Bradman's 'official' letters discovered

[Sachinism]

Private letters written by Don Bradman, largely to former Australian board chairman Bob Parish, have been discovered by Cricket Australia just days before his birth centenary on August 27. The subjects of the letters range from the ban on tours to South Africa during the apartheid era, remuneration for players, and World Series Cricket. Bradman was an administrator of the game for 35 years. In 1960 he was appointed the Australian board chairman - he served another term later that decade - and dealt with problems like chucking and apartheid during his tenure. The letters, published in several Australian papers on Sunday, reveal Bradman favoured giving bowlers a fairer deal as he suggests the lbw law be tweaked so that batsmen are given out for deliveries that pitch outside off and leg stump, provided they don't offer a shot. Bradman wrote against a move to get the Australian government to intervene in the television rights issue that cropped up during Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket (he described Packer's media promotions"propaganda"). He wrote to Parish: "I would not willingly support any move to have government interference in TV rights, which may control Packer because, as I have said many times before, it would inevitably bring control of the fees that may be paid." The ban on touring South Africa, Bradman wrote, had moved cricket from the sporting basket and in to the political basket. "... not of our wish or doing, but by fate". In April 1978 he wrote to South African cricket chief Joe Pamensky: 'Unfortunately I am despondent in believing that although your cricketers have done everything you can in S.A., ... countries will now come out with the verdict, the political verdict, that they can't play in S.A. so long as Apartheid is government policy. Regrettable too, our Prime Minister, gives the impression he thinks the same way ... "I think you will get a good and sympathetic hearing from the cricket fraternity in London but what use is that if the powers that be won't let tours take place ..." Evidence of his foresight lies in a letter on the problem of throwing in cricket. Bradman writes that it would be crazy to return to an earlier situation where there was no definition for throwing. "Those who claim recent events may have rectified the trouble may well be right - IN THE SHORT TERM [sic]. But in 10-20 years it would certainly return and be a bogey once more, and I think our responsibility is to provide now against such a contingency." According to Bradman, the best way to test a bowler's action is during a match where he is bowling flat out and does not know he is being filmed. http://content-www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/365276.html

[bharat297]

I actually think thats not a bad idea (the lbw law). I think it should at least be tried out (maybe in a T20) ... given that the game is rapidly becoming more batsman dominant (in terms of rule changes) ... the lbw law for balls pitching outside leg should be review and tested out.

[cowboysfan]

umm-i dont think so.We dont need more negative bowling in test cricket.

[King]

It's hard to tweak the LBWs anymore. The balls pitching off side are fine but the balls pitching leg side should not be given out even if it is hitting the middle stump. This very rule was devised for a reason. Leg side is a blind spot for batsmen and imagine if the bowlers (including pacemen) pitched outside the leg stump all the time from around the stump. The batsmen won't be able to play many shots as it's a blind spot and it's hard to get the bat around the pad if it's pitching slightly away from the leg stump. The cover drives, the cut shots, the back foot off drives, straight drives, off drives and a lot of shots will be history. I don't think there's much to tweak in terms of LBW.

[bharat297]

umm-i dont think so.We dont need more negative bowling in test cricket.

Well ... um ... thats the thing , its only negative because you cant get a wicket, and batsman will leave the ball ... if you open up the option to get wickets ... then batsman are forced to play shots (btw, defending with a straight bat, is still considered a shot ... all it means is you cant leave it) and then it doesnt become negative anymore. Like i said, its just something to consider ... I think it has more merit than the super-sub rule. It could be tried out in T20 , and if it doesnt work, then forget it.

[cowboysfan]

ravi made some good points but this rule heavily favours the spinners.they can bowl a negative line and still be in the hunt for wickets-it will make a mockery of test cricket if you ask me.It would be even worse for T20 cricket where the public has paid money to watch runs scored and at high pace-not some 2 nd class spinner bowling a negative line and getting wickets which he doesnt deserve becuase the bastman had to force the pace-this will never happen(trust me).

[bharat297]

ravi made some good points but this rule heavily favours the spinners.they can bowl a negative line and still be in the hunt for wickets-it will make a mockery of test cricket if you ask me.It would be even worse for T20 cricket where the public has paid money to watch runs scored and at high pace-not some 2 nd class spinner bowling a negative line and getting wickets which he doesnt deserve becuase the bastman had to force the pace-this will never happen(trust me).

But remember in LOI anything down leg will be a wide ... so the spinner cant be too negative.

[bharat297]

I dunno ... maybe its just me , but id rather see a game where the RR is 4 or 5 an over and its an even contest between bat and ball, rather than an out and out slogfest where the RR is 9 an over and the pitch is as flat as hell.