Hidden Runs Could Get Bradman's Ton

[OzBomber]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24228065-5005961,00.html

THE elusive four runs that would bring Don Bradman's Test average to a cool 100 may have been found, a sports statistician claims.
Charles Davis has studied old Test match scorebooks, and says he has found a "tantalising clue" to the "missing" four runs.
Bradman's Test average - 99.94 runs - is entrenched in Australian sporting history, but just four more runs spread over a career of nearly 20 years would have taken it to 100.


Doubt it because like it said in the article there is probably mistakes for Bradman which would lower his average. I think it's better though that his average is 99.94, I don't know why but I just do.

Here (http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/could-this-be-the-dons-missing-four-runs/2008/08/22/1219262525317.html?page=2) is the article from Davis where he goes on to mention of the things he's noticed;

■ In the famous Sydney Test of 1903-04, Victor Trumper scored 187 not out, but his scoring strokes add up to only 185. Monty Noble's 133 add up to only 128.

■ Charlie Macartney's famous 345 against Notts in 1921 was probably 343.

■ There is probably an error in Wally Hammond's mammoth 336 not out in New Zealand, when he broke the Don's record score of 334. Fortunately for Hammond, the error appears to be in his favour; he may have scored 337 not out.

■ Sid Barnes and Don Bradman both scored 234 at the SCG in 1946-47. The story goes that Barnes threw his wicket away so he could have the same score as the Don, but in one surviving scorebook his strokes add up to only 233.

[Cleavy]

On the surface, it sounds like an April Fools joke, but Charles Davis is a smart bloke.

[Real Insight]

This is dumb because if people could count they'll know that he needed a score of 4 not out or 104 out.
So looking for 4 extra runs won't do a single thing of worth.

[OzBomber]

This is dumb because if people could count they'll know that he needed a score of 4 not out or 104 out.
So looking for 4 extra runs won't do a single thing of worth.No, 104 runs would've got him an average of 101.43. 4 runs (out) would've got him an average of 100.

[betterthanu]

This is dumb because if people could count they'll know that he needed a score of 4 not out or 104 out.
So looking for 4 extra runs won't do a single thing of worth.

They are looking for missing runs, not a missing innings

[wally funk]

does this seem like nothing but a desperate attempt for the don to get 100? sure, it'd be awesome, but if there really was an error, some cricket fanatic would have probably stumbled upon it before now, in the many decades since the don's retirement.

[thegreenmachine]

I can't see that they will find a way to get The Don to an average of 100. His last innings (a 2nd ball duck) has been talked about and looks like will always be talked about as a famous innings for so many reasons. I reckon he'll forever be stuck on an average of 99.94.

[roostersgal4eva]

does this seem like nothing but a desperate attempt for the don to get 100? sure, it'd be awesome, but if there really was an error, some cricket fanatic would have probably stumbled upon it before now, in the many decades since the don's retirement.
not really

you would need to re watch the Aust Innings in its entirity to see where the error was - few would have acess to that footage

[davey_magik]

does this seem like nothing but a desperate attempt for the don to get 100? sure, it'd be awesome, but if there really was an error, some cricket fanatic would have probably stumbled upon it before now, in the many decades since the don's retirement.

Agreed. You would think considering the fanfare his average has received that if he had made a few extra runs it would have been discovered by now.

[sherb]

This is dumb because if people could count they'll know that he needed a score of 4 not out or 104 out.
So looking for 4 extra runs won't do a single thing of worth.
I am not sure what you are getting at here.

Bradman was dismissed 70 times in Test Cricket, scoring 6996 runs at 99.94 (6996/70 = 99.94 average).

If another 4 runs are credited to his test tally in any innings (or combination of) during his Test career his average would go to 100 (7000/70 = 100).

[the_interloper]

I think it's better though that his average is 99.94, I don't know why but I just do.


My thoughts exactly, it's kind of says that nobody's perfect, but Bradman was that close to perfection it's ridiculous! :thumbsu:

[raikkonen]

This is dumb because if people could count they'll know that he needed a score of 4 not out or 104 out.
So looking for 4 extra runs won't do a single thing of worth.

Who looks dumb now...;)

[ams4crows]

look how many talk about the he averaged 99.94 It's a fact every sporting Australian knows in fact it's probably been talked about more because he didn't get it!

leave it be! he dosen't need any extra runs he's still the greatest there ever was!

[footyfreak]

i know if it had of been me i would have played the 1st test of the next year to get my average above 100 otherwise it would have eaten away at me for years.

[Wallaby]

That would be a big change for the ABC. Apparently a Chairman of the ABC was a huge Bradman fan.

If you write to the ABC (snail mail) you send it to GPO Box 9994 in every capital city.
The ABC National number phone is..... 13 9994.

[Dipper]

i know if it had of been me i would have played the 1st test of the next year to get my average above 100 otherwise it would have eaten away at me for years.

Yeah but you'd have had to go out & score 104 in the 1st innings & then another 100 in the second inngs if batting again.

Or conversely you could have got to 4 retired hurt & refused to bat in the 2nd dig but I'm not sure what that would have done for your legacy.

[footyfreak]

Or conversely you could have got to 4 retired hurt & refused to bat in the 2nd dig but I'm not sure what that would have done for your legacy.

I'm bradman, everyone knows i'm a prick anyway so that would have been a good plan :thumbsu:;)

[thegreenmachine]

I'm bradman, everyone knows i'm a prick anyway so that would have been a good plan :thumbsu:;)
Bradman's a prick?:confused: I think I've been reading too much stuff in the media.

[betterthanu]

Bradman's a prick?:confused: I think I've been reading too much stuff in the media.

Everyone ive spoken to whos met Bradman says hes possibly the shittest bloke ever.

He was also a cancer on the SACA for a long time from what ive heard.

[wally funk]

why the SACA? what was his association with them?

[Mr_Smooth]

why the SACA? what was his association with them?
he was chairman of selectors for years

[Mancey]

Bradman's a prick?:confused: I think I've been reading too much stuff in the media.

Even arseholes...turn into top blokes...after death.

In reality he was a prickly character who didn't have too many real friends

[Abba Lonie]

he was chairman of selectors for years

Not 1996- though

[Black Thunder]

Even arseholes...turn into top blokes...after death.

In reality he was a prickly character who didn't have too many real friends
my understanding is that he was very reclusive. he was also a fairly snobby kind of guy.

without knowing for sure i'd say he's the sort of bloke who if he liked you he was great for you, but if he didn't like you he'd do anything or even go out of his way to bring you down.....

as for the 4 runs. impossible to know. there are bound to be mistakes in the scoring in terms of adding up the scoring shots, but there could also be mistakes in terms of recording scoring shots to the wrong batsman.

as someone said the only way would be to sit down and which every single test he played and re record them digitally.

would be VERY VERY time consuming.

whats more i doubt there is even the footage available as there is bound be some missing.