. All i know that even in those days when so-called soft fieldmen were around , nobody was averaging more than 58 while Don was 99.94. Last year Mohammad yousuf was scoring big , creating history with most number of runs in a calender year but guess what was his average ? 99 , which Don carried over 20 years. the numbers were equally good in his first class career. So , please , let's don't doubt the genius of greatest batsman of cricket.

I think Andrew Martin makes the most interesting post here: there are 2 different question and 2 slightly different answers.
If Bradman at his best from say 1938 was somehow transported to play against the W.Indies in the 80s, or to play Murali/Mendis for SL now, or the reverse swinging English attack of 2005 - how would he have coped. Probably well, but not to such a degree due to aspect such as modern fielding improvements and the cnage in style of play (for example 3 genuinely quick 90 mph bowlers in England 2005 versus 1 in opponents teams in his own era). However, his natural talent, eye, balance and hand-eye co-ordination would surely have put him as well off as any contemporaries, if not better with the better equipment and protection.
However, had Bradman been born in 1978 he would have grown up to embrace the physical aspects of the modern game and would be more used to the style of modern play. No doubt he would still stand head and shoulders above the rest.

Responding to Mike Holmans from YORKSHIRE: Are you still struggling to get over the hammering poms received everytime Bradman played at your home ground, Headingley (Leeds)? And what's stopping your "genius" from comprehending the fact that if Australia didn't have a genuine fast bowler in the 30s, it'd mean that Bradman was nearly 5 times better than England's best batsman (Wally Hammond) in that era (arguably Eng's best ever)? Talking of 'hostile' pace bowlers, a decent cricket follower would know that the tall ones like Bill Bowes and Voce weren't too far behind Larwood because of the enormous bounce they extracted. Maybe your limited knowledge or excessive jingoism doesn't allow you to look beyond the poms. Herman Griffith & George Francis of WI were as fast as Larwood if not faster (A pom may say that's why Bradman averaged lower against WI). Why's that the slow & medium pace bowlers like Verity (best ever to me), Bedser, Tate etc. got Bradman out so many times? Did speed matter?

Any great player in any era would have been a great player in any other era. Once a question was posed to the Mathematician Hermann Weyl whether Riemann a famous 18th century mathematician would have survived the rigours of Modern Mathematics to which Weyl replied " If Reimann comes back today all I would do is I will put him in the library for a week and he will back the week after and will tell us what to do ". Bradman would be like that if he ever comes back.

What do you think of the statement by the great Everton D. Weekes of the "three Ws" fame that Sir Garfield Sobers, in his opinion, is not only the greatest cricketer of all time, but also the greatest batsman in the history of the game? I agree with him.

I am 100% sure that Don wouldn't have been that successful today especially if he had played in the era of 1970s and 80s. I agree he is the greatest batsmen ever but no way he could have achieved that kind of success.

Rizwan sets it straight. Look through any players' averages over the years and you will see dips and peaks. If a lot of top players can average 99 over one calender year, it makes sense that the best player of all time would consistently average 99 over 20 years.

The argument is largely facile, since Bradman's technique and mentality was moulded by the context in which he played, to the same extent as modern cricketers. Hence, one can hardly claim Bradman, raised on covered wickets with protection and bowlers more limited by legislation, would have been as taciturn or circumspect as he was. However, the relevance of the war should stand; if one removed the best 5 years of Tendulkar, Ponting, Richards and others from their careers, their averages would drop substantially.

bradman would have suceeded at any time that he played. WHile he had undoubtable talent, he also had a work ethic that perhaps only M Hussey approaches. Genius only will do so much for a sportsman, hard work does the rest.

Can't comment on him as a person, a teammate or a captain, but statistically, THE greatest batsman in the history of cricket, and THE greatest standout player of his sport ever (Tiger Woods comes close).

Anecdotally, the best verifiable comment I know of was congratulating Dean Jones on a double century against England in Adelaide... and then turning to Merv Hughes who had just made an unbeaten 72 and was waiting for a compliment from the great man.. Bradman then turned away and said,
"Funny game, cricket!"

The point is that in all (repeat all) sports where you can measure performance in terms of time/distance/weight, standards have improved immeasurably. Yet we cling to the theory that in cricket this is not the case. It is. If Bradman of 1934 was teleported forward to 2008 to play a full series against the current England side he would score at most 50 runs in 10 innings, average 5. Possibly less. If he was born and brought up today he would average 99.94. He is the best ever and will always be the best ever in comparison to his peers, but in absolute terms, the beat batsman of all time is usually the beast batsman of the last 10 years. The 1948 Australians would concede 1000 in an ODI against the current England side, and be all out for 35 in return. Similarly the 1970 Brazil football team would not win the current Blue Square Premier and Jesse Owens time wouldnt even get him past the heats in the 2008 100m.......

Dominic Bunning. Flintoff, Jones and Harmison only rarely achieved 144kph. They mainly bowled in the 135-140 range. In Bradman's 3 ashes series in Australia before the war he faced Larwood, Tate, Geary, Allen, Voce, Bowes and Farnes. He also faced Hammond, Freeman, Verity and White. Plenty of pace and guile there and a line up of names consistently better than the injury prone, controversy AND injury prone and mummy's boy trio you mentioned.

Thats misleading Tboy. Gilbert did his best bowling on gabba greentops. He got Bradman twice on that type of pitch. Gilbert didn't do well anywhere else. Maybe thats a reflection on his character.
If you have stated before that Bradman "led the charge to have Gilbert banned for throwing" then I can say you have been wrong more than once. Bradman never led a campaign against Gilbert. Never. What Bradman did say is that he looked fair at the crease but suspect from the boundary. He also intimated after he retired that he was inclined to agree with the opinion of umpires who said he threw. Don's entitled to his opinion but in that instance he isn't entirely correct. Only one ump called Gilbert. Even he passed his action subsequently. On the balance we can say Gilbert's action was fair, he was a poor bwlr outside Qld, he was lucky to get Don on green wkts and Don didn't dodge him in 1936. He dropped himself down the order to stymie the brief momentum Gilbert had achieved.

One wee comment to add to the plethora already here: wicketkeepers were, to my mind, undoubtedly more skillful in Bradman's day than now. English 'keepers of the 30s and 40s: Les Ames, George Duckworth and Godfrey Evans. Three of the best in the business, invariably standing up to all but the fastest of bowlers (Evans of course famously stood up to Bedser in Sydney in 46/7)

Actually you are wrong there were filmed interviews of Bradman giving his views, interviews in papers and in his own books. Check them out Mike.

Tboy. No authour has mentioned a campaign by him to get Gilbert banned. Not even Mike Coleman's less than objective work on Eddie Gilbert makes this claim about Bradman.
Bradman had little to say about Gilbert publicly. The most famous incident was covered by Coleman and concerned a filmed interview of Bradman by Mailey. The latter asked a question that Bradman answered by whispering into Mailey's ear. No one knows what was said.
Apart from that there is only Bradman's comment about Gilbert that he wrote after both men were retired. There Bradman reveals, indirectly, that he thought Gilbert chucked. I think he was wrong. The evidence suggests (very strongly) that Gilbert 's action was fair. Importantly there isn't evidence that Bradman prosecuted his opinion as a case to get Gilbert banned at any time.

Objectivity is something you lack as well Mike. Your previous posts re: eng 30s pace attack vs the modern eng attack is totally subjective. They didnt have speed guns in the 30's.BTW u stated "What Bradman did say is that he looked fair at the crease but suspect from the boundary," thanks for conceding that point. Very nice of u actually. DB also said he "jerked the ball ... and it was very hard that way to generate such speed with a legitimate delivery." By they way Gilbert finished with a first class avg of 29 (approximate 2 Tait another slinger)which is fairly decent actually. In the interview in question Mailey askes Bradman "what do you really think of Eddie Gilbert" DB whispers something & then they start laughing. This interview was staged during the throwing debate & it was concluded that this was less than flattering. Given that Eddie had 2 sleep outside & wasnt allowed in pubs & hotels etc it probably reveals a lot about his character that he said the Don "was allright."

I know they didn't have speed guns in the 30s Tboy. Therefore whom ever makes disparaging references to those bowlers are also being subjective. Besides my opinion of the bowlers of his era is objectively based on comments of the men who faced them. Brown, Fingleton, Ponsford...They should know. They played cricket at a high level and saw plenty more after they retired. So I can make the comparison based on their recollections. Just as you believe in Gilbert's pace based on the recollection of players and despite the non existence of speed guns in the 30s.
I'm not conceding anything to you over Gilbert. My previous posts all mentioned Bradman's suspicions over Gilbert's action. He's entitled to have that opinion. Many others did as well. What I don't concede is your belief that Bradman led a campaign to get Gilbert banned. So far you have no proof of that. So thanks for conceding the point. Very nice of you actually.

Its funny, but as some people get older, the better they were when younger but Im sure this has never influenced the thinking of retired athletes and their perceptions and memories, especially cricketers. Incidentally I never conceded any point to u, sorry Mike, unlike you I didnt return that particular favour. You may not have accepted my arguments, that ok, each to their own mate but I must say you have impressed me Mike! You are the third person on this blog that has imitated my style, its said imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and Im flattered. You are too be commended for having good taste Mike. Perhaps a lack of imagination, but thats ok too. You can be forgiven for that. Have a good night!

Well here's the problem then. Who do we believe? In one corner you have Ponsford, Brown and Fingleton and in the other we have...tboy. You see the difficulty? Who do I believe? 3 test greats who took the long handle to these bowlers; or Tboy whose taken the short handle and been found wanting.
If we can't believe the opinions of men who've faced these bowlers and we don't have speed guns to verify their pace then how do you know Gilbert was fast? Or any good?
You seem to have mixed up imitation with derision...3 times on this blog alone it seems. Now here is something I'd never imitate: Making a claim without backing it up with facts. I'm confident you have those facts. So I'll tease them out with this question: If you think Bradman led a campaign to have Gilbert banned then start providing the evidence.
All yours...

Nice contradiction Mike. Your opinions (not facts) are "objectively based on comments of the men who faced them." Of course the people u cite are objective, people u dont like eg Mike Colman who researched the recollections of the men who faced Gilbert are subjective. Nice spin mate. A true academic. Always question the truth of others while maintaining that yours are beyond reproach. EG Fingletons account of Gilbert saying he "bowled plurry lot faster without boots" is spurious & fallacious but no less then McGilvray stated in 1981 the fastest ball he ever saw was bowled by Gilbert. No doubt u will question the veracity of that statement but accept Fingletons. So be it. At this juncture I would also to direct u to a dictionary & look for "sarcasm." It may assist u with comprehending previous posts. As pointed out in a prev post, u have actually answered your own question, something that u have conveniently ignored. Mate, we will never agree, accept it & move on. Next subject please?

My objections to Coleman are valid. He makes assumptions about Bradman's character in adversity that he spares Gilbert. For example Bradman tried to dodge Gilbert on a green top. This is his conjecture and not backed up by any players. However he never commented on the occasions when Gilbert lost heart. And there were plenty of times when that happened. Coleman was harsh on Bradman and too kind to Gilbert.
The rest of your post proves you don't understand contradiction. I'm happy to accept Fingleton's and Bradman's words on Gilbert's pace. Its you who pick and choose. You believe Fingleton when he praises Gilbert's pace but ridicule his recollections of Voce, Larwood, Allen and Farnes; all of whom he considered very fast. You said something "as some people get older the better they were..." Remember?
Now before we get to the next topic I believe you have a question to answer. Prove that Bradman led a campaign to have Gilbert banned.
All yours...

No Mike the floor is all yours. Read your own work before you post it.RE: Fingelton where did i even mention him stating Eddie was quick? I was quoting Fingletons unproven statement that Eddie Gilbert said to Fingelton that he, (being Eddie Gilbert) bowled faster without shoes. This was a myth cited by Fingleton & never actually stated by Gilbert. It was a gross statement with a dubious racial basis. Hmm this is in Colmans work, quoted to u, read by u (apparently), yet still u miss it? No wonder u miss your own contradictions, u r so busy justifying your critique of others ("my objections to Colman are valid" in your eyes of course they are!) U have made many comments on this blog eg "Glbert did his best bolwing on gabba greentops" that I would now like u to justify & prove. From a reputable source. But like u I will now attack the credibility of that source. But prove it. Prove that all those Eng bowlers from the 30s were FAST.I want facts. PROOF. Not anectdotes. Show me tha facts

Mike we can question each other forever and not be satisfied with the answer of the other. Questioning is not hard. I can question everything you have posted here. Do we let this go, because we will never agree? Conversely I can sit here and justify anything if I choose too, anyone can. You do it each post. Do we let it go? Or should I ask you why you think Colman was not valid again? And again? And again? Even after it was answered in a previous post? Or I can sit here all nite and ask you to prove that all those English bowlers you listed from the 30's were fast, seeking empirical evidence of high pace, not medium fast of fast medium, but fast. Or how about your little gem that "Flintoff, Jones and Harmison only rarely achieved 144kph. They mainly bowled in the 135-140 range." Prove it. I want the data. Not your generalisation. Give me the data, but if I dont like it then I will question that too. Do you get the point Mike? Or should I go on?

Tboy. Jack related what Gilbert told him. Coleman never refuted that point. Only the myth that Gilbert bowled in bare feet in matches. However its not impossible to believe that living where he did without much cricket gear he would've bowled in bare feet when practising or larking abt. Jack can't be accused of racism just for retelling what Eddie told him.
Jack thought Eddie real fast. Same as Mcgilvray, Brown and Ponsford. Its not consistent to believe them when they talk abt Eddie but doubt them when they talk abt Larwood, Voce, Farnes and Allen. You either believe them or reject them. Not pick and choose to suit yourself.
Re Gilbert's record. Check his ave. away from Qld. Very interesting.
My evidence of the 2005 poms? Speed guns. Only their occasional faster balls got to that pace. Their range was slower. Same deal with Fred and Harmy when they came out here. They're top bowlers anyway.
Still waiting for proof abt Bradman's campaign to get Eddie banned though...

Indeed nice story as for me. It'd be really cool to read something more concerning such topic. Thanks for sharing this information.