Happy birthday Bradman

It is right that much has been made of what would have been Don Bradman's 100th birthday today. Composers and artists get their anniversaries celebrated (one feature of the BBC Proms season in London is that each year a proportion of the concerts are dedicated to those who were born or died a significant number of years ago). So should the greatest sportsmen.

But of course with Bradman the figure 100 is about more than just a birthday. The number 100 is indelibly linked with him, a magical number for a magical facility for scoring Test centuries that will never be beaten. That he ended his career just four runs shy of averaging 100 over his lifetime is an imperfection that only highlights the magnitude of his overall achievement, like a beauty spot on the face of the most attractive of women. Incidentally, Bradman's 99.94th birthday would have been 22 days ago.

Christopher Martin-Jenkins has written a fine tribute to the Don, which you can read here. For my part, I will just echo the point made by several people over the past few decades: he was head and shoulders above anyone else who has ever played in a sport where one error means your innings is over. Babe Ruth was a great baseball player but he got several chances a game to score a home run; Tiger Woods is a brilliant golfer who has won more majors, as a percentage of the ones he has competed in, than anyone else, but he can fluff the odd drive and still bounce back; Muhammad Ali was regularly hit, even put on the floor by Henry Cooper of all people, but it was rarely terminal.

Bradman would bag you a hundred almost every time he batted; the next best average is barely over 60. Having a Bradman in the side effectively meant that you had 12 players. There was a time in the 1990s when the entire England middle order barely added up to one Bradman. No one in any sport has been so dominant. I have been running a series of essays on Ashes Heroes on this blog, and No 46 will be put up later today, but it is no surprise to say that you will have to wait until next summer to find Bradman.

As this article in The Australian shows, Bradman was also a fine competitor in other sports. Chances are that his hand-eye co-ordination, determination and work ethic would have made him a success in whatever professional sport he tried. He was the once and future king of cricket.

Mind you, he struggled against Harold Larwood...

Comments

The Great Man did have to face the worst bowlers of the 20th. century. the only half decent bowler he faced was banned.

[Peter McGuinness]

Superb Oscar.

Reassuring to know that you are still out there, quietly digesting every minute morsel of cricketing information on earth. Haven't you got anything better to do?

I haven't.

Maybe we should form some kind of sad club or something.

JohnMc is borderline, as is Rusty. If only our dear, dear stalwart queen of the mid-lands still stalked these pages we would have ourselves a convener and a standing counterpoint to all things happy.

Ann...where for art thou?

[Patrick Kidd]

Well observed Oscar. So that is what happened to the indefinite article that wandered out of Giles Coren's restaurant review with such amusing effect....
See this if you don't have a clue what I mean: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/23/mediamonkey

[Oscar the Grouch]

Patrick - as a known serial pedant, I must protest one comment in your piece: having a Bradman in the side?? You of course meant having Bradman in the side as by your own - and everybody else's - admission the man was unique. I expect no less than an obsequious apology. Harrumph!