Bradman's Best

[courtjester]

Because I'm a sucker for all-time teams.

Has anyone read this? The player profiles are good, but his rationale as a selector is impeccable. Initially I thought his team ridiculous, but after reading the book, I almost agree. Benaud is on record saying he is the best selector ever. His team is:

1. Arthur Morris (Aus)

2. Barry Richards (SA)

3. Don Bradman (Aus).

4. Sachin Tendulkar

5. Garry Sobers (WI)

6. Don Tallon (Aus0

7. Ray Lindwall (Aus)

8. Dennis Lillee

9. Alec Bedser

10. Bill O'Reilly

11. Clarrie Grimmett


His rationale is:

* an attack that can bowl a team twice in five days.

* a team that scores quick enough for the bowlers to do their work.

Might argue with a few selections:
Why not play Gilly at 6 and strengthen the batting?
Are Bedser and Lindwall in the best three quicks all time,
and can Warne be squeezed in?

but all in all, I can see what he's getting at.

 

[sherb]

Because I'm a sucker for all-time teams.

Has anyone read this? The player profiles are good, but his rationale as a selector is impeccable. Initially I thought his team ridiculous, but after reading the book, I almost agree. Benaud is on record saying he is the best selector ever. His team is:

1. Arthur Morris (Aus)

2. Barry Richards (SA)

3. Don Bradman (Aus).

4. Sachin Tendulkar

5. Garry Sobers (WI)

6. Don Tallon (Aus0

7. Ray Lindwall (Aus)

8. Dennis Lillee

9. Alec Bedser

10. Bill O'Reilly

11. Clarrie Grimmett


His rationale is:

* an attack that can bowl a team twice in five days.

* a team that scores quick enough for the bowlers to do their work.

Might argue with a few selections:
Why not play Gilly at 6 and strengthen the batting?
Are Bedser and Lindwall in the best three quicks all time,
and can Warne be squeezed in?

but all in all, I can see what he's getting at.

Gilchrist made his test debut in Nov 1999. The Don died in Feb 2001. At most he had 15 months' worth of Gilchrist's test career to consider.

 

[worbod]

Gideon Haigh is one writer who holds little respect for Roland Perry. I would love to know what Haigh thinks of this book. Not sure whether he may think that a fair portion of the team is Perry's imagination. After all, it looks a bit dodgy that Bradman chose himself, even with his supreme average. Some critics of this team argue that it is has one too few batsmen.

 

[The Speaker]

It is pretty obviously Bradman's team. The book(s) (if you include his Ashes teams) have the pictures of the letters Bradman sent to Perry with the team listed.

Bradman was also not the sort of person who wouldn't choose himself. If I were his in shoes, I'd pick myself too...

The books themselves aren't anything special - good for people with a passing interest in cricket perhaps, but they don't go particularly in-depth on the reasons behind the selections, and don't really do much questioning of the team(s) either, and focus more on just profiling the players.

The way Bradman selected this team has influenced the way I go about "best ever" teams.

 

[Tassieboy]

Perry's writing is awful. He even went Hamish-esque and tooted his own horn on his Wikipedia page to a much greater extent.

 

[BarneyBent]

After all, it looks a bit dodgy that Bradman chose himself, even with his supreme average.

Sachin Tendulkar once asked him what he thought he'd average in the modern game. He said 70. When Tendulkar asked why 70 and not 99.94, he said 70 isn't bad for a 90 year old. It was of course a joke, but Bradman had no problem acknowledging his own ability, and by all reports had a very realistic (and so naturally, very high) opinion of his own ability.

Some critics of this team argue that it is has one too few batsmen.

When one of your batsman averages 100, you can afford to carry an extra bowler.

 

[courtjester]

Gideon Haigh is one writer who holds little respect for Roland Perry. I would love to know what Haigh thinks of this book. Not sure whether he may think that a fair portion of the team is Perry's imagination. After all, it looks a bit dodgy that Bradman chose himself, even with his supreme average. Some critics of this team argue that it is has one too few batsmen.

Gideon might fancy himself ultimate arbiter of all that is good about cricket writing, so it'd please him to read this!

Why are you speculating on whether Haigh might think this is Perry's imagination?

How foolish would an all-time XI look without Bradman? Even if it's Bradman's team? I mean really, it's Bradman.

And I fail to understand the criticisms of the writing or sources. Have you read it? The first few chapters contain Bradman's rationale and thought processes in selection, and then there is a chapter on each player. Just a basic playing biography for each individual. Hardly reason for criticism.

 

[Tassieboy]

I initially thought 'Ah, he's named himself - must be an arrogant so and so' but I now don't think there's any problem with that and he would of course be in everyone's best XI.

 

[worbod]

I would simply be interested to read an official point of view from Haigh as to why he disrespects Perry. By stating that Haigh perhaps thought Perry had made embellishments, I was just trying to put forward a reason as to why Haigh might not hold this book in high regard. I don't have anything serious against Perry's writing. Yes, I have read the book. It would not be very credible of me to not have read it and then make these posts.

I do think it still seems slightly odd that Bradman chose himself, as I thought it seemed odd when Ian Botham and Bob Simpson chose themselves in Best Of teams they selected some years ago. I do think Bradman is the best batsman of all time, but not everybody did. John Arlott thought Jack Hobbs was the greatest. And John Woodcock believed WG Grace was ahead of Bradman as the greatest cricketer of all. I was just hoping somebody could provide a reason for the disliking of Haigh towards Perry. It isn't just this book of Perry's that Haigh dislikes.

 

[The Speaker]

David Frith is another who doesn't enjoy Perry's works.