World Sports Magazine Review - 1948

[chasingthedon]

In this latest summary of the global sports magazine, Neville Cardus discusses the farewell of Don Bradman from tests and the great man's impact on the game.

World Sports Magazine Review - 1948 | Cricket Web

 

[fredfertang]

I suppose with 70 years to 'bed in' it's hardly surprising that 99.94 has become the best known number in the game, but every contemporary publication I've looked at gets it right and comments on it, so getting the career average wrong is really strange

 

[chasingthedon]

I suppose with 70 years to 'bed in' it's hardly surprising that 99.94 has become the best known number in the game, but every contemporary publication I've looked at gets it right and comments on it, so getting the career average wrong is really strange

Yeah, it's odd, as obviously the average has been calculated based on that incorrect runs aggregate.

 

[a massive zebra]

I suppose with 70 years to 'bed in' it's hardly surprising that 99.94 has become the best known number in the game, but every contemporary publication I've looked at gets it right and comments on it, so getting the career average wrong is really strange

Yeah, no runs were retrospectively added. Not for the first time, Cardus simply got his figures wrong.

Here is an example of a contemporary article, written just one day after the scheduled conclusion of the fifth test, in which Bradman's correct career aggregate and average is clearly stated:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/...Bradman 100 average&searchLimits=l-decade=194

 

[chasingthedon]

Yeah, no runs were retrospectively added. Not for the first time, Cardus simply got his figures wrong.

Here is an example of a contemporary article, written just one day after the scheduled conclusion of the fifth test, in which Bradman's correct career aggregate and average is clearly stated:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/...Bradman 100 average&searchLimits=l-decade=194

Yes, they got Bradman's figures correct - but Hammond's are wrong :-)

 

[Victor Ian]

I imagine it was harder to do stats and aggregates back then. No computers to download from. Probably having to consult outdated books and archives with figures coming from various volumes and clunky calculators. Easy to make mistakes

 

[chasingthedon]

I imagine it was harder to do stats and aggregates back then. No computers to download from. Probably having to consult outdated books and archives with figures coming from various volumes and clunky calculators. Easy to make mistakes

Fair comment. I wasn't intending to denigrate Cardus per se, although that year's Wisden has quite a comprehensive (and accurate) statistical breakdown of his career, so the information was around.

 

[Starfighter]

Yes, they got Bradman's figures correct - but Hammond's are wrong :-)

Says 84 matches for 7170, so it omits his last match where he scored 79 against NZ to make the correct figure of 7249 in 85 matches.

Interesting.

 

[fredfertang]

Have just had a look at Christopher Brookes' biography of Cardus, from which it seems that he and Bradman were close friends - I suspect therefore that the display of ignorance was from the editorial staff at World Sports rather than from Cardus himself

 

[chasingthedon]

Have just had a look at Christopher Brookes' biography of Cardus, from which it seems that he and Bradman were close friends - I suspect therefore that the display of ignorance was from the editorial staff at World Sports rather than from Cardus himself

Could be - we'll never know at this point - it's certainly presented as if it was Cardus but may not have been..