« MERCY RULE | Main | GLORIALANA »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

iOdyne

Now I ask you Is he any good? was not, I would have thought, an invitation by Jack O'Hagan to deconstruct 'our' Don. 'Academics' generally don't write a 'study' unless they are adding to their qualifications or chasing a grant. Stuff 'em.
It should be clear to anybody that a person who absolutely excels at anything would have a personality type that is not bland.
"be the ball. be the ball. be the ball. be the ball. be the ball etc ad infinitum"

m0nty

I'd sooner believe that Heenan and Dunstan are at the far end of the spectrum.

Douglas Jardine

The Little Bastard.

Big Ramifications

Heh. I still get a laugh out of that one, Douglas!

ps: Ronald Reagan = Adolph Hitler = Benito Mussolini, doncha know?

Carrot

What a crap article. It reads like some sort of tabloid smear piece. There's not a single remark or criticism in it that there couldn't be reasonable explanation for, and it offers zero evidence for any of the claims it makes. I have no doubt that he was actually a bit of a ruthless prick - very successful people are rarely "nice": Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Kerry Packer, Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, Margaret Thatcher, Richard Wagner ..... jeez, make up your own randomly generated list, but this reads exactly like iOdyne suggests, that these guys are just trying to make a name for themselves.

My favourite quotes:

1) "In reality he was its most ruthless destroyer of ordinary bowling". Which pretty much flies in the face of any statistic you care to look at, and concludes that because he got out cheaply on occasion that he must have been scared of fast bowling. I hate that sort of "these runs/wickets count but these ones don't" type of analysis in the modern game, and applying it to a guy who averaged 100 seems to be being more than a bit convenient with the truth.

2) "When it comes to the greats of the game, Tendulkar now out-ranks the Don, according to Hall of Fame patrons". Who are these mystery people? What evidence do they have to make these suggestions? Speaking for myself I wouldn't rank Tendulkar in my top 5 players in the modern era - maybe not even top 10, let alone of all time. But we're just supposed to take their word for it that he was better than Bradman.

Oh, and this from the comments: "A bitchy piece of academic self-flagellation". Hear, hear!

Peter Brock
"It should be clear to anybody that a person who absolutely excels at anything would have a personality type that is not bland."
My guru, Dr Eric Dowker, appeared on the scene in 1984 after my emotionally draining attempt at conquering Le Mans. As well as being a chiropractor, he also worked with crystals, explaining to me that the correct one would keep out negative influences.

I started wearing a crystal, and Beverley began swinging hers over meals.

Guests at our home were told crystals were used to purify and heat the water in our swimming pool and spa.

[...]

In 1985, colleagues and motoring journalists got wind I was working on a "secret project" involving crystal pieces attached to Holden Dealer Team car engines.

[...]

Within a year, Holden management was getting antsy. "Look, Brock," they told me, "if you want to play Gyro Gearloose, do it out at Eltham, not at Port Melbourne, because that will not hit the spot with GMH".

In October 1986, Holden wrote to myself and Dr Dowker proposing a series of trials at their Lang Lang test track. We agreed, but after 4 days of tests the results showed the [crystal and magnet powered] Polarizer made no difference.

It was obvious that the equipment required to measure the beneficial effects of the device had yet to be invented.


"Physics doesn't recognise that this energy exists or that it can do these things. So the laws of physics are going to have to be redefined."

Big Ramifications

Not sure I wanna read the article now, what with Tony and iOdyne's warnings of academic attention-wh0ring, followed by Carrot's takedown 4 comments later.

But for history's sake here's my 5c worth on Evil Sir Donald before I read the article. Erm, with a quick skim of Wikipedia to confirm I didn't misremember anything, heh. I'm almost certain these bullet points would be considered "common knowledge" amongst cricket fans over the age of 30.

1. Post cricket, how he managed to score his stockbroker boss' entire client list after the latter went to jail for embezzlement, something that went against every UNWRITTEN RULE and gentleman's handshake regarding such matters.

What were the machinations behind his boss' jailing and the highly controversial transfer of his client list to Bradman? So many possibilities in the spectrum, from an ignorant or unwilling Bradman being gifted the client list thanks to some star struck bureaucrats and decision makers.... to him being a shadowy Machiavellian PLAYA who even helped orchestrate his boss' downfall.

2. A few "Packer / World Series Cricket" books and documentaries paint him as a rather unlikeable chap who didn't give two hoots about Shield and Test players' financial wellbeing. Closed minded and set in his ways, Australian cricket was Bradman's plaything and he was boss.

But did Bradman have his snout in the buffet? Was he hobnobbing it, flying all over Australia and the world attending meetings, staying in 5 star hotels? Or was the main issue with him just being a grumpy old pig-headed anachronism?

And using iOdyne's razor: "it should be clear to anybody that a person who rises to the top of any large sporting organisation would have a personality type that is not at all likeable." Which hardly qualifies Sir Donald for SPECIAL revisionary treatment in the history books, for him to be posthumous placed in the village stocks, usin' him as a target for a bit of fielding practice with ripe tomatoes.

Although it would be funny.

3. Did he pull strings to avoid active duty in WWII? Was he a MALINGERER? From my angle there doesn't seem to be too much of a FUROR regarding this matter. He joined an over staffed RAAF, then landed a plum job as an Army physical trainer. Some criticism at the time that he took a "safer option" by switching from the RAAF to the Army role. But it also appears that safe option was foisted on him by another star struck bureaucrat – none other than the GG of Australia.

He had health problems well before the war began, including heart problems and a BRUSH WITH DEATH! So with my pub-trivia level of knowledge Sir Donald gets a pass from me on the whole WWII thing.

4. Regarding dressing room politics, he was into the whole farking annoying "Catholic Protestant argy bargy" thing.... and he never got on the sauce with his team mates. Struth!

For that, his name should be dragged thru mud and his memory broken at the wheel and left for the buzzards. Then he should be deported to Iraq.

lou

I don't live in Aus anymore, is this a big debate about Bradman's level of unpleasantness? Who would possibly care about that?

Big Ramifications

There's no "big debate" as far as I can tell, lou.

This little study by Dunstan and Heenan has fuelled a few debates in the last few days, but that's to be expected coz it's current news. And blogs have comments sections.

As for "who would possibly care?" If these lernd academics have unearthed some SHOCKING previously unheard tales ["Palace sources" style, heh] then I'd very much care to read the details.

Years ago I saw Ian Chappell do a great job of pointing out Bradman's personality flaws and lampooning him - right down to the hunched shoulders, folded arms, and annoying whiny voice. It's been done. My care factor is zero for rehashing that kinda stuff.

ps: While I'm at it, Tinypic was down for a bit so I couldn't upload two links for my previous post. Here they are now. Lucky youse.

So many possibilities in the spectrum, from an ignorant or unwilling Bradman being gifted the client list thanks to some star struck bureaucrats and decision makers.... to him being a shadowy Machiavellian PLAYA who even helped orchestrate his boss' downfall.

[...]

Regarding dressing room politics, he was into the whole farking annoying "Catholic Protestant argy bargy" thing.


M. Patard

Rodney reckons Dunstan & Heenan were cavalier with the facts.

PS. I thought it was common knowledge that Bradman was just your stock standard prodo prick.

Teetotaller Terry

More scabrous attacks:

ROLAND PERRY:...There were other teetotallers, for example, in the side that didn't like to go out and have a few drinks after each day.

It was just a different attitude.

TONY JONES: I'm sure we're not criticising him for not taking a drink.

ROLAND PERRY: He did later in life, by the way.

He like to drink later in life.

I had a few with him myself.

TONY JONES: There's a famous shot of him drinking a glass of champagne on the news tonight.

That's a lie!

Sanity Prevails

What I find interesting about the earlier exchange, is, in many ways if you watch the news it's Roland's view that's been promoted.

In terms of the man and the myth -- the myth, in many ways, has become dominant version.

As I say, alternative or counter discourses around, say, the Fingleton and O'Reilly versions of Bradman, have been marginalised.

It's important to understand that the version we get and are particularly getting today isn't necessarily the only one, but it's certainly the most popular one.

Thanks be to Freemasonry for Rodney Cavalier. Hip pip, Hooray! //etc, etc//

m0nty

The New Daily: stupidity one day, reverse stupidity the next day. Fair and balanced.

Cameron

The Freemason angle is an interesting one and perhaps resulted in the little bastard hating tykes more than was necessary (to borrow an English phrase about another religo/ethnic group).

Tony Tea

Monty nailed it. Bait & bite.

M. Patard

But why now, Tones? Why now?

M. Patard

"an acquisitive, ruthless, and self-interested loner. In short, “an extremely peculiar Australian”."

I can't see how any of those adjectives are anything but what it is to be a modern Australian. Maybe Bradman was a man before his time and that *was* the problem. But it shouldn't be one now.

The thing with these "myths" of Australianess is that the type applies to the times they were written. So, they're mythological now, but they were reality then.

Eg. Is Ned Kelly really a modern day icon for Ozzie? If being a "rebel" is the central motif of Kelly then it is surely misapplied to the modern mainstream Ozzie. Look at all the taboo's and how we bow down to them: racist! homophobe! nazi! fascist! etc

Nay, I say, nay. We are Bradmans who pretend to be Kellys.

M. Patard

Denier!

Tony Tea

Why now? Grant season is on the way.

Big Ramifications

That was glorious, Pat.

Martin Luther King
**acquisitive

**ruthless

**self-interested

**loner

**extremely peculiar [matron!]

I can't see how any of those adjectives are anything but what it is to be a modern Australian. Maybe Bradman was a man before his time and that *was* the problem. But it shouldn't be one now.

The thing with these "myths" of Australianess is that the type applies to the times they were written. So, they're mythological now, but they were reality then.

[...]

We are Bradmans who pretend to be Kellys.


I have climbed the mountain, and I have SEEN the Promised Land! Fantastic work, Pat. Prescient and jarring.

You should get mic'ed up and read it from a pulpit. That's what it deserves.

m0nty

Why now? Because Australia is feeling pretty damn good about itself and its cricketing heroes right now after an Ashes whitewash. Trolling its most sacred cow is guaranteed to garner the greatest response at this point.

Tony Tea

History 101 is now all about putting today's values on yesterday's events.

lou

TT, regarding History 101, some famous author - can't remember who but it wasn't Amis - said that you can't expect people from the past to suck up to you.

Professor Rosseforp

"The Freemason angle is an interesting one and perhaps resulted in the little bastard hating tykes more than was necessary" -- but in the context of his times, this would not have been out of step with Australian society. Anti-Catholicism still reared its head during Paul Keating's reign, and Tony Abbott has always copped it too. As late as the 1980s, sectors of the NSW Public Service appeared (anonymous sources again) to be run by a clique of Freemasons, although certain positions were available only for women or Catholics. I once worked in a place of about 80 employees where I was the only non-Catholic, and I think that's because my boss stuffed up when he interviewed me.
These things are pretty unimportant now, thankfully, but a lot of younger Aussies have forgotten how important they once were.

Tony Tea

I was recently told that there has been shenanigans of a sequel nature which has thrown a trowel into the workings a the current Victorian masons election.

Tony Tea

Of a sexual nature.

Cameron

I sometimes have trouble believing there was sectarian trouble in Australia given the amount of (sexual or as Tony may say sequel) fraternising with the enemy that seems to have gone on.

Cameron

You might enjoy this article PR: http://mattforney.com/2013/07/02/americas-four-hundred-year-war-against-the-catholic-church/

(Tony the agb spam filter seems to have taken a liking to my last comment)

Professor Rosseforp

Speaking of sequel matters and the Church, a couple of weeks ago the UN spoke out against the Church's attitude to complaints about molestation. The Church spokesman made a bad choice of words when he objected to the UN's "touch of interference".
I await the sexual -- I mean the sequel.

Professor Rosseforp

Sorry, the Church spokesman said the UN was "out of touch" and accused the UN of interference. Still a bad choice of words, as well as invoking blackness of kettles and pots.

M. Patard

Prof Prof says: These things are pretty unimportant now, thankfully, but a lot of younger Aussies have forgotten how important they once were.

More on this in remarkable segue between Studsy and Clarrie Grimmett in a comment on the just finished Centurion Test.


M. Patard

Trumper and Grimmett were both Anglican. Trumper also with Methodist influence.

The core Bradman, which goes to the general dislike of the man, goes more to his spiteful vanity induced vindictiveness than to his Freemasonry, it seems.

Tony Tea

Cricket fact! Bill O'Rielly founded Opus Dei.

The comments to this entry are closed.