Rewind to Rewind toRSS FeedFeeds


'A fine ****ing way to start a series'

Few tours have got off to a more controversial and acrimonious start than the first post-war Ashes series

Martin Williamson

November 27, 2010

Comments: 14 | Text size: A | A

Wally Hammond and Don Bradman go out to toss at the start of the 1946-47 series, Brisbane, November 29, 1946
Wally Hammond and Don Bradman walk out to toss at Brisbane. Bradman reportedly threw his hands up in delight when Hammond called incorrectly © ESPNcricinfo Ltd
Related Links

Ashes series are traditionally hard fought but, with a few exceptions, not overly controversial. Rarely, though, can any series have got off to a worse start than the one that began in Brisbane in November 1946.

When England landed in Australia in October, they were warmly welcomed. It was the first major tour since the end of the war and was a reassuring sign that the world was getting back to normal. And the two countries were due to be led by rivals who had dominated batting in the 1930s - Don Bradman and Wally Hammond.

Hammond had enjoyed a decent summer in 1946, but nonetheless it was all too clear that his powers were on the wane. He was 43, becoming rather portly, and seemed a shadow of the pre-war batsman many believed was the greatest his country had produced. Those closest to him had advised that he should not make himself available to lead a tour many in England believed was far too soon for a country still struggling to overcome the ravages of war.

But Hammond was keen on one more tilt at the old enemy, even though, as former team-mate Bill Bowes noted, "the co-ordination between hand and eye was not what it used to be". However, he was England's pre-war captain and it was inconceivable that the selectors would not ask him to go.

Meanwhile in Australia, Bradman, five years Hammond's junior, was also seemingly in decline. He had been invalided out of the army - remarkably because of poor eyesight - his war record was the subject of private sniping by his detractors, and he was suffering from health troubles. Although he had resumed playing in 1945-46, his participation in the following season's Ashes was the subject of almost daily newspaper speculation and was far from guaranteed.

By the time England set sail, Bradman had just about overcome a shoulder injury, but gastritis had left him a stone lighter, with a pinched look. When Denis Compton, who had played against Australia in 1938, laid eyes on him again he was shocked. He recalled: "Some of us wondered whether or not he was due for a nursing home rather than a cricket pitch."

As the first Test loomed Bradman finally decided to make himself available, albeit against his doctor's advice. As Charles Williams notes in his 1996 biography, Bradman: "It was a courageous decision. He could have rested on the laurels of the 1930s and made himself a great deal of money by writing instead." Perhaps he did not want to bow out in the knowledge that his last appearance had come at The Oval in 1938, where he was unable to bat as Australia lost by an innings and 579 runs.

The pressure on Bradman in Brisbane was immense. He won the toss and batted, but soon found himself at the crease as Australia got off to a shaky start. Nervously and uncharacteristically he took a good two minutes on reaching the middle before he was ready to receive his first ball. He then struggled, and one report said his "survival through the opening minutes was close to miraculous". Covering the tour for the Guardian, Neville Cardus noted: "in the first half-hour he committed more miscalculations and streakiness than memory holds of all one's experience of him".

But he hung in there until, when he had made 28, something happened which Williams said "caused more friction ... than any single incident since Woodfull was hit over the heart by [Harold] Larwood in the Adelaide Test of 1933".

Bill Voce bowled a virtual yorker-length delivery wide outside off stump, which Bradman tried to chop down on, in an attempt to guide it wide of the slips. His contact was not good, and the ball made its way at chest height to Jack Ikin at second slip. So certain were the fielders that they had Bradman that they did not appeal - only when they saw him staring into the distance did they belatedly ask umpire Borwick to make a decision, and he immediately gave Bradman not out.

Opinion was divided. Bradman maintained that he had chopped the ball into the ground, and he had his supporters, although Bill O'Reilly, his former team-mate but certainly not a friend, stated that if it were a bump ball then it needed "an uncanny propulsion seldom seen in cricket". Unsurprisingly, there was less doubt among the England side.

Jack Ikin 'catches' Don Bradman in one of the Ashes' most controversial moments. The umpire ruled Bradman not out, to the dismay of the fielders, Australia v England, 1st Test, Brisbane, November 29, 1946
Bradman turns as Ikin takes the "catch", with Norman Yardley at gully looking on © ESPNcricinfo Ltd

Perhaps the best account came from Norman Yardley, England's vice-captain, who was fielding in the gully. "I watched the ball bounce from the turf onto the top edge of the bat and go from there straight into Ikin's hands," he wrote. After Bradman had been given not out, "everyone on our side looked in blank amazement, and Hammond in particular seemed to be wondering what to do next. Bradman still looked down."

Yardley added that the umpires later claimed that they thought the ball had been chopped down into the ground. "A ball chopped at that speed bounces steeply up [...] it does not travel parallel with the ground at chest height."

As for Bradman himself, he said that he was not aware he had given a catch. "I heard an appeal; the umpire indicated not out; so I batted on. Naturally, if I had thought I was out, I should not have stayed there."

Perhaps the most telling account came from Keith Miller, who was making his debut and was next man in. "As Ikin held the ball, I instinctively got out of my seat, grabbed my gloves and picked up my bat, my heart pumping like a runaway motor out of control." He soon realised that Bradman hadn't budged. "The crowd were stunned. I sat down again. The Australian players started discussing the incident. Some agreed with the umpire that the ball had come off the ground. Others said it was a straight and simple catch. The match went on. So did the chatter."

Clif Carey, who was commentating on radio at the time, called it as follows: "The next ball from Voce rises as it goes away and Bradman is out ... caught Ikin bowled Voce 28." He later wrote that he had no doubts and was "astounded" when Bradman stayed put and "was at a complete loss for words".

Out in the middle, after a few moments of incredulity, Voce turned and returned to his mark and the over was completed without any further comment. But as the fielders changed over, Hammond, who a team-mate said was "blazingly angry", was heard to loudly pass comment: "A fine f***ing way to start a series." Some claimed the aside was aimed at Bradman, others that it was directed at the umpires. What is certain is that there was no love lost between Hammond and Bradman, and the remainder of the series passed in ill-concealed frostiness.

At the end of the day, Harold Dale in the Daily Express dryly observed Bradman played two innings on the first day, the "first ended when he had scored 28".

The Ikin incident was a turning point, as Bradman went on to make 187 and Australia won the match by an innings and dominated the rest of the series. England's batting was mediocre and the bowling lacked teeth, and it is unlikely that the outcome would have been affected had Bradman been given out at Brisbane … but it might have marked the end of The Don.

He was unwell - he suffered a bad thigh strain and more stomach trouble during the second Test - and was also under considerable pressure. A high-profile failure after an unconvincing stay at the wicket might have been enough to persuade him to call time to avoid his reputation being sullied. As it was, he went from strength to strength, and 18 months later led the triumphant Invincibles tour of England.

There was no such Indian summer for Hammond, and even though publicly he played down the incident - "I thought it was a catch but I may have been wrong" - privately he seethed. The pressure of the tour weighed heavily on him, and he became increasingly remote, even from his team-mates, travelling between matches by car while everyone else took the train. He was also in increasing pain from fibrositis, so much so that he was taking painkillers constantly, even when at the crease, and missed the final Test because of it. And his golden touch with the bat was fast disappearing. It was a sad end for one of the game's greats.

What happened next?

  • For Hammond his career was over, bar one ill-advised comeback to help Gloucestershire with fund-raising in 1951
  • Bradman cemented his place in history on the 1948 England tour - including a duck in his final innings - retiring with a Test average of 99.94. A knighthood soon followed
  • In 1948, Bradman crossed swords with Ikin once again. The scene was more low-key, Ikin's benefit match for Lancashire against the tourists at Old Trafford. With Ikin on 90, Bradman took the new ball. Keith Miller, a war veteran and a man at odds with Bradman's play-to-win approach, looked aghast and threw it back to his captain, saying: "Didn't you know he was a Rat of Tobruk!" It was a temporary reprieve. Ikin was bowled soon after by Ray Lindwall for 99

Is there an incident from the past you would like to know more about? E-mail us with your comments and suggestions.

Wally Hammond - The Reasons Why David Foot (Robson, 1996)
Bradman Charles Williams (Little Brown & Co, 1996)
Australian Cricket Anecdotes Gideon Haigh (OUP, 1996)
Cricket Controversy Clif Cary (1950)

Martin Williamson is executive editor of Cricinfo and managing editor of ESPN Digital Media in Europe, the Middle East and Africa

RSS Feeds: Martin Williamson

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Something_Witty on (December 11, 2010, 13:26 GMT)

So an umpiring decision was wrong. I highly doubt it would have changed the course of the series, so the fuss is entirely down to the fact that it was Bradman who was the beneficiary. Rather a storm in a teacup you might say.

Posted by landl47 on (December 11, 2010, 6:26 GMT)

I first read about this incident in Len Hutton's autobiography in the late 1950s. Hutton was in absolutely no doubt that Bradman was out, but he didn't blame Bradman in any way. He could not understand why the umpire didn't give Bradman out- the catch was so obvious that, as the article says, the English team didn't appeal. The reaction of Miller and Carey would seem to confirm this.

Posted by NP73 on (December 1, 2010, 1:04 GMT)

cricket__fan 'Umpiring in Australia has always been extremely poor and one of the main reasons why they have won so many matches at home.'??? Australia's highest winning record at home has been in the last 10 or 15 years - the time when there have been neutral umpires??

Posted by alfredmynn on (November 28, 2010, 21:08 GMT)

I think some people are missing the point here. The debate wasn't about whether Bradman had hit the ball or not - he did of course. The debate was about whether it was a bump ball - read the article guys. Since Bradman maintained he'd chopped the ball into the ground there wasn't even any question of his walking. As it turns out, the umpire thought so too; whether he was right or wrong is another question.

Posted by cricket__fan on (November 28, 2010, 19:51 GMT)

Umpiring in Australia has always been extremely poor and one of the main reasons why they have won so many matches at home.

Posted by   on (November 28, 2010, 19:05 GMT)

Man,. how can the ball go to second slip if its not deflected off the bat...even Bradman didnt walk !!! Gilchrist should read this :)

Posted by johann3 on (November 28, 2010, 11:37 GMT)

I agree that in sport you play the umpire's call. But cricket is not any sport. He should have walked plain and simple.

Posted by danifilth on (November 28, 2010, 6:39 GMT)

@Graeme Adams you hit the nail on the head people spectators and players alike can argue for years one this but what it all comes down to is the umpires call and thats that dont accept it too bad

Posted by __PK on (November 28, 2010, 5:09 GMT)

As a cricketer, you have two choices, re umpiring decisions. 1. You walk if you know you're out, in which case you have the moral right to be aggrieved if decisions go against you. 2. You wait for the umpire's call, but then you have no right to complain if mistakes go against you. I have never heard of The Don complaining about umpiring decisions that didn't go his way, so get off his back re this one.

Posted by Scgboy on (November 27, 2010, 23:35 GMT)

Thats what beanud once said as well. you wait for the umpire to decideand once its given , you go straight off.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Martin WilliamsonClose

    'We did not drop a single catch in 1971'

Couch Talk: Former India captain Ajit Wadekar recalls the dream tours of West Indies and England, and coaching India

Sachin to bat for life, Lara for the joy of batting

Modern Masters: Rahul Dravid and Sanjay Manjrekar discuss the impact of Lara's batting

    Power to Smithy, trouble for Dhoni

Ricky Ponting: Australia's new captain admirably turned things around for his side in Brisbane

    Why punish the WI players when the administration is to blame?

Michael Holding: As ever, the WICB has refused to recognise its own incompetence

What cricket can take from darts

Jon Hotten: It's simple, it's TV-friendly and it has a promoter who can tailor the product for its audience

News | Features Last 7 days

What ails Rohit and Watson?

Both batsmen seemingly have buckets of talent at their disposal and the backing of their captains, but soft dismissals relentlessly follow both around the Test arena

Hazlewood completes quartet of promise

Josh Hazlewood has been on Australian cricket's radar since he was a teenager. The player that made a Test debut at the Gabba was a much-improved version of the tearaway from 2010

Watson's merry-go-round decade

In January 2005, Shane Watson made his Test debut. What does he have to show for a decade in the game?

Why punish the West Indies players when the administration is to blame?

As ever, the West Indies board has taken the short-term view and removed supposedly troublesome players instead of recognising its own incompetence

India's attack: rare intensity before regular inanity

For the first hour on day three, despite the heat and the largely unhelpful pitch, India's fast bowlers showed a level of intensity and penetration rarely seen from them; in the second hour, things mostly reverted to type

News | Features Last 7 days