Rewind to Rewind toRSS FeedFeeds


Dimly fades the Don

Fifteen years after his famous final Test innings, Bradman faced England once again

Martin Williamson

March 29, 2014

Comments: 32 | Text size: A | A

One last tilt at the windmill: Don Bradman heads out to bat for the PM's XI in Canberra © Getty Images

Don Bradman's final Test innings at The Oval in 1948 remains one of cricket's most famous. What is not as well known is that it was another 15 years until he played his last game of cricket, and fittingly it was again against England.

After the Oval Test, the last of that summer, the Australian tour, as was the norm then, rumbled on for another month before concluding with two matches in Scotland. Bradman, the man everyone wanted to see, played in all but one of the games. He bowed out at Lord's with 150 against the Gentlemen of England and centuries in his last two outings in England, the festival matches in Hastings and Scarborough. His farewell appearance in Britain was a whirlwind 123 not out in 89 minutes against Scotland in a non-first-class contest in Aberdeen.

To all intents and purposes he retired at the end of the tour, but he did play three more first-class matches in the next Australian season. On the boat back from England he was offered a testimonial at the MCG, which he accepted. He captained one XI while Lindsay Hassett led the other. The game ended in a crowd-pleasing tie, Bradman scored his final first-class hundred (dropped diplomatically on 97 by Colin McCool) and more than 53,000 turned up, enabling Bradman to pocket close to £9000.

The other two games did not go as well. He felt he ought to play as they were testimonials for old team-mates. In the first, at the SCG, he made 53 and was cheered from the middle by more than 40,000 spectators, but in his last game he made 30 and was unable to bat second time after he twisted an ankle treading on a ball in the field and had to be carried off. It was an ignominious end to the most glorious of first-class careers.

That should have been that. Knighted in the New Year's honours list, he settled down to a life of business, family and golf, retaining strong links with cricket as a selector.

At best be a mirage?

  • In January 1963 Don Bradman wrote to Robert Menzies in a seeming attempt to persuade the prime minister of the folly of his idea.
  • "I have been thinking about your suggestion that I might captain your team at Canberra on the 6th of February. You know it is 15 years, this year, since I played a first class match, and several years now since I played a social game.
  • "It is quite impossible of me to be of any value as a player and my question of making 10 or 20 runs would be purely one of the charity of the opposition. Would it be fair to all concerned that the image of Bradman playing should be dangled before the eyes of the public, when it could at best be a mirage?
  • "Still, if you think these factors unimportant and reflecting on them, decide to invite me, I shall of course be delighted to accept and will leave it entirely to your judgment."

A few attempts were made to lure him out of retirement but he was never tempted, playing in a handful of low-key games as favours to friends. He had also faced the 1952-53 South Africans in the nets. But late on the England tour of 1962-63 he found himself donning his whites on a bigger stage once more. However reluctant he might have been, he found himself backed into a corner, largely by Robert Menzies, the Australian prime minister and a cricket obsessive.

In between the fourth and fifthth Ashes Tests, England played a one-day game against a Prime Minister's XI in Canberra. Menzies, who had formed a friendship with Bradman, by this time chairman of the board, worked his charm, the icing on the cake being that a new pavilion in Bradman's honour would be opened on the day. Bradman agreed.

As soon as the news broke the press and public interest in the match rocketed. While there was a realisation that at 54 he was unlikely to work miracles, the hope was he might. "Unless he felt he had a chance of making a few runs he would not, I think, have agreed to play," wrote John Woodcock in the Times. "The fast bowlers could no doubt find him out if they let fly. Yet [Jack] Hobbs was scoring first-class hundreds when he was over 50 …"

All the attention was on Bradman, but England had an old timer of their own back for the day. The 44-year-old Alec Bedser, who had retired in 1960 but was still playing regularly, had also agreed to play.

The match itself was wonderfully informal. It started ten minutes late because the tourists' flight had been delayed. There was no toss, merely a discussion and an agreement that MCC would bat. The timing of the intervals was generally ignored. The 10,000 spectators crammed into the ground did not mind at all.

MCC scored a breezy and politely received 253 for 7, Bradman orchestrating his side from first slip, but their batting was not really what most in the ground wanted to see. Bradman's return was further delayed by a bright start by the Australians, who raced to 101 for 2 in an hour. Then, ten minutes after tea, the third wicket fell and all eyes turned to the pavilion.

"The little man stalked stiffly down the pavilion steps, pulling the collar of his cricket shirt closer round his neck," wrote Brian Chapman in the Daily Express. "It was a gesture that for many rolled back the years. The photographers circled round him as he walked towards the wicket and the MCC players saluted him with three cheers. As he took guard, the crowd roared again and he lifted the green Australian cap he wore in 52 Tests."

His stance was unchanged, albeit showing slight stiffness. Tom Graveney, bowling inoffensive legbreaks, tossed one wide of off stump to allow Bradman an single to get off the mark, but it was so wide he just watched it pass. The next was a straight full toss that Bradman clipped back past him for four.

Don Bradman looks back at his stumps after being dismissed for the last time, Australians PM XI v England, Canberra, February 3, 1963
Over and out © Getty Images

In the next over Bradman had to face Brian Statham, who, with Fred Trueman, formed England's new-ball attack. Statham bowled properly but only off half his run. Bradman patted the first ball, which kept a little low, into the off side. He played back to the second but was fractionally late; the ball spun from his bat into the top of his pad and dribbled into the stumps with only just enough force to dislodge the off bail. "It mightn't have happened one in a thousand times," Bradman said.

Some reports suggested that Statham indicated to the umpire that a no-ball might be called. But Bradman was on his way and received as big an ovation as he headed off as he had minutes earlier on his arrival.

Perhaps harshly, Crawford White in the Daily Express wrote: "So instead of an exultant return for Australia's Sir Cricket it was a sad one. Sad because hundreds of schoolboys who saw it will for ever wonder how this stiff little man could ever have been the lithe ruthless killer their fathers remembered." As Bradman's old adversary Wally Hammond had said after his own ill-fated return in 1951: ""What did they expect? Not a hundred from me as well?"

The rest of the afternoon was inevitably an anti-climax, even if the game went to the wire with the tourists winning by three runs, the close finish aided by some routine catches spilled to keep the Australians in the hunt. David Allen took 5 for 68, but Bedser, despite only returning 1 for 80, won the plaudits. "The bones creak a little now," Woodcock noted, "but even blindfolded he could bowl on or near a length."

In the evening there was a dinner party for teams and others at Menzies' official residence. "I have just played my last game of cricket," Bradman said. "The cricket bat has seen the last of me."

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

RSS Feeds: Martin Williamson

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (April 2, 2014, 9:41 GMT)

Batting is so much easier now and the 30s was much harder than the 80s (even with the WI quicks) because wickets were uncovered. It was even harder when Trumper played a century ago and his average in the 30s would have been much higher in Bradman's era and higher today. But that doesn't make Trumpper better than Bradman. Hobbs would probably be the next best ever after Bradman and Kallis from the modern era in results if not style.

Posted by eggyroe on (April 2, 2014, 6:14 GMT)

Having just read this excellent article about The Don, I have to say I cannot find any reference to Sachin Tendulkar at all so what is the reason of all these comments about him.Perhaps I'm missing the point but I thought the point of this article was The Don playing in a game 15 years after his last Test Match for the Prime Ministers XI against the M.C.C.Touring Side,not a comparison to a player who was not born when The Don was in his majestic best.

Posted by hyclass on (April 1, 2014, 11:53 GMT)

It is a high probability, that if he had played in the modern era with its manifold advantages, his average would have been higher. Even a cursory glance at his numbers shows his extraordinary ratio of 100's to 50's. In Tests, from 52 Matches - 29 x 100s and 13 x 50s - 2.23 x 100s to every 50. In 1st Class cricket, from 234 matches, he scored 117 x 100s and 69 x 50s - 1.69 x 100's to every 50. His 2.75 and 2.88 innings per 100 is astonishing. Allied to a ruthless genius and fearless mien, was a zen like attachment to the moment. His stamina was almost limitless, as seen by the SA Test side after his 299* in 40+ degree heat in Adelaide, where the captain described him 'sprinting for a single, looking for a misfield off the last ball and then jogging off, fresh as a daisy at the end of the day'. He was regularly described as 'having two strokes for each ball and the willingness to play them and 'a textbook come to life with never an erratum'. He exceeds countries & remains everyone's.

Posted by Divinetouch on (April 1, 2014, 11:51 GMT)

Tendulkar the best batsman I have ever seen and a role model of a human being. May every country be blessed with a son like him.

Posted by BradmanBestEver on (April 1, 2014, 6:44 GMT)

The best of them all by a country mile - let us all sit back in awe of the greatest sportsman ever.

Having said that i think Sobers is the second best

Posted by bren19 on (March 31, 2014, 2:43 GMT)

@rohankapoor - I think you are confusing the best ever batsman with the batsman that YOU like best. What has 200 tests got to do with it? however if you want to go that way - Tendulkar's average after 50 tests was 49.82. Surely if he was better than Bradman, his average would be up near 100 by this point in his career.

Posted by   on (March 31, 2014, 1:20 GMT)

Best ever play in the history of all sports.

Posted by Jaffa79 on (March 30, 2014, 23:03 GMT)

Bradmanbestever...get over yourself mate. Your comments usually have little or relevance and you haven't let us down! Stop taking yourself and Australia and Bradman so seriously. Your self righteousness is tedious. Oi Oi Oi!

Posted by shahbazhussain on (March 30, 2014, 21:59 GMT)

Rohan, your stastement Badman's average would have been 30 or 40 if he played bowlers", your is as laughable as if Tendulkar has faced the the ball without halmet for upto 52 tests, filled with most double hundreds, tripple hundreds and most hundredts in first 52 matches. Indians never think out of the box, they think that tendulark is the only brand of cricket... which is absolutely wrong. Don Bredman is the only brand and standard of Test cricket which almost all cricketers admire. Players who have played before one's debute are always respectible for the new commers. And I believe Tendulark himself wouldnt cross the lines when it comes to giving hounor to the most successful cricketer in history of the sports. I bet you dont know how to respect the legend at all. Coz indians dont think out of the box!

Posted by seo7seo on (March 30, 2014, 20:41 GMT)

No need to undermine one batsman just to prove that the other one is better. However, some other facts need to be considered. There was no Zimbabwe in Bradman's times. Pitches were not so favorable for batting in Don's era as they were for Tendulkar. Fast bowlers were not discouraged/restricted by ICC in Don's times. There were no personal trainers or sophisticated diet plans for Don. Hence, these facts about Don do not mean Tendulkar was not a great batsman. If am given a choice to be like Sir Don or Sachin, my choice certainly would be Sachin the great.

Posted by   on (March 30, 2014, 14:00 GMT)

bradman averaged about 57 in bodyline series - the type of balling that was common 1980's. Viv richards was best batsman of 80's and he only averaged 50. That was the class of bradman. Amazing player.

Posted by shillingsworth on (March 30, 2014, 12:36 GMT)

@Rohan Kapoor - Your comparison is equally laughable. None of Bradman's contemporaries came even close to his average. A number of batsmen faced the same bowlers as Tendulkar and had similar averages. They were both great batsmen in their particular era - why not leave it at that?

Posted by Rowayton on (March 30, 2014, 11:42 GMT)

Re Bradman and sixes, I think he hit 6 in tests and they were probably all when he was over 100. The reason he didn't hit sixes was simple - he played the percentages. There's a story about Sid Barnes on his first England tour getting out to a couple of brilliant catches. One of the team said how unlucky he was and Bradman simply said, "if you don't hit the ball in the air, you don't get caught".

Posted by VinoBill on (March 30, 2014, 10:35 GMT)

52 Tests over a period of 20 years is a long enough career to remove all doubts over the validity of Bradmans' skill but also, I think that, a First-Class average of 95.14 from 234 games reinforces the blokes ability against a myriad of opponents and in various conditions.

Posted by challagalla on (March 30, 2014, 4:43 GMT)

Hey folks, this article is about Bradman and not Tendulkar. Why is anyone even posting about Tendulkar? Its pitiable to compare batsmen of different era and yet we indulge in it. We all have our opinions and can anyone say his is the absolute right one. For me The Don is simply the greatest ever , incomparable and unique. All other batsmen come after him and to be fair to them comparing with Bradman is unjust. No batsman can ever match or come even close to achieving what The Don did. Maybe Barry Richards and Lawrence Rowe, but their career was too short to really say. For me Tendulkar was not a match winner, Bradman was and that is the crucial difference.

Posted by   on (March 30, 2014, 0:49 GMT)

I remember the game at Manuka Oval well, especially Lindsay Hassett taking a catch in his hat. The pavilion is the Bradman Stand and the scoreboard is the Jack Fingleton Scoreboard. I wonder what Don Bradman would have thought of both their names immortalised at the same cricket ground!!!!!

Posted by MiddleStump on (March 29, 2014, 20:36 GMT)

@BradmanBestEver: No argument that the Don is the best ever. But there is no need to drag Tendulkar or anybody else into the discussion. Tendulkar is great in his own way. It is true that one generally will score more if he plays more. But then one has to be good enough to be selected and play for a national test team for long years. Tendulkar played tests when he was 16 something that even the Don did not do. And he carried on till 40 playing in far more countries than the Don. There is no need to deny credit where it is due. It does not in any way diminish the greatness of Don.

Posted by whoster on (March 29, 2014, 20:23 GMT)

Don Bradman's Test batting average is without doubt the most remarkable individual statistic in the history of sport, let alone cricket. To have an average that's 39 runs better than anyone else is still hard to comprehend.

I think the best way to visualise this incredible statistic is to have a 'Manhatton' chart featuring to top 50 Test averages. In reverse order, the chart would rise slowly and smoothly from 50th to 2nd, then suddenly leap by 39% when it got to Bradman.

His final innings duck is the most wonderful quirk of fate. Perhaps the cricketing gods having a laugh while showing that even Bradman was at their mercy.

Posted by   on (March 29, 2014, 20:20 GMT)

Comparing a batsman's average who has played 50 tests to a batsman's average who has played 200 tests is laughable.Don badman is second only to Sachin tendulkar. Badman's average would have been 30 or 40 if he played bowlers like warne,mcgrath,lee,donald,steyn,muralitharan,wasim,waqar,akhtar,malinga,bond in 200 tests.

Posted by   on (March 29, 2014, 16:48 GMT)

Don is a legend and his class cannot be compared to anybody due to the height of exceptional batting talent he possessed. In future times, if there is a batter better than him world would certainly agree to but the greatness of Don B is unquestionable!

Posted by inefekt on (March 29, 2014, 14:47 GMT)

Bradman played tests for 20 years yet he was as prolific in his last year as a test batsman as he was in his first years, averaging well over 100 in the year preceding his 40th birthday. If cricket is constantly evolving, players getting better and better, then Bradman should have regressed over those 20 years, yet he did not. The guy was a freak of nature who would have slayed attacks during any era.

Posted by BradmanBestEver on (March 29, 2014, 14:40 GMT)

Bradman was a talent, so far beyond the talent of any other batsman to ever play the game that the second best batsman of all time is DAYLİGHT

To think that the guy averaged 40 more than the next highest to play a reasonable number of games (G. Pollock) is astonishing.

I get tired of reading nonsense about Tendulkar: all the stats that try and justify his claim to the best ever are fundamentally flawed because they are unscaled: if you play more you will score more. On that basis many other batsman would also be better than Bradman which is obviously nonsense.

We all must accept the fact: The guy was inhuman and there will in all probability never be another talent like his

Posted by Prodger on (March 29, 2014, 12:36 GMT)

Bradman is in a different category from any other batsman, that is beyond argument. Lack of sixes is a plus in my book, cricket like football, should be played on the deck, eliminates risk and is aesthetically more pleasing. It is frightening to think what he might have achieved using the vastly superior bats of today

Posted by yoadie on (March 29, 2014, 12:24 GMT)

The great George Headley suffered the same fate, when long after his best days, he made a return to playing a Test for the West Indies. He was only a shadow of himself. But thankfully, nobody chooses to remember him by his last appearance(s). And rightly, they shouldn't.

Posted by 4test90 on (March 29, 2014, 11:38 GMT)

There is one simple measure that proves Bradman is the best - something no one has ever done before or ever will. He scored 100 100's (117) and never played English county cricket. That is superhuman. Unless anyone can ever do that, they have no claim to be called the best batsman ever.

Posted by   on (March 29, 2014, 10:06 GMT)

There's little to be read in all this. We would probably never definitely know if Bradman was the best ever, or if there's any such thing as best ever. All those who have risen to greatness in the past, and all those close enough to challenge the current stalwarts, are equally good. Would anyone grudge a Chandrasekhar who went on to achieve greatness despite his handicap? Or a Wasim Akram who, apart from his cricket, had to spend considerable time learning to speak English to be able to interact with overseas media. There are many such examples. True greatness should be measured by how far you came, and not where you stood at the end. One can never find a reason strong enough to pick one player over others and proclaim him THE best. Let's not counterfeit arguments to keep conspicuously pampered heroes on top.

Posted by   on (March 29, 2014, 9:02 GMT)

Sir francis, The boundaries in those days used to considerably big and the bats woefully short of what they use these days.Apart from that with absence of protective gear and uncertain pitches for most of times and lack of present day sporting science or medical care, self preservation was actually carrying your own life in hands .Even with prevalence of short boundaries and better bats and better pitches, Gilchrist is the only batsman to cross 100 6s in entire career.Even SRT hit 73 sixes in his entire career about thirs of test matches played compared to Don 6 about 10th of test matches played.But huge difference is that Don averages double to that of SRT or Gilly or even Viv.Don was the best batsman ever. Period. Cricinfo publish

Posted by   on (March 29, 2014, 8:29 GMT)

Sir Francis - with you on the 6`s - Bradman hit very few. As for S/R, I`ve seen guesstimates ranging from 58-69 - extremely quick even in today`s game, and exceptionally quick in an era of many timeless tests.

Posted by   on (March 29, 2014, 8:27 GMT)

Ahhh, but he did hit 6s Sir_Francis. Do a little research about the fastest hundred and you will find a story of The Don belting one in 3 8 ball overs. It rained sixes that day.

Posted by Sir_Francis on (March 29, 2014, 8:04 GMT)

The Don didn't hit 6s. His s/r wasn't above the norm he just didn't get out as quickly as others.

Posted by   on (March 29, 2014, 5:43 GMT)

By Jeff Thomson or Thommo... This is how i remember the Don... Above was an aberration...

On a rest day during the Indian tour in 1977-78, Don Bradman was around in the nets. I was bowling only legspin to him, but he had a couple of young blokes trying to get him out. With no pads, no nothing ... for a 68-year-old, he belted the hell out of them on a turf wicket. And he hadn't batted for 20 years. I went back in and said, "Why isn't he playing with us tomorrow?" That's how good I thought he was.

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (March 29, 2014, 3:45 GMT)

His exploits in tests needs no mention.Greatest of all,the Don has every concievable recd-will be imposs to match.Had he played in modern era,would've dominated odis too pushing Viv,Gilly to far 2nd.In t20 too recd. of most 6/4s,runs,sr would've been his.

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