Talk:Don Bradman/Archive 2

message: I've changed the style of the list of footnotes as there were so many of them. It now shows about 15 at a time in a list that can be scrolled through if desired. Clicking on any of the numbers in the text still highlights the corresponding note. I feel that this is a good way to handle long lists of notes which otherwise take up a lot of space in an article. I hope it doesn't spoil anyone's enjoyment of the article. Thoughts please.
IrishPete 19:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style change to footnote list 

message: Things to do:
*Review structure
*:Using Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) as a model. How ironic. --Dweller 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA drive To-do list 

message: : I suggest to add a "Fame/recognition" (whatever) section, something like that :
: * Fame/recognition in Australia
: * Fame/recognition in England (maybe merged with the next one)
: * Fame/recognition around the world
: That could be a good way to use elements of the trivia section.
: Shouldn't be added (in the last part) Mandela's sentence , which prove Bradman's importance in the world ?
: If you want to add something for his recognition in non-cricketing nations : in 2000, he was the only cricketer among the 100 sportsmen/sportswomen elected by the (only) French sports daily, L'Équipe (reference : Un siècle de sport (One century of sport), published by Calmann-Lévy in 2000, )... Don't laugh, but one cricketer in such a publication in France, it's a lot ! -- OrangeKnight 14:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly :)... I just looked for his exact ranking in L'Equipe's selection : he was 77th (full rankings here) OrangeKnight 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fame section?

message: I vaguely recall there were issues with this :Image:Bodyline-tv-series.jpg image. Am I right? If not, it would be useful to illustrate the popular culture section. --Dweller 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm vaguely guessing but since it's being used under a fair use rationale, it should only be used to illustrate the subject in question (i.e. the bodyline mini-series) and shouldn't be used elsewhere...  But I'm happy to stand corrected... The Rambling Man 15:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that sounds about right. Shame. --Dweller 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV series 

message: For the use of Bradman's name for a trademark, see here. As I don't understand everything (sorry, I'm French), I let add the link and rewrite the sentence if necessary. OrangeKnight 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. You're doing (better than) fine. --Dweller 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found it on the same website than Loganbery gave (see "Bradman in Australian law" section above), but his link didn't work anymore ;) OrangeKnight 15:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've moved this section to somewhere I thought was more appropriate (popular culture rather than biography), cited, and made more accurate.  The legislation concerns corporation names, not trademarks (the "Bradman" name is protected under trademark laws in the normal way, it doesn't require special legislation). FiggyBee 06:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: :Copied from User talk:The Rambling Man...
I have edited the intro to this (368 words, O'Reilly is 344):
:Sir Donald George Bradman AC (27 August 1908—25 February 2001), often called The Don, was an Australian cricketer, administrator and writer on the game, universally acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time.[1] He is one of Australia's most popular sporting heroes, and one of the most respected past players in other cricketing nations.[2] His career Test batting average of 99.94 is by some measures the greatest statistical performance in any major sport.[3].[4]
:The story of the self-taught Bradman practicing alone using a cricket stump and a golf ball, is part of Australian folklore.[5] Bradman’s meteoric rise from bush cricket to the Australian Test team took just over two years. Before his 22nd birthday, he set myriad records for high scoring (many of which survive today) and became Australia’s sporting idol at the height of the Great Depression.[6] Special tactics (known as Bodyline)[7] were devised by the England team to curb his brilliance.
:During his 20-year career, Bradman consistently scored at a level that made him “worth three batsmen to Australia”, in the words of  Len Hutton.[8]  Committed to attacking, entertaining cricket, Bradman drew spectators  in record numbers. However, he found the constant adulation  an anathema which affected how he dealt with others.[9] The focus of attention on his individual performances strained relationships with some teammates, administrators and journalists who thought him to be aloof and wary.[10]   After World War II, he made a dramatic comeback and in his final season led an Australian team known as “The Invincibles”.[11]  RC Robertson-Glasgow wrote of the English reaction to Bradman’s retirement that, "…a miracle has been removed from among us. So must ancient Italy have felt when she heard of the death of Hannibal."[12]
:A complex, driven man not given to forming many close personal relationships,[13] Bradman maintained his pre-eminence by acting as an administrator, selector and writer for three decades after his retirement. His opinion was highly sought, but in his declining years he became reclusive. Paradoxically, his status as a national icon increased to the point where the Australian Prime Minister called him the “greatest living Australian”.[14] He appeared on stamps and coins, and became the first living Australian to have a museum dedicated to his life.
Suggest you change it to the above. All the notes can remain the same and Note 4 about the averages of Headley and Pollock can be expanded with original text "By way of comparison, the second and third best Test averages over completed careers of batsmen who have played 20 Tests or more are 60.97 and 60.83."
Phanto282 14:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd replace the brackets around "known as bodyline" with commas and link bodyline. To the non cricket reader they will not know why is batting average is considered such a great achievement without a little more detail. "His career Test batting average of 99.94 is by some measures the greatest statistical performance in any major sport" could become something like "His career Test batting average of 99.94, easily the highest amonst batsmen with careers of any length, is by some measures the greatest statistical performance in any major sport." Links would need to be added as per the current article to all the above but otherwise I see no reason why we can't give that a go. --LiamE 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Special tactics (known as Bodyline)[7] were devised by the England team to curb his brilliance." We should add somewhere that, at this time, most of the test match where between Australia and England, and that the two where at the top, and they meet very "often"... That's why it was necessary to find such a tactics... It could be useful to remember for the non-cricket fans ! OrangeKnight 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion from [[User:Phanto282|Phanto282]] 

message: WP:SIZE implies that >100K is too long, but it's vague and the FA criteria are too. So I've requested clarification at User_talk:Raul654#Size_of_FAs. --Dweller 09:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: I really think that to fulfil the spirit (if not the letter) of RS, we need a cricket authority that Bradman's "universally" acknowledged as the greatest. I'm going to start looking (Wisden is a good place to start). It's quite a strong claim, so 2 sources would be nice, I think. Help welcomed. --Dweller 10:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His cricinfo profile already linked elsewhere in the article starts with a Wisden overview which starts "Sir Donald Bradman of Australia was, beyond any argument, the greatest batsman who ever lived and the greatest cricketer of the 20th century" - just another wording but the same claim. I've never seen a serious cricket article even begin to dispute the fact. Closest I've ever seen to dissent are some articles which claim, with some merit, that perhaps Hobbs and/or Sutcliffe were better in certain conditions, namely rain affeted English wickets. On the other hand who is to say the if Bradman had more chance to play on them he wouldn't have mastered them too. --LiamE 10:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, I ain't disputing it (!!!) I just want to make sure it's properly referenced and to my mind, a cricket source is best. And for such a strong claim (remember, not all readers are familiar with Bradman, or even cricket) two different sources would be better. --Dweller 10:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why just say "batsman" and not say that he was the best cricketer ever ? I'ma aware that there are nothing in common between batting and bowling, but that's how he is generally considered, isn't it ? OrangeKnight 11:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because many serious writers would put Sobers and WG ahead of him due to all-round prowess. --LiamE 11:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Liam, re. the last line, it is not for us to guess that :-) (Just to enforce what you said) I am sure that I have seen more than one major writer (Fingleton and people of similar stature) acknowledge him only with certain reservations (and opine that Hobbs (for instance) was a better all-wicket batsman etc.) That itself is sufficent to break the claim that he was "universally" considered as the best. Tintin 11:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it does break the claim and I think we read the same or similar article(s). What I read was full of provisos. The only time Bradman doesn't come out clearly on top is when the writer homes in on one detail (poor pitches, leg spinners etc) rather than looking as batting as a whole. Bradman was the first to admit that leg spinners often confounded him and there were better player of the wrist spinners but no serious writer has to my knowledge ever even suggested that their "whole package" was better than Bradman's. The claim of best batsman does not mean necessarily he was the best on every surface and against every type of bowling. Other batsman can be more stylish, score faster, be better against leg spin or handle a drying pitch better - but no one has come close to putting it all together and then adding 20 years of consistency. Although some articles may acknowledge him with reservations, acknowledge him the all do. --LiamE 12:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why say universally acknowledged? 1) Because it's true. 2) Because it has a cite. While we have a duty not to overstate facts we also have a duty not to understate. He was and remains the best. Every source agrees, so why shy away from saying it? --LiamE 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The only sources that put WG ahaead of Bradman as a batsman were written prior to Bradman's career. Some will still say he was a more important cricketer or better cricketer, which maybe he was, but not a better batsman. If universally acknowledged is too strong please feel free to quote a single article from a respected source saying otherwise dated after about 1949. I've been following cricket for 30 odd years and have never seen one. --LiamE 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Cardus hardly avoids saying "the greatest" - he just used different words to say the same thing. "Most masterful and prolific" is hardly putting the Don down. Of the 4 comments on Sir Jack's obit (hardly the place to find unbiased, clear headed editorial, rather personal non-editorial statements obviously) 3 are reitterations of a previously raised reservation about Bradman being the greatest. Many have said they thought Hobbs was unparalleled on poor surfaces. Fender's comment is more precise though. I would personnaly put that down to hyperbole upon the death of a friend and colleague of many years standing. I would not, of course, expect everyone to reach the same conclusion as me so, I'm affraid, I must concede. Okay, so the hunt is on for the right term. Suggestions on a postcard please. --LiamE 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like my idea of "generally acknowledged". It avoids the problem with "universally acknowledged" - that finding a single person who disagrees is sufficient to invalidate it - whilst making it clear that it's the view that the great majority of people hold. JH (talk page) 20:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy with anything as long as it stops short of claiming 100% support as the greatest batsman. The claim to be the greatest batsman is too subjective for it to be universal. Of if we must have a superlative in the intro, it should be tied to more objective claims about his run-getting ability (are we spending too much on a single word ? i hope not, as we are dealing with the very first line of the most important cricketer). Tintin 03:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like words like effective and efficient.... mainly because they are often used in backhanded compliments about ugly (in terms of style) batsmen. Whilst Bradman wasn't a purist's dream to watch he wasn't ugly. --LiamE 09:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: While we don't need to include obviously biased, ill-informed or indeed crackpot assertions it is going to be hard for everyone to lay aside comments such as those by PGHF above. Maybe his views were skewed to "cricket was better before the war" or maybe not but still he is a cricket authority and was placed to judge better than most. Yes we have a couple of good sources for the exact words "universally acknowledged" and 1001 sources saying in other terms. --LiamE 13:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Universally acknowledged" 

message: I think that it could be added a section about the players that Bradman rated as the best ever, alongside with him (Barry Richards, Arthur Morris, Sachin Tendulkar, Gary Sobers, Don Tallon, Ray Lindwall, Dennis Lillee, Alec Bedser, Bill O'Reilly, Clarrie Grimmett, Wally Hammond (12th man) )... And underline the fact that he considered Tendulkar as his "heir"  in term of batting technics and talent... And why not mention in such a section that, as for statistics, Mike Hussey is the only one to fill the gap between Bradman and the 'normal' players... OrangeKnight 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks similar (which is what Bradman said) does not equal "heir". In that way Andy Caddick can be considered the heir of Richard Hadlee. Secondly, Hussey has hardly played two years for us to draw such conclusions. (sorry, not having a nice day at work, some of these outbursts are partly because of that :-/ ) Tintin 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree on the Hussey situation. His late entry into international cricket meant that he came in at the peak of his powers and simply has had a good couple of years since. Having a good couple of years is not unusual. I doubt he has averaged more than Ponting in the tests they have played together for instance. Looking at Hussey's carrer as a whole, his first class average is a telling statistic. Its good but he's no Bradman. What sets Bradman apart is the 20 years of performing to that level, not playing at that level for a while as many have done. If you were looking for a palyer to fill the statistical gap try Merchant or Headley. --LiamE 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Further to the above, you shouldn't confuse his best XI with his pick of the greatest ever players. He may have well thought the 11 best players were all No.3 batsmen and wicketkeepers. He was picking his best team not the players he thought the best without restriction of having to pick 2 openers, a number 3, a middle order, keeper, pace bowlers and spin. Knowing the method he used to pick a team, ie shortlisting for each role, I'd be interested to know who didn't make the cut. Have we got an article on Bradman's XI like we have for Richie? If not we need one. And it would be nice if the Don had explained his choices as they are a bit partisan it would seem and the team bowler heavy. --LiamE 14:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bradman's heirs 

message: I have a suggestion to resolve the problem of the size the article, namely hacking copy for a "Don Bradman controversies" daughter article. It would read (1) aloofness from teammates (2) Bodyline (3) Conflicts with Fingleton and O'Reilly (4) War service (much criticism that he played too hard using Lindwall & Miller) (5) Throwing - he wrote the rules on chucking in the early 60s (6) WSC. This would remove plenty of text to leave room for the sections that others want to put in. I don't favour moving stuff to the Bodyline article as its FA and would need restructuring to incorporate stuff about SDB.
Phanto282 08:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely awesome.  Great find. —Moondyne 13:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of this sub-article seems fine to me, as long as there's plenty of material we can move over, and as long as we can provide a succinct summary of that new daughter article within this one.  The Rambling Man 10:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another suggestion 

message: Personally, I prefer colder, descriptive headings than warmer jargony ones. My feelings on the subject are that they are 
#more encyclopedic in tone
#less liable to POV and 
#more welcoming to someone unfamiliar with the material being discussed. 
However, I'm aware that User:Phanto282 disagrees, so I welcome others chipping in with their thoughts, so that we can ascertain consensus. When we go to WP:PR and WP:FAC, I'll happily defend the consensus view whichever it is, if we're challenged. --Dweller 09:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Dweller here, this is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of essays...  The Rambling Man 09:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: NB, it's not a vote, it's a discussion.  And yes, we can also address your point as well.  The Rambling Man 10:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headings 

message: I just moved all the PD images up to Commons and removed them off en.. Commons:Category:Donald Bradman is now a half decent gallery. —Moondyne 09:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images