Talk:Donald Bradman/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Style change to footnote list

I've changed the style of the list of footnotes as there were so many of them. It now shows about 15 at a time in a list that can be scrolled through if desired. Clicking on any of the numbers in the text still highlights the corresponding note. I feel that this is a good way to handle long lists of notes which otherwise take up a lot of space in an article. I hope it doesn't spoil anyone's enjoyment of the article. Thoughts please. IrishPete 19:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

FA drive To-do list

Things to do:

  • Review structure
    Using Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) as a model. How ironic. --Dweller 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done Now complete, subject to support for a "Fame" section. --Dweller 15:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove some material to daughter articles
    Doing... --Dweller 11:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Revisit Lead, per WP:LEAD
    We'll need three or four paragraphs. Any ideas for broad descriptions of each paragraph? The Rambling Man 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Doing... --Dweller 11:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Relocate trivia to remove that section
    Currently commented out until new structure imposed. Then will relocate or delete each item. --Dweller 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    Y Done --Dweller 11:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Add {{cn}} tags where appropriate
    Doing... --Dweller 11:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Source missing information
  • Enhance information about his life and career other than as a player
  • Run through references to check they say what they espouse to do and their format
  • WP:DASH
    Hopefully done, but no doubt the odd one left behind... The Rambling Man 14:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • First-run copyedit
  • Check status and captions of all images
  • Review article's FAR to check all issues dealt with
  • Solicit third-party copyedit by cricket and non cricket experts
  • Automated Peer Review
  • Peer Review
  • FAC

This list to be added to and ticked off as we progress. --Dweller 12:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fame section?

I suggest to add a "Fame/recognition" (whatever) section, something like that :
* Fame/recognition in Australia
* Fame/recognition in England (maybe merged with the next one)
* Fame/recognition around the world
That could be a good way to use elements of the trivia section.
Shouldn't be added (in the last part) Mandela's sentence [1], which prove Bradman's importance in the world ?
If you want to add something for his recognition in non-cricketing nations : in 2000, he was the only cricketer among the 100 sportsmen/sportswomen elected by the (only) French sports daily, L'Équipe (reference : Un siècle de sport (One century of sport), published by Calmann-Lévy in 2000, ISBN 2951203128)... Don't laugh, but one cricketer in such a publication in France, it's a lot ! -- OrangeKnight 14:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Personally, I think that sort of information should be covered in the "Legacy" section. I like the L'Equipe ref - shows his global impact when a country that ridicules cricket takes him so seriously. --Dweller 15:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly :)... I just looked for his exact ranking in L'Equipe's selection : he was 77th (full rankings here) OrangeKnight 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

TV series

I vaguely recall there were issues with this Image:Bodyline-tv-series.jpg image. Am I right? If not, it would be useful to illustrate the popular culture section. --Dweller 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm vaguely guessing but since it's being used under a fair use rationale, it should only be used to illustrate the subject in question (i.e. the bodyline mini-series) and shouldn't be used elsewhere... But I'm happy to stand corrected... The Rambling Man 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds about right. Shame. --Dweller 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

I'm itching to add something about Bradman entering everyday language as an apotheosis of excellence, but all I have in support is one dodgy reference in the currently invisible Triv section. I suspect in Oz, it's common currency. I'd love to find some RS for this. Especially maybe some politicians or famous Aussies using the term. Anyone? I might drop in on the Aussie WP and ask (and let them know about this). --Dweller 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the word "Bradmanesque" ? - OrangeKnight 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Some examples from sport and elsewhere:
--Cherry blossom tree 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This example includes an implicit definition -

“ Twelve months ago, Tiger Woods seemed to be so far ahead of his contemporaries that he appeared to be playing a different game. In this he resembled Don Bradman … [statistics] … Statistically, therefore, Bradman was rather more than one and a half times better than any other batsman who has played Test cricket.

Woods certainly seems further ahead of his contemporaries than Nicklaus ever was. Does this make him Bradmanesque … ?

 ”

But the OED is probably the best place for an authoritative definition. -- !! ?? 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In many social golf competitions in Australia, the Bradman Prize or the Bradman Award is given to the player with the highest score. In effect, this is a booby prize for the worst player on the day, but it acknowledges Bradman's place in popular culture. WWGB 09:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to pinpoint a formal definition of this term, but searches like this one and this one turn up quite a few real life examples. WWGB 10:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

subsection has been created... I'll start moving stuff there, soonish. --Dweller 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

References

For the use of Bradman's name for a trademark, see here. As I don't understand everything (sorry, I'm French), I let add the link and rewrite the sentence if necessary. OrangeKnight 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You're doing (better than) fine. --Dweller 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Just found it on the same website than Loganbery gave (see "Bradman in Australian law" section above), but his link didn't work anymore ;) OrangeKnight 15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this section to somewhere I thought was more appropriate (popular culture rather than biography), cited, and made more accurate. The legislation concerns corporation names, not trademarks (the "Bradman" name is protected under trademark laws in the normal way, it doesn't require special legislation). FiggyBee 06:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Let's agree the key aspects to Bradman that should be covered in the Lead.

  • Statistical dominance of cricket and sport in general
  • Australian icon
  • Non playing impact

Anything else? --Dweller 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that should just about cover it, three large paragraphs which should hopefully take us down past the infobox. The Rambling Man 12:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The article originally had a good lead, most of which has been placed under the meaningless title "from obscurity to greatness". I quote from WP:LEAD "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." This was achieved in the original lead. As the original author of most of the material included in Bradman's article, I must say I am puzzled by, and not in favour of, the editing and restructure that you have done. It has effected the continuity of the article as originally conceived, why change the section headings? I have one more section that I have researched, about criticisms and personal relationships of Bradman that needs to be fitted in somewhere.Phanto282 06:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I can stand corrected, but the reworking of the lead is still a 'work-in-progress', so as such is not finished. Yes, you've quoted WP:LEAD correctly, it's our intention to fully and succinctly summarise the whole article as per above. The previous lead was too long and needed some work. Please bear in mind it's nothing personal. The Rambling Man 10:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion from Phanto282

Copied from User talk:The Rambling Man...

I have edited the intro to this (368 words, O'Reilly is 344):

Sir Donald George Bradman AC (27 August 1908—25 February 2001), often called The Don, was an Australian cricketer, administrator and writer on the game, universally acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time.[1] He is one of Australia's most popular sporting heroes, and one of the most respected past players in other cricketing nations.[2] His career Test batting average of 99.94 is by some measures the greatest statistical performance in any major sport.[3].[4]
The story of the self-taught Bradman practicing alone using a cricket stump and a golf ball, is part of Australian folklore.[5] Bradman’s meteoric rise from bush cricket to the Australian Test team took just over two years. Before his 22nd birthday, he set myriad records for high scoring (many of which survive today) and became Australia’s sporting idol at the height of the Great Depression.[6] Special tactics (known as Bodyline)[7] were devised by the England team to curb his brilliance.
During his 20-year career, Bradman consistently scored at a level that made him “worth three batsmen to Australia”, in the words of Len Hutton.[8] Committed to attacking, entertaining cricket, Bradman drew spectators in record numbers. However, he found the constant adulation an anathema which affected how he dealt with others.[9] The focus of attention on his individual performances strained relationships with some teammates, administrators and journalists who thought him to be aloof and wary.[10] After World War II, he made a dramatic comeback and in his final season led an Australian team known as “The Invincibles”.[11] RC Robertson-Glasgow wrote of the English reaction to Bradman’s retirement that, "…a miracle has been removed from among us. So must ancient Italy have felt when she heard of the death of Hannibal."[12]
A complex, driven man not given to forming many close personal relationships,[13] Bradman maintained his pre-eminence by acting as an administrator, selector and writer for three decades after his retirement. His opinion was highly sought, but in his declining years he became reclusive. Paradoxically, his status as a national icon increased to the point where the Australian Prime Minister called him the “greatest living Australian”.[14] He appeared on stamps and coins, and became the first living Australian to have a museum dedicated to his life.

Suggest you change it to the above. All the notes can remain the same and Note 4 about the averages of Headley and Pollock can be expanded with original text "By way of comparison, the second and third best Test averages over completed careers of batsmen who have played 20 Tests or more are 60.97 and 60.83." Phanto282 14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd replace the brackets around "known as bodyline" with commas and link bodyline. To the non cricket reader they will not know why is batting average is considered such a great achievement without a little more detail. "His career Test batting average of 99.94 is by some measures the greatest statistical performance in any major sport" could become something like "His career Test batting average of 99.94, easily the highest amonst batsmen with careers of any length, is by some measures the greatest statistical performance in any major sport." Links would need to be added as per the current article to all the above but otherwise I see no reason why we can't give that a go. --LiamE 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
"Special tactics (known as Bodyline)[7] were devised by the England team to curb his brilliance." We should add somewhere that, at this time, most of the test match where between Australia and England, and that the two where at the top, and they meet very "often"... That's why it was necessary to find such a tactics... It could be useful to remember for the non-cricket fans ! OrangeKnight 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Daughter article

I suggest we create Donald Bradman Test career or some such as a daughter article and hacking the sections here, much as was done with the history sections of Norwich City F.C. and Ipswich Town F.C.. Thoughts? --Dweller 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it shortened the main article too much, and cut what's the most important in Bradman's biography : his test career ? - OrangeKnight 10:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a tough call because the article is WAY too long, it needs to be about half the current size - see WP:SIZE for decent reasoning. I think we're going to need to prune the whole article and get back into the summary style which is essential for a good encyclopaedic article. I know Bradman's career was highly significant but right now I think this article is far far too in depth. Rather than a daughter article I endorse trimming what we have now and see where that gets us. The Rambling Man 10:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
One idea, dramatically cut back the Bodyline section - there already exists a comprehensive article at Bodyline and any bits we move out could be inserted there if it doesn't already exist. The Rambling Man 11:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Another idea - use Australian cricket team in England in 1948 as a fork and cut down a lot of the detail here. I've linked to both Bodyline and Australian cricket team in England in 1948 with the {{main}} template with this in mind. The Rambling Man 11:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I would look to shorten the bodyline section - that already has a good article backing it up. I'd also perhaps look to split off the statistical assessment section. --LiamE 17:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don’t agree with shortening the Bodyline section as it is central to the story of Bradman’s career, that he was so brilliant that the opposition had to use unethical tactics to try and stop him. It also deals with the genesis of his feud with Jack Fingleton, which is not even mentioned in the Bodyline article. The section on the Invincibles is already quite brief, it is only six paragraphs long. My suggestion is to cull sections of the text to use as a basis for a daughter article, titled something like “Bradman Legend and Legacy” to replace the existing "Bradman in literature" daughter article. This would include the literature section, later life and legacy section, Bradman in popular culture section, the Charles Davis analysis and some of the main text.

Two questions: (1) Why were the original section headings replaced? They should have remained as written. (2) What happened to most of the links at the end of the article?

State the number of bytes the main article needs to be reduced to, I am unsure of the amount required for FA. Phanto282 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there's a dedicated Bodyline article it's a prime candidate to be used to hive off a bunch of Bradman material from here. The Bodyline series should be taken in context and therefore there's no real justification for having a massive section here when you can easily move the detail to another article - that's why we have the {{main}} template. Things that aren't mentioned in the Bodyline article but which are mentioned here can be moved across, it's that simple.
Two answers:
  1. As Dweller points out below, the new headings are more encyclopaedic and much less essayist.
  2. The external links are trimmed in accordance with WP:EL - if anything is needed to enhance the article, it should be discussed within the article and referenced as a citation.

The Rambling Man 10:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Size

WP:SIZE implies that >100K is too long, but it's vague and the FA criteria are too. So I've requested clarification at User_talk:Raul654#Size_of_FAs. --Dweller 09:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


"Universally acknowledged"

I really think that to fulfil the spirit (if not the letter) of RS, we need a cricket authority that Bradman's "universally" acknowledged as the greatest. I'm going to start looking (Wisden is a good place to start). It's quite a strong claim, so 2 sources would be nice, I think. Help welcomed. --Dweller 10:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

His cricinfo profile already linked elsewhere in the article starts with a Wisden overview which starts "Sir Donald Bradman of Australia was, beyond any argument, the greatest batsman who ever lived and the greatest cricketer of the 20th century" - just another wording but the same claim. I've never seen a serious cricket article even begin to dispute the fact. Closest I've ever seen to dissent are some articles which claim, with some merit, that perhaps Hobbs and/or Sutcliffe were better in certain conditions, namely rain affeted English wickets. On the other hand who is to say the if Bradman had more chance to play on them he wouldn't have mastered them too. --LiamE 10:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Heck, I ain't disputing it (!!!) I just want to make sure it's properly referenced and to my mind, a cricket source is best. And for such a strong claim (remember, not all readers are familiar with Bradman, or even cricket) two different sources would be better. --Dweller 10:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Why just say "batsman" and not say that he was the best cricketer ever ? I'ma aware that there are nothing in common between batting and bowling, but that's how he is generally considered, isn't it ? OrangeKnight 11:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Because many serious writers would put Sobers and WG ahead of him due to all-round prowess. --LiamE 11:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Liam, re. the last line, it is not for us to guess that :-) (Just to enforce what you said) I am sure that I have seen more than one major writer (Fingleton and people of similar stature) acknowledge him only with certain reservations (and opine that Hobbs (for instance) was a better all-wicket batsman etc.) That itself is sufficent to break the claim that he was "universally" considered as the best. Tintin 11:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it does break the claim and I think we read the same or similar article(s). What I read was full of provisos. The only time Bradman doesn't come out clearly on top is when the writer homes in on one detail (poor pitches, leg spinners etc) rather than looking as batting as a whole. Bradman was the first to admit that leg spinners often confounded him and there were better player of the wrist spinners but no serious writer has to my knowledge ever even suggested that their "whole package" was better than Bradman's. The claim of best batsman does not mean necessarily he was the best on every surface and against every type of bowling. Other batsman can be more stylish, score faster, be better against leg spin or handle a drying pitch better - but no one has come close to putting it all together and then adding 20 years of consistency. Although some articles may acknowledge him with reservations, acknowledge him the all do. --LiamE 12:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the good ship "intentions" founders on the rocks of semantics. Why say "universally acknowledged"...is that from the Neptune edition of Wisden? (lol), Try the most "effective" batsman in history. Here is the cite from Wisden's obituary...BRADMAN, SIR DONALD GEORGE, AC, the most effective batsman in cricket's history, died in Adelaide on February 25, 2001, at the age of 92, etc. etc. Here is the cite [2]. If you hang about a bit, i can give you another. Phanto282 13:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This one is similar, written in 1949 Wisden: "For sheer fame, Dr. W. G. Grace and Don Bradman stand apart from all other cricketers--apart, indeed, from all other games-players". Cite: [3]. The beauty of Wisden is their mastery of the understatement, they can't even spell hyperbole.Phanto282 14:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why say universally acknowledged? 1) Because it's true. 2) Because it has a cite. While we have a duty not to overstate facts we also have a duty not to understate. He was and remains the best. Every source agrees, so why shy away from saying it? --LiamE 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that "universally acknowledged" is too strong, as some would still put Grace ahead of him. I'd be happy with "generally acknowledged", which is a fair representation of the fact that perhaps 80-90% (at a guess) of cricket historians would put Bradman first. JH (talk page) 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The only sources that put WG ahaead of Bradman as a batsman were written prior to Bradman's career. Some will still say he was a more important cricketer or better cricketer, which maybe he was, but not a better batsman. If universally acknowledged is too strong please feel free to quote a single article from a respected source saying otherwise dated after about 1949. I've been following cricket for 30 odd years and have never seen one. --LiamE 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the most obvious place - Jack Hobbs' Wisden obit - and I quote from there :

  • Percy Fender: Jack was the greatest batsman the world has ever known, not merely in his generation but any generation ...
  • Herbert Sutcliffe: I was his partner on many occasions on extremely bad wickets, and I can say this without any doubt whatever that he was the most brilliant exponent of all time, and quite the best batsman of my generation on all types of wickets. On good wickets I do believe that pride of place should be given to Sir Don Bradman.
  • Herbert Strudwick: On any type of wicket, he was the best batsman in my experience, ...
  • Andrew Sandham: Jack was the finest batsman in my experience on all sorts of wickets, especially the bad ones, for in our day there were more bad wickets and more spin bowlers than there are today....

In 1963, Cardus wrote an article titled Six giants of the Wisden century for the Wisden - the words that he uses are interesting. The Bradman article starts thus - Sir Donald Bradman (hereinafter to be named Bradman or The Don), must be called the most masterful and prolific maker of runs the game has so far known. He was, in short, a great batsman. - see how he avoids calling Bradman the greatest batsman :-)

An interesting thing is that while these days all the writers consider DGB the greatest, virtually all the criticism has come people who have - unlike the present day admirers - seen him bat and so probably know what they are talking about. (See David Frith's comment here ) Tintin 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Cardus hardly avoids saying "the greatest" - he just used different words to say the same thing. "Most masterful and prolific" is hardly putting the Don down. Of the 4 comments on Sir Jack's obit (hardly the place to find unbiased, clear headed editorial, rather personal non-editorial statements obviously) 3 are reitterations of a previously raised reservation about Bradman being the greatest. Many have said they thought Hobbs was unparalleled on poor surfaces. Fender's comment is more precise though. I would personnaly put that down to hyperbole upon the death of a friend and colleague of many years standing. I would not, of course, expect everyone to reach the same conclusion as me so, I'm affraid, I must concede. Okay, so the hunt is on for the right term. Suggestions on a postcard please. --LiamE 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I like my idea of "generally acknowledged". It avoids the problem with "universally acknowledged" - that finding a single person who disagrees is sufficient to invalidate it - whilst making it clear that it's the view that the great majority of people hold. JH (talk page) 20:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am happy with anything as long as it stops short of claiming 100% support as the greatest batsman. The claim to be the greatest batsman is too subjective for it to be universal. Of if we must have a superlative in the intro, it should be tied to more objective claims about his run-getting ability (are we spending too much on a single word ? i hope not, as we are dealing with the very first line of the most important cricketer). Tintin 03:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A solution is to say, “generally acknowledged as the most efficient batsman” or “usually acknowledged as the most efficient batsman”. This pre-empts any qualifications over his lack of style, ability on stickies, weakness against leg spin etc. Efficiency (ie. scoring as many runs as quickly as possible) was the basis for Bradman’s modus operandi. As saying the “greatest” is a matter of opinion, there is no possibility of saying he is universally regarded as such. No opinion is universal. Fact: Bradman scored 29x100s in 80 inns; the fastest player to break this record was Tendulkar in 159 inns. Let the facts speak for themselves. The article on Cricket (which is FA) states he “is by common consent the greatest batsman in the history of cricket (averaging 99.94) and is, by some statistical measures, the greatest sportsman ever.” Using this cite: [4].

I don't like words like effective and efficient.... mainly because they are often used in backhanded compliments about ugly (in terms of style) batsmen. Whilst Bradman wasn't a purist's dream to watch he wasn't ugly. --LiamE 09:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside – I can’t think of any place that I have seen it argued that WG was a better batsman than Bradman. WG’s place in cricket history is as the maker of the modern game that we know today. Therefore, WG was just as influential as Bradman, but not a better batsman. For most of SDB’s career, the debate in Australia about the best was Trumper vs. Bradman. As late as 1983 this argument was going on - in Page’s biography, he devoted a whole chapter to arguing why Bradman was the better player, probably becaude he got wound up by Jack Fingleton’s biography of Trumper written in 1978. Phanto282 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Universal acknowlegment in all fields of human activity doesn't preclude the odd crackpot opinion. I can't think of a single serious cricket writer who would argue on the bald assertion that Bradman was the greatest batsman of all time, without needing to resort to clarifications and exceptions, such as what surface he was playing on, what type of bowling, if he had to bat with one eye closed, etc. However, the strongest argument in this whole shebang goes right back to Wikipedia basics. RS. We should go for "universally acknowleged" if we have RS that say he's universally acknowleged. And if we don't, we shouldn't. --Dweller 09:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

While we don't need to include obviously biased, ill-informed or indeed crackpot assertions it is going to be hard for everyone to lay aside comments such as those by PGHF above. Maybe his views were skewed to "cricket was better before the war" or maybe not but still he is a cricket authority and was placed to judge better than most. Yes we have a couple of good sources for the exact words "universally acknowledged" and 1001 sources saying in other terms. --LiamE 13:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bradman's heirs

I think that it could be added a section about the players that Bradman rated as the best ever, alongside with him (Barry Richards, Arthur Morris, Sachin Tendulkar, Gary Sobers, Don Tallon, Ray Lindwall, Dennis Lillee, Alec Bedser, Bill O'Reilly, Clarrie Grimmett, Wally Hammond (12th man) [5])... And underline the fact that he considered Tendulkar as his "heir" [6] in term of batting technics and talent... And why not mention in such a section that, as for statistics, Mike Hussey is the only one to fill the gap between Bradman and the 'normal' players... OrangeKnight 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC) (don't know if it's a good idea, but when I translate this article for the french wikipedia, I'll maybe add such a section :) ...)

Looks similar (which is what Bradman said) does not equal "heir". In that way Andy Caddick can be considered the heir of Richard Hadlee. Secondly, Hussey has hardly played two years for us to draw such conclusions. (sorry, not having a nice day at work, some of these outbursts are partly because of that :-/ ) Tintin 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree on the Hussey situation. His late entry into international cricket meant that he came in at the peak of his powers and simply has had a good couple of years since. Having a good couple of years is not unusual. I doubt he has averaged more than Ponting in the tests they have played together for instance. Looking at Hussey's carrer as a whole, his first class average is a telling statistic. Its good but he's no Bradman. What sets Bradman apart is the 20 years of performing to that level, not playing at that level for a while as many have done. If you were looking for a palyer to fill the statistical gap try Merchant or Headley. --LiamE 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above, you shouldn't confuse his best XI with his pick of the greatest ever players. He may have well thought the 11 best players were all No.3 batsmen and wicketkeepers. He was picking his best team not the players he thought the best without restriction of having to pick 2 openers, a number 3, a middle order, keeper, pace bowlers and spin. Knowing the method he used to pick a team, ie shortlisting for each role, I'd be interested to know who didn't make the cut. Have we got an article on Bradman's XI like we have for Richie? If not we need one. And it would be nice if the Don had explained his choices as they are a bit partisan it would seem and the team bowler heavy. --LiamE 14:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion

I have a suggestion to resolve the problem of the size the article, namely hacking copy for a "Don Bradman controversies" daughter article. It would read (1) aloofness from teammates (2) Bodyline (3) Conflicts with Fingleton and O'Reilly (4) War service (much criticism that he played too hard using Lindwall & Miller) (5) Throwing - he wrote the rules on chucking in the early 60s (6) WSC. This would remove plenty of text to leave room for the sections that others want to put in. I don't favour moving stuff to the Bodyline article as its FA and would need restructuring to incorporate stuff about SDB.

Phanto282 08:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Added an excellent link to a 1930 interview here [7]. Here the great man squeak, I mean speak. Phanto282 12:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely awesome. Great find. —Moondyne 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The idea of this sub-article seems fine to me, as long as there's plenty of material we can move over, and as long as we can provide a succinct summary of that new daughter article within this one. The Rambling Man 10:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Section headings

Personally, I prefer colder, descriptive headings than warmer jargony ones. My feelings on the subject are that they are

  1. more encyclopedic in tone
  2. less liable to POV and
  3. more welcoming to someone unfamiliar with the material being discussed.

However, I'm aware that User:Phanto282 disagrees, so I welcome others chipping in with their thoughts, so that we can ascertain consensus. When we go to WP:PR and WP:FAC, I'll happily defend the consensus view whichever it is, if we're challenged. --Dweller 09:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Dweller here, this is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of essays... The Rambling Man 09:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So it's 2-1? What constitutes a quorum? I think the headings in place now are pretty good. More importantly, can we address the point I raised about an article on his controversies, which will cut this article down nicely and therefore move the project forward a bit? Phanto282 10:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

NB, it's not a vote, it's a discussion. And yes, we can also address your point as well. The Rambling Man 10:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

I just moved all the PD images up to Commons and removed them off en.. Commons:Category:Donald Bradman is now a half decent gallery. —Moondyne 09:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)