The All Time Don Bradman Select XI

[Lillian Thomson]

This might have been discussed before as it was written just before Sir Donald died, but it's still worth another look and some people might have missed it. The one advantage than the Don had over the rest of us is that he saw all these players in action.

Barry Richards - South Africa
Arthur Morris - Australia
Don Bradman - Australia
Sachin Tendulkar - India
Gary Sobers - West Indies
Don Tallon - Australia
Ray Lindwall - Australia
Dennis Lillee - Australia
Alec Bedser - England
Bill O'Reilly - Australia
Clarrie Grimmett - Australia
12th man:
Wally Hammond - England

Full story

 

[aussie tragic]

I guess he trusted himself to score all the runs as with Tallon at No. 6 (ave 17), Lindwall at No. 7 (Ave 21) and Lillee at No. 8 (Ave 13) it's a pretty long tail.

 

[silentstriker]

A bit Aussie heavy though, isn't it?

 

[silentstriker]

I guess he trusted himself to score all the runs as with Tallon at No. 6 (ave 17), it's a pretty long tail.

Yea, I think he said, he preferred specialists to all rounders.

 

[andmark]

What I have heard the batting attack is very good of Sobers himself Tendulkar ect.

 

[archie mac]

I was a bit disappointed that he did not choose Jack Hobbs, as I imagine he never watched Richards in an 'official' Test match.

Tallon when younger was a fine batsman, should have toured England in 1938, and Lindwall scored two Test hundreds.

 

[Matt79]

As Archie would know I started to write a review of that book and may one day actually get around to finishing it.

In that review, I haven't criticised Bradman for his selection because, hey who the hell am I to disagree with the great man, but I have noted that Bradman appears no more immune to the very common bias amongst cricket followers to favour players of the period in which you first became seriously involved in the sport, and to favour players who you played with (if you're a former player). Its not really a surprising tendency and you see it in every team selected by a former player - they have a much greater appreciation of how good the players they competed with and against were, compared to those they've seen from the comfort of the stands/commentary booth.

If I was going to pick at Bradman's selections, I'd say the one glaring omission, by the criteria he's used, and the preferences it displayed, is not including Wally Hammond. He's got one too many bowlers and honestly one of Grimmett or Bedser should have missed out for Hammond, who if Bradman really thought the team needed 6 bowlers, was a decent medium-fast bowler as well as a great batsmen.

The decision to exclude Hobbs is an odd one, but again, hell, if Bradman says that he thinks Barry Richards is the best opener he ever saw (which he does in the book) then who am I to disagree.

Its also worth bearing in mind that this list was done circa 2000, so if he'd lived another 6 years and compiled it today, I'd think that both Warne and Murali would have got a place, and Gilchrist would have been the keeper. Perry says as much in regards to Gilchrist and particularly Warne in the book.

 

[Matt79]

I guess he trusted himself to score all the runs as with Tallon at No. 6 (ave 17), Lindwall at No. 7 (Ave 21) and Lillee at No. 8 (Ave 13) it's a pretty long tail.

He did say that he thought runs wouldn't be a problem with a top 5 of Richards, Morris, himself, Tendulkar and Sobers. Should specify as well that he wasn't being up-himself in naming himself (justified though he would be) - Perry specified to him at the start of the project that it would be a nonsense to have anyone else at three, so asked him to pick his ideal team for himself to have played with.

 

[archie mac]

As Archie would know I started to write a review of that book and may one day actually get around to finishing it.

In that review, I haven't criticised Bradman for his selection because, hey who the hell am I to disagree with the great man, but I have noted that Bradman appears no more immune to the very common bias amongst cricket followers to favour players of the period in which you first became seriously involved in the sport, and to favour players who you played with (if you're a former player). Its not really a surprising tendency and you see it in every team selected by a former player - they have a much greater appreciation of how good the players they competed with and against were, compared to those they've seen from the comfort of the stands/commentary booth.

If I was going to pick at Bradman's selections, I'd say the one glaring omission, by the criteria he's used, and the preferences it displayed, is not including Wally Hammond. He's got one too many bowlers and honestly one of Grimmett or Bedser should have missed out for Hammond, who if Bradman really thought the team needed 6 bowlers, was a decent medium-fast bowler as well as a great batsmen.

The decision to exclude Hobbs is an odd one, but again, hell, if Bradman says that he thinks Barry Richards is the best opener he ever saw (which he does in the book) then who am I to disagree.

Its also worth bearing in mind that this list was done circa 2000, so if he'd lived another 6 years and compiled it today, I'd think that both Warne and Murali would have got a place, and Gilchrist would have been the keeper. Perry says as much in regards to Gilchrist and particularly Warne in the book.

I have no doubt (well maybe a little) that he still would have O'Reilly ahead of Warne.

It should also be mentioned that some experts have said they think Perry made up this whole side, and Bradman had nothing to do with this team.

 

[Matt79]

The only person I could find who seriously argued that Bradman hadn't selected that team was Sunil Gavaskar in the Hindu Times, and his argument was mainly based on the fact that Bradman hadn't selected him - sour grapes IMO. Bradman stated he wanted very attacking opening bats, and hence had prefered Richards as his right handed bat over Gavaskar, Hutton or Hobbs.

 

[Matt79]

I think Warne would have gone in at Grimmett's expense with O'Reilly still in as well. TBF Bradman's team would look a lot more balanced with Gilchrist at 6 rather than Tallon, and Warne in at 8 rather than having Grimmett at 10 or 11.

 

[nightprowler10]

A bit Aussie heavy though, isn't it?

Ashes heavy more like.

 

[Matt79]

As i said, everyone is biased to some degree towards players they have seen the most of. Look at the results in the "Rank the batsmen/bowlers" threads etc on this site.

 

[adharcric]

I don't think that bias showed up too much because there were enough balanced voters to negate the effect of those who automatically voted in Tendulkar at #2, for example.

Among the batsmen, Tendulkar at 4 and Lara at 6 isn't really that biased.
Among the bowlers, Muralitharan, McGrath and Warne all should be where they are IMO.

I think it's fair to say that the "recent" bias is at an absolute minimum when it comes to CW posters as a group.

 

[nightprowler10]

As i said, everyone is biased to some degree towards players they have seen the most of. Look at the results in the "Rank the batsmen/bowlers" threads etc on this site.

Yeah but I guess I expected a bit less of that from the Don. Then again, its not like he had the luxury of watching some of the players from different nations on TV.

 

[Matt79]

Well actually he was an avid watcher of players on telly in his later years. I don't blame him, and I wasn't having a dig at adharcric's threads either - its human nature to be most impressed by that which you saw with your own eyes, and if your comparing what you saw as a player or as a spectator, by what you saw as a player.

 

[nightprowler10]

True, a bit like facing a fast bowler vs watching an even faster bowler on TV. You're always going to think the bowler you faced was faster.

 

[Poker Boy]

Hate to critsice the "Don" but I've seen this team before and it's bowler heavy - Hammond should come in for a spinner (Sobers bowls spin too). And four Tests does not make you an all-time great - not when you could have had Hobbs, Boycott, Hutton, Gavaskar, Simpson, Lawry, Grennidge etc...I'll forgive him the WK choice because in Don's era wicket-keeper batsmen weren't as prominent but if I was in the field against a team whose No 6 avverages 17 I'd fancy my chances with a few early wickets...

 

[PhoenixFire]

I think it's interesting how Sir Donald doesn't just choose the most obvious choices, and chooses some different people from the norm, such as Don Tallon.

 

[Matt79]

Hate to critsice the "Don" but I've seen this team before and it's bowler heavy - Hammond should come in for a spinner (Sobers bowls spin too). And four Tests does not make you an all-time great - not when you could have had Hobbs, Boycott, Hutton, Gavaskar, Simpson, Lawry, Grennidge etc...I'll forgive him the WK choice because in Don's era wicket-keeper batsmen weren't as prominent but if I was in the field against a team whose No 6 avverages 17 I'd fancy my chances with a few early wickets...

He did say that whereever possible he based his choices on what he'd seen, rather than just statistical records. He saw a lot of Barry Richards bat at FC level and formed the view that he was the best right handed opener ever. Its speculative but Don is certainly qualified to judge I suppose...