When Don Bradman thought his test career may be over – before becoming an ‘invincible'

Telegraph

24-02-2025

This article is published as part of The Telegraph's Greatest Interviews series, which revisits the most significant, informative and entertaining conversations with notable figures over our 170 year history. The below interview is introduced by Christopher Howse. It appears as it was originally published.
The interview with Donald Bradman (1908-2001), widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time, took place in 1947 just after the first Test series that Australia had hosted since 1937. Australia won the series 3–0 and retained the Ashes.
Bradman, to be knighted in 1949, was already 'the Don' and the elder statesman of Australian cricketers. He had been the target of the intimidatory bodyline bowling tactic of the England Ashes tourists in 1932-3. In 1934, Bradman, on top form, was almost killed by peritonitis. During the Second World War he struggled with mysterious physical debilities. 'I had returned to cricket in 1946-7 against the advice of my doctors,' he later recalled.
No one was better qualified to question Bradman about his future and that of the game than E W 'Jim' Swanton (1907-2000). He was called by Wisden 'the most influential and most durable cricket writer of the 20th century'. His enduring strength of will was by some related to his wartime imprisonment by the Japanese, when he was beaten and suffered from polio. His biographer Rayvern Allen wrote of his unpopularity with his brother officers as he strove to survive. The Telegraph 's Hugh Montgomery-Massingberd, the father of the modern obituary, excused Swanton's snobbishness but acknowledged that he could be a bully. He was widely loved by readers.
Not only did Bradman, despite the doubts he expresses to Swanton, get to England in 1948 with the Australian team, but they won the Ashes 4–0, completing the tour unbeaten as 'The Invincibles'. – Christopher Howse
On the conclusion of the Test matches I have been able to obtain from Bradman in an exclusive interview his opinion on England's performance and some of the major lessons to be learnt from the tour.
In his comprehensive survey of the game Bradman, widely regarded as the greatest batsman of all time, spoke with the authority of an elder statesman in the world of cricket.
His personal position as a player after the close of this season has been widely discussed, and no definite pronouncement has yet been made as to whether he will play again. It seems, from what he told me to be very unlikely that the British cricketing public will see him in action again. In his own words:
'It must be apparent that I was only able to see out the Tests just ended by a careful husbanding of resources. I doubt my physical capacity to go through a tour.' [The Australians are due to tour England next year.]
In what follows I quote the point of my questions [in italics] and the full reply of Bradman to each:
Bedser and Tate
Played Them Both
Q: What is your view of England's cricket future?
A: Despite the result of the Test series just played I think England has only one or two gaps to nil in order to have a very fine team. The batting is capable of better things. Hutton. Compton and Edrich are a formidable trio around which to build.
The new wicket-keeper, Evans, is of the highest class. In bowling I consider Wright the best of his type England has sent to Australia for at least 35 years, and Bedser is undoubtedly the finest medium-pace bowler seen in Australia since Tate.
In fact, in my opinion, Bedser in 1946 was a better bowler than Tate was in 1928. I do not refer to Tate in 1924, because I did not play against him that year.
I am the only cricketer who has played against both Tate and Bedser in Australia and therefore am in a unique position to express an opinion. I think Bedser should be an even greater bowler in England.
Wright and Bedser were most unlucky throughout the tour, but principally they were overburdened with work, which reduced their effectiveness beyond measure.
What England needs is a really fast bowler, and a good left-hand bowler of the Verity type.
Australians fully realise the handicaps largely resulting from the war which face the English counties in their future efforts to encourage and produce young players of Test calibre. These difficulties may be largely economic and connected with national matters beyond county control, but England must make the effort.
Australia stronger
Bowler-Batsmen
And Australia's?
Before this season started I privately expressed the view that Australia would have a strong team, but it has actually turned out stronger than I anticipated. The batting is sufficient to meet any demands and the bowling has the great advantage of variety, but particularly important is the fact that almost every bowler is capable of making a century, and the same may be said of a wicket-keeper [Tallon].
Australia's batting strength at the moment may, I think, be fairly compared with that of the great Test teams of earlier years. Moreover, these players are imbued with a natural aggressive spirit which under most circumstances enables them to play attractive cricket. 1 feel sure our opponents this season, no less than ourselves, admired, for instance, the sheer artistry, the classical style and power of an innings by Miller.
Then Arthur Morris, the young opening left-hander, gave positive proof that his early successes some years ago in first-class cricket were not an accident. His century in each innings at Adelaide was a performance which few players of any era could have equalled.
The Right Temperament
It seems to me that from the batting angle the Australian players are destined to provide some delightful performances here and in England in the years ahead.
It would be foolish nonsense to suggest that we developed a bowler of the superb qualities of O'Reilly. However, we did find bowlers possessed of considerable skill endowed with good temperaments who were splendid fieldsmen and batsmen, able to rise to the occasion, and fitting very well into the pattern of the attack.
Most of our bowlers were comparatively inexperienced and their place in history is not to be judged on this season alone. To sum up. I think we may look forward with confidence to Australia being represented by a team of great ability for some time to come.
Debts to game
Jealous Critics
It is well known that you sacrificed lucrative Press contacts and took risks with your health and reputation to play this season. Why?
I felt that I might be able to play some part in the rehabilitation of cricket after the war, and that' if I could it was my duty to do so. I realised that there would be tremendous public interest – that tens of thousands of people would pay homage once again to the greatest of all games.
Cricket lovers have been very kind to me through the years, and it was mainly to pay my debts to the game and the people who support it which prompted me to try and give of my best.
I am well aware that a few jealous critics have seen nothing satisfactory in anything I have done. The persistent direction of some of the criticism made the writers' intent so obvious as to be laughable. However, I believe the public in general have appreciated that I have at least sincerely tried to help cricket.
What are the prospects of your coming over with the Australian team next year?
It would be premature to say yes or no. However, it must be apparent that I was only able to see out the current series by a careful husbanding of resources. At the moment I doubt my physical capacity to go through a tour, and so, while not finally committing myself. I should say it is unlikely.
There is no reason to decide such a question so far in advance. Needless to say, I would love to go to England again, but there are limitations in all things, and only time can provide the answer
Would you consider managing the team if you cannot play?
Under no circumstances.
Fairer pitches
Help for Bowlers
Do you think present Australian pitches give a fair chance to the bowler?
If you refer only to the pitches for Test matches, then I would answer that the dice in both England and Australia are loaded too heavily in favour of the batsman. Pitches, in my opinion, should be as true as possible, but they should be reasonably natural and amenable to some fair degree of wear.
The spectacle of only one wicket falling on the sixth day of a match, as at Adelaide, is bad for cricket, and I definitely think this aspect of the game requires urgent attention.
While on this subject, it may be of interest to say that I have found the best pitches in England easier to bat on and less helpful to the bowlers than those in Australia.
My preference for batting on English wickets is not shared by most players, and apparently it is a matter of individual style.
L.B.W. RULE
Needs Changing
In the 1939 Wisden's you favoured amending the l.b.w. rule so that the batsman could be out to the ball pitched on the off-side, even though the part of his person which had intercepted the ball were not between wicket and wicket. Would you vote for an experimental change made now to this effect?
For many years I have been in favour of amending the l.b.w law in this direction. One of the worst features in batting is to see a player go across and cover his stumps with his pads – bat held over shoulder – when the ball is pitched outside the off-stump. It is negative, unattractive cricket, heartbreaking to bowlers and mainly indulged in by less competent batsmen. I would like to see the suggested change adopted immediately as an experiment.
Batsmen, who are greatly in the majority, oppose alterations to the l.b.w. rule which would assist the bowler, but the laws should be framed to make the game as attractive as possible, not to please the batsmen.
Tests of skill
Players' Outlook
Are there any other ways in which you think cricket might move with the times?
I still think the first consideration is the mental outlook of the individual, who can if he chooses spoil any game by his interpretation of its character. Then I think attention must be given to the laws of the game. such as the l.b.w. rule and the preparation of pitches, so that matches will remain a contest of skill rather than endurance.
I have already advocated that in England modern score boards should be erected on the main grounds. They are a great attraction. In both countries the installation of a loud speaker system at the grounds similar to that in use at Adelaide would prove helpful and entertaining.
My best innings
The Great O'Reilly
Which of all your innings do you regard as your best?
My 254 at Lord's in 1930. the reason being that I did not make a mishit of any kind until I was dismissed. I cannot say this of any other innings. Moreover, we were chasing a winning score by England, yet scored fast enough to catch up the leeway and win.
Whom do you consider the greatest bowler you ever batted against?
To my mind there has never been a bowler to equal O'Reilly. To play with him was an education – to play against him usually a lesson.
From every conceivable angle, theoretical, technical and practical, he stands supreme. Moreover, his figures are a monument to his skill and they were achieved in an era of high scoring and good wickets.
His control of length was marvellous, his direction always designed to use his fieldsmen to the utmost, and his subtle variations of break and flight were so admirably handled as to be constant source of mental hazard to the batsman.
In support of his natural talents was an outstanding cricket brain which enabled him to achieve a perfection beyond that of any contemporary.
Tests justified
Direct Benefits
Do you consider the Tests just ended have justified the quick resumption?
Undoubtedly. Apart from the psychological benefit which has been derived from the early resumption there are direct tangible benefits
One is the financial aid which will reach the English Counties and the Australian States. Another is that the way has been paved for a more speedy return of an Australian team to England. A third is the benefit the game itself has derived and the consequent lifting of the standard of play.