Was Bradman a jerk?

[the big bambino]

Maybe, but it broke him subsequently. He hardly scored a run in fc cricket thereafter in 32/33.

 

[mr_mister]

well when he did return to tests he proved his haters wrong... though I dunno how strong that SA bowling attack was that he pummelled


anyway I only really threw the Fingleton stuff in because I personally found the bloke interesting, the Grimmet/O'Reilly stuff is much juicier gossip

 

[the big bambino]

The SA attack was pretty good. Don't be fooled by the averages. They played almost exclusively against Oz and Eng without the benefit of softening their figures against weaker nations.

Oh crap you mean the 35/36 series. Yeah the bowling wasn't as good as their 31/32 side.

 

[Midwinter]

Let's compare the situation to something more recent

Shane Warne vs Steve Waugh

Would you regard Steve Waugh as a jerk based on what Shane Warne thinks of him ?

may this have a similarity to the O'Reilly vs Bradman relationship ?

Also as a captain and selector you have to make decisions which may not be popular, ( everyone has a whinge about their boss at some point). Bradman may have made some unpopular decisions and also some bad ones but tell me who hasn't.

One thing that is often missed is Bradman's age. Test debut at 20, Cricketing superstar on first tour of England at 22.

 

[Dan]

Well, if you look at Bradman's record in admin, its pretty easy to see why the 'HE'S A JERK' sentiment exists.

 

[watson]

Australian culture has two conflicting characteristics that underpin how Australians engage in both life and sport. On-the-one-hand there is ruthless pragmatism and on the other there is larrikinism.

These opposing world-views often manifest themselves on the cricket field and create tension between the various protagonists who battle over the ideal of whether you play the to win, or whether you play the game for the fun of it?

Bradman's character led him naturally to believe that you played the game of cricket to win. His mountain of runs and post-War execution of the English cricket team in 1948 is proof enough of that.

Cricketers like Keith Miller were from the other end of the Australian spectrum and so they inevitably clashed on and off the field;

The Don's War

DURING the 1948 ''Invincibles'' tour, Don Bradman had a running battle with his star all-rounder, Keith Miller. Twice during the Test series, when Bradman threw Miller the ball to bowl, Miller threw it back, refusing. In the dressing room at Lord's, the bickering went on, and Jack Fingleton, covering the tour, was told that Bradman ''grumbled apropos of Miller not bowling''.

''I don't know what's up with you chaps,'' Bradman said. ''I'm 40 and I can do my full day's work in the field.''

To which Miller allegedly replied: ''So would I - if I had fibrositis during the war!''

Miller had been a fighter pilot during the war. Bradman, on the other hand, had never seen battle. Suffering fibrositis, a nervous muscular complaint, he had been discharged from the army in 1941.
Advertisement

Miller's resentment towards his captain went back to the contrasting ways in which they had spent the war. Miller had on his side several of the English and Australian cricketers, who had come out of the war feeling that cricket should be played in a new spirit. The clash between this idea and Bradman's, which was to continue the combative atmosphere of cricket from the 1930s, was going to determine the path of Ashes cricket for decades to come......

The Don's war

Seen in this context Don Bradman will always be seen as a 'jerk' to those who believe that there is more to cricket than simply winning, and as a hero to those who simply love to win.

 

[doesitmatter]

I have also read that he was stingy when it came to spending his winnings among team-mates. There was also an allegation that he stopped cricketers from making a livelihood out of cricket by not sharing the gate money as an administrator etc..(leading to packer series) . May be one more reason for him to be branded as a jerk....

 

[Burgey]

Bradman very nearly didn't play the Bodyline series because the Board wouldn't let him write for a newspaper and make a quid from it while he was playing at the same time. It was only when the paper released him that he ended up playing. It's odd that someone who was so aware of making some dough was so opposed to players wanting to do the same thing in the 70s, by which time he was basically running the ACB.

 

[Midwinter]

Bradman was 24-25 years old at the time of Bodyline and he was working in a sporting goods store in Sydney and trying to turn his fame into extra money to support his wife and possibly child by that stage, He came from a working class background and had a secondary school education, and was obvouisly trying use his fame to get some financial security.

Why he had no sympathy for increasing player payments, which led to WSC, is interesting given the background Burgey refers to.

One possible scenario was he was simply an old man slowly losing touch with the world, he would have been around 70 years old, looking at the world through how things used to be. and failing to see the opportunities becoming available.

or

He was now looking at the issue from an administrators point of view , having to balance the books between successful and unsuccessful cricket tours by international teams, making provision for losses from tours by teams which didn't attract crowds. (why do you think Aus has not played NZ regularly), trying to provide money for the development of the game locally and internationally and supporting junior cricket.

Do you think Ian Chappell met with Bradman and discussed how they could balance the Boards budget after an increase in player payments ?

 

[Burgey]

I don't think they met to specifically discuss that, but there was a segment in the Cricket in the 70s doco where Chappell mentioned he went to the Board with a number of issues which concerned the players. He indicated Bradman took little interest in many of the matters raised, but as soon as the discussion turned to finances he sat up, listened and then basically put the kybosh on anything Chappell wanted to do.

I'm not saying this makes him a jerk, btw. I do think he was very socially awkward though. He was also a Tory, so that pretty much is what makes him a jerk more than anything to do with cricket.

 

[social]

It's generally accepted that Bradman was, for want of a better term, a jerk

He was allegedly a massive hypocrite e.g. left team hotels for days on tour to work on personal endorsement deals but ostracized others who even thought about doing the same

He was also notoriously tight e.g. was once given 1000 quid by a sponsor for scoring 300 (a massive sum at the time - literally equivalent to the value of an expensive house in Sydney) but refused to buy his team-mates from that game a beer

He also had a chequered business and administrative reputation post-cricket with regards to treatment of employees and investors

Great cricketer but allegedly incredibly selfish & definitely of the "Do as I say, not as I do" brigade

 

[Gnske]

He was a jerk and a total lightweight.

 

[Burgey]

Probably a featherweight tbh

 

[the big bambino]

I think its gotta be said that most of his critics were arsewipes. Boo hoo he didn't buy me a beer. (Why would he want to share a beer with bludgers aggro begging him for a shout?) Wahhh he knocked back an invite: Better snivel on 5 pages about that in my next cricket book. Got 1000 large didja? Where's my cut? Dunno he should have said. Why don't you call my benefactor and ask if he has any spare? Bradman averages 56 in bodyline - coward!. Bradman averages 90 next series - selfish prick batting for himself. Bradman backs off to square to hit bodyline through the vacant off side - chicken. Trumper (in his day) backs off to square to hit leg theory through vacant off side - Didja see that! Masterful. Such quick footwork. Sheer poetry in motion. Bradman the administrator represents different interests than Bradman the individual - hypocrite. Bradman the business man doesn't tip off investors - bastard. Bradman tips off investors - its who you know aint it?

He made plenty of blues. Grimmett, Miller and Chappelli represented perfectly good gripes to him and did so to his face. Well done them. But most said against him is just Fingletonian excess and tellingly told against him behind his back or in fora where he didn't have an immediate right of reply. Or in such volume that he couldn't have even if he wanted.

 

[Pratters]

Yeah, agree with Bambino. I found it weird Fingleton dedicated two chapters in his autobiography to Bradman. I don't think all team mates held him in such bad light. Wasn't Harvey (he was young when started off in the team) a huge fan of the man till his old age..

 

[Jono]

He was a bit of a dick as a cricket administrator from everything I read.

 

[Kirkut]

He was definitely a jerk, the way he treated England bowlers with no mercy is a testimony to this fact. But in his last test match, he selflessly gave away his wicket instead of scoring another marauding 100 so that England bowlers realize the fact he had a soft side too for them. He sacrificed a perfect 100.00 average to show the bowlers all over the world how sorry he was for ripping their souls for the last 20 years.

 

[jonbrooks]

Hard to compare eras and all that. Stats don't tell the whole story about how good a player was. Brian Lara or Kumara Sangakarra? Lara always for me.

 

[the big bambino]

Lara a bigger jerk than Sanga?

 

[social]

Yeah, agree with Bambino. I found it weird Fingleton dedicated two chapters in his autobiography to Bradman. I don't think all team mates held him in such bad light. Wasn't Harvey (he was young when started off in the team) a huge fan of the man till his old age..

Look at Harvey's reputation as a person

Just because you are a great sportsman doesn't mean you are a decent human being

Norman?

Woods?

Best?

Warne?

OJ?

All complete tools and there are many others