Talk:Don Bradman

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 6647484-3x2-940x627.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Indian flag

The section on Test match performance uses {{cr|British India}} but from my reading of his career stats all his tests v India were after August 1947 so the section should use {{cr|Dominion of India}}; however this generates an error. Can anyone more familiar with {{cr}} fix this. Nthep (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Opposition to Apartheid?

To quote the article: "The major controversy of his second stint was a proposed tour of Australia by South Africa in 1971–72. On Bradman's recommendation, the series was cancelled."

That's seriously underselling what happened. Bradman not only cancelled the tour, he declared that the Australian team would never play against South Africa until they abolished apartheid. He even met with John Vorster, the then-president of South Africa. Moreover, that was the first major instance of a Western sporting organization declaring its opposition to apartheid. It deserves a lot more than a single line, and in the "controversies" section at that! 183.83.156.113 (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019

Please change "widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time"(part of line number 2) to "widely acknowledged as one of the greatest batsman of all time". Reasons:- 1. Biased lines are unexpected in wikipedia article. 2. During Sir Don Bradman's era, the only prominent teams were Australia and England. Few other teams like South Africa, West Indies and India were on its developing stage. 3. The game of cricket and its rules has developed distinctly during period of time. 4. Sir Don Bradman only played Test format of cricket. Whereas modern cricket compose of 3 different formats (ODI, Test, T20). 5. John Woodcock (prominent English Journalist) once stated,"Gentleman, He(Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar) is the best batsman I have seen in my life. And unlike most of you, I have seen Bradman."(Collected from trusted sources). So this proves that Bradman has competitors for greatness. Source 1-> https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/sport/story/20040112-cricket-maestro-sachin-tendulkar-out-of-form-in-tests-matches-790777-2004-01-12 Source 2-> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/only-sachin-tendulkar-can-equal-don-bradman-mmn9bp7djmn

There are few other sources regarding Brian Lara, Vivian Richards as the greats.

6. Stating "the greatest batsman of all time" indicates the best among the greats of different era.Then the question lies, what is the measure of greatness ? It is unfair to compare different eras. MayukhC99 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There has been a ton of discussions about this sentance and the longstanding consnsus is to keep the current version. Please see the talk page archives and peer review and start another discussion if you still want to change it. --Trialpears (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Name change?

Is it just me or does anyone else think that this article should be renamed to 'Donald Bradman'? Yours truly, 203.221.56.24 (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It used to be at Donald Bradman. It was moved in 2015 as a result of this discussion: Talk:Don Bradman/Archive 6#Requested move 29 May 2015.

If, after reading and considering that discussion, you still think that there are strong reasons to move it back, and that a new discussion might conclude differently to the previous one, you could follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move to start a new discussion here. -- Begoon 09:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding Steve Smith to averages table.

Australia's Steve Smith needs to be added to the table of batting averages as he currently has an average of 64.56 and meets all the other criteria for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.186.240.95 (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2019

There is no citation that he is the "White Headley", nor that Headley himself was the Black Bradman as on his page. Both amazing cricketers, please don't get me wrong, would just like both pages cited. 49.184.197.190 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

External links

I realize sometimes things just creep in but could someone look at the "External links" section as a review. Nine links are generally considered excessive and some may be able to be used in the article or possibly trimmed. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Peer review

• "An experienced, mature player now commonly called "The Don" had replaced the blitzing style of his early days as the "Boy from Bowral". What does it even mean? ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• "often referred to as "The Don"," - citation needed. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC) While the nickname is widely known, it would be better to expand on this somewhere in the body now that it is on the lead. IW. (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• "The next season continued the rapid rise of the "Boy from Bowral"." Who? ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Ref:^ Bremner, Charles; Robertson, David (1 February 2004). "Forgotten genius". The Times. London. Retrieved 23 August 2008. requires archive. IW. (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Ref:^ "Notes by the Editor". Wisden. 1931. Retrieved 14 May 2008. requires archive. IW. (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• When was he nicknamed Braddles by his teammates? Also better source required. IW. (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Bradman as the greatest cricket player

In the current era, where there are several sources of equally important statistical analysis across the world, can we truly say that he is "the" greatest batsman ever. I believe it will be more prudent to add "one of the greatest batsman ever". I have not made the edit, and an willing to have a conversation with any opposing point of view. I can provide you with links about credible statistical analysis placing sachin tendulkar or some others as better than Bradman in some departments. Agreed he has a classic status,but it will be appropriate to put in " one of the best", as not every analysis agency includes him as "the" greatest. If not, then we should put sachin tendulkar as 'widely acknowledged the greatest' as well, since there being credible sources stating the same. And I don't believe that information or opinion of one group should prevail over the other as this is a free and fair encyclopaedia. Again, o haven't made the edit and will be waiting for any counter points and certainly provide the sources to whomsoever asks for it. Thank you Stud2608 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Or probably the 'greatest of his era' will be even better Stud2608 (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and it’s a violation of WP:Puffery. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree entirely. We go with what has been written and don't try and "prove" anything. It's really not puffery to suggest that Bradmen is **considered** the greatest batsman to play the game. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding the word "considered" doesn't magically change anything. Please read the guideline, it isn't ambiguous on this point. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

What, you're seriously suggesting that Bradman isn't objectively the greatest batsman to have played the game? Or isn't considered to be by, well, everyone who can be taken seriously? Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about cricket, but I know there's no such thing as "objectively the greatest batsman." Terms like "greatest" are inherently subjective. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You may want to do some reading around this one then. It's not close. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That’s not relevant. The problem is it’s not a verifiable fact, it’s an opinion, regardless of how popular that opinion is. WP:Puffery is unambiguous that it’s better to present facts which demonstrate that rather than quoting opinions. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Really, not in this case. Bradman is so far beyond anyone else that it's really not debatable. It's like Ty Cobb had hit .650 over his career, for example. Seriously, that far ahead of anyone else.

But I tell yer what - at the top of the page are a bunch of wiki project templates. Why don't you go and ask people at those. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dweller: - looking through the archive you seem to be responsible for this apparently obvious puffery old chap. You may wish to contribute something? Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The tags are ridiculous and should be removed - the definition they link to specifically says that verified claims aren't peacock. The claims are not only verified, they've been approved by the highest level of peer review we have: WP:FAC. Usually, claims aren't cited in the Lead, but the authors realised these were unusually big claims, so did so. The real evidence is provided, with plentiful citations, and from several reliable sources, in the two "context" sections. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for providing your justification. Which part of the the definition are you referring to? The cited reference is to the opinion of one person named Matthew Engel, and the statement is not a verifiable fact. I understand that FAs have passed the highest level of peer review, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily perfect. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think someone stating they know nothing about cricket is probably not best placed to contribute to a discussion about the player who is universally considered to be the greatest of all time. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with cricket history will know that Bradman is "widely acknowledged" as the greatest batsman of all time by authoritative sources. "Widely" rather than "universally", as perhaps 10% would put W.G. Grace in first place - as Grace was at his greatest back in the 1870s, comparison is very difficult. The article may currently only give one citation in support, but at the cost of weighing down the article it would be easy enough to provide a dozen such citations. And Matthew Engel isn't just some random person, but was for a number of years the editor of Wisden, the most authoritative work of reference on the game. JH (talk page) 08:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"near" universal I'd go for! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And there are plenty of other citations in the body text. In the process to FAC we felt forced to include a cite for each claim in the lead, but the real justification is in the context sections. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Each of these arguments is about how true you all think the claim is, not about why it’s okay to include according to MOS. I still think there are more neutral and informative ways to describe athletes than “widely considered the greatest of all time,” especially since the user who started this conversation claims to have sources that disagree. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No, there are plenty of RS which state he's the greatest cricketer of all time. Just stating that many people (or sources) consider him to be the greatest cricketer of all-time is just fine. There's literally no argument against it other than "I don't like that tone of voice" and since we're not using Wikipedia's voice to make the claim, that tone argument is a dead duck. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My argument against it is that I think it's a violation of WP:PUFFERY, not that I don't like the tone. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and per that guideline, it states Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. which is patently not the case here. It's fundamentally obvious that there's no violation of that in this case, the article doesn't say "Bradman is the greatest cricketer of all time" (cf. the example in the guideline), it say that he is widely considered the greatest cricketer and provides plenty of RS. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion to my previous talk

Finally, I am not saying that anyone of the two is better:Sachin or Bradman. But that by regarding one as 'the greatest' and other as 'one of the greatest' clearly gives precedence to others. Even Official Austrailian cricket website's analysis agrees that you cannot factor who would have performed better in whose era, courtesy the massive differences of the times they played in. Thus, I believe it would be more prudent to make the necessary changes Stud2608 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• precedence to one over the other Stud2608 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

2001:8003:D906:9C00:F8E8:A593:6358:F5A0 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC) wow hi hi

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 00:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2021

The sub-heading, "controversies involving Don Bradman" appears as the first entry when searching for Bradman's Wikipedia on Google. This is not the most relevant part of his career nor his personality. Is it possible to have the structure of the sub-headings moved so that "controversies" appears lower down/ less prominently?

Cheers --Ayoung9994 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Ayoung9994 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We have no control what Google does. Sorry, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Early Years in Bowral

52 Shepherd Street, Bowral

Between the ages of three to fifteen, Don Bradman lived at 52 Shepherd Street Bowral with his parents George and Emily, and his siblings, Islet, Lilian, Elizabeth and Victor.

Family friend, Jessie Menzies also lived in the house with the Bradman’s from 1920. At 52 Shepherd Street, Don Bradman developed his phenomenal batting skills by throwing a golf ball against the base of a tank stand. He would also practice his fielding skills by throwing a golf ball at the rounded rail of a fence on the property’s boundary. In 2007 a heritage restoration of the house and the tank stand area were commenced and in 2013 the project won both The National Trust’s and Wingecarribee Shire’s Award for Conservation and Heritage. The house is available to visitors by appointment only through its website.

Ayoung9994 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Greatest Batsman of All Time

I hope this finds you in good health and spirits. I am writing to propose a change to the statement "widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time" on Sir Don Bradman's Wikipedia article. As a cricket enthusiast , I believe that it is necessary to specify that Sir Bradman is widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time in the format of Test Cricket.

Sir Bradman's achievements and statistics in Test Cricket are unparalleled and have earned him a reputation as one of the greatest cricketers of all time. However, it must be noted that he did not play the modern-day formats of the game, such as One Day Internationals (ODIs) and T20s, which have a different set of skills and challenges.

Thus, to avoid confusion and accurately reflect Sir Bradman's greatness, I suggest changing the statement to "widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time in Test Cricket". This change will accurately reflect the nature and extent of Sir Bradman's achievements and provide a clearer and more comprehensive understanding of his legacy to cricket fans and enthusiasts.

I would appreciate your consideration of my proposal and I am available to discuss any further details or clarifications that you may require.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

✨Ashish Legend✨

06:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

✨Ashish Legend✨

06:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

✨Ashish Legend✨

06:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

That seems fair enough to me. He might well have been as dominant in limited overs cricket as he was in Test cricket, but we will never know as he never played it. I think I'd word it as "widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time in first-class (including Test) cricket". It might be a good idea to make your suggestion on the Cricket project's talk page, where more people are likely to see it. JH (talk page) 08:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

First class 100s/50s the wrong way around

Currently he has 117 100s and 69 50s in first class, is this right? I would have thought 50s would be higher? 86.189.213.33 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually it looks the same for tests as well. 86.189.213.33 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)