Bradman's Cultural Legacy

Wednesday 27^th August marks the centenary of the birth of the world’s greatest ever cricketer, Donald Bradman, who in his 52 Tests scored an astonishing 29 centuries at an unassailable average of 99.94.

Bradman, though, was more than a cricketer and became not just a figurehead for Australian nationalism, but a yardstick to its development. The writer Gideon Haigh wrote that he enjoys a status in Australia that other countries bestow on those who lead revolutions, create immortal works of art or make great scientific breakthroughs.

His head has appeared on both stamps and coins and his name associated with a certain way of life, much of which, of course, has been manufactured by vested interests. International Who’s Who named Bradman as one of only two Australians among the top 100 people who did most to shape the twentieth century.

Being born just seven years after federation, Bradman acquired heroic status due to his ability to bind sport and national identity. This evolved out of the tussles with England for the Ashes, and notably the ‘bodyline’ series of 1932-3 in which a depression-hit Australia sought Davids to stand up to the imperial Goliath.

The historian David Frith spoke of the little bloke batting against the mother country set against the backdrop of economic depression. His “eagle eye, twinkling footwork and flashing blade” being the stuff of school-boy superheroes.

But bodyline was more than just star batter from humble origins defending the spirit of the game against the public-school led adversary. A 1984 newspaper advertisement promoting the television mini-series declared: “Bodyline: The Day England Declared war on Australia.”

K.N. Prabhu, the long-time cricket correspondent of the Times of India saw Bradman as an avenging angel, punishing the English for putting Indians in jail in the 1930s. In later years Bradman received more fan mail from India than all other countries put together.

Bradman makes an unlikely foe to British imperialism. He was a conservative figure who socialised with the establishment. He proudly accepted a knighthood which he considered to be a royal tribute to cricket and its role in the Empire. Historian Brett Hutchins noted that from an Australian perspective, Bradman mastered the master’s game and signified an independent national identity without threatening the political and cultural order.

There were many who sought to bestow certain attributes on ‘The Don’. The Sydney Morning Herald spoke of his career as a testament to “egalitarian mateship”. Whilst ex-Prime Minister, John Howard, argued that Bradman represented “a sense of Australianness that a lot of us would like to see in ourselves”.

For Howard this represented the rural townsfolk and the white farmer as opposed to marginalised ethnic and indigenous identities. In reality, Bradman was a solitary figure who treated the playing of cricket as a business, arguing in the 1939 Wisden that cricket could not be disassociated from the “cold, hard facts of finance”.

He was not the most popular member of the team and was described by his contemporary Jack Fingleton as “somewhat indifferent, cold and unfriendly towards most of those with whom he played”. He rarely granted interviews and those he gave were with journalists who could be trusted not to ask difficult questions.

As a cricketer there is no questioning his ability or his achievements, yet as with most super-heroes Bradman will have his doubters. That he should be remembered at the greatest ever batter will prove a longer legacy than attributes that are bestowed upon him by vested interests.

Still, the Sydney Morning Herald once suggested that if Australia ever votes to become a republic then the Queen’s Birthday Holiday could be replaced by Don’s day – Bradman’s birthday on August 27.

As both a republican and cricket fan, I could drink to that.