Yuku free message boards

When Robbie crept in

SIR DONALD BRADMAN, the greatest runmaker the world has seen, will be 75 on August 27. We took this milestone as the cue to ask him to recall the most memorable of all his many unforgettable contests


WHEN David Frith asked me if I would write a piece about a memorable Test match I was faced with some difficulty of choice because so many come under that heading. But finally I chose the Third Test at Melbourne in 193637 because it provided certain characteristics out of the ordinary.

Right at the outset let me take issue with those critics who laid such emphasis on Australias winning the toss. Even Wisden said: Bradman won the match for Australia when he won the toss. That was a gross exaggeration. The incidence of the toss may or may not have been important. Ill come back to that later.

In my two tours of England as captain, in nine Tests I won the toss only once, and on that occasion would have preferred to lose it because I honestly wasnt sure whether we should bat or not. Despite losing all those tosses we still did not lose either rubber and indeed lost only one Test out of the nine played.

Too often the value of winning or losing the toss is over-emphasised, and I believe tactics, rather than the toss, won us that great game in Melbourne or, perhaps more accurately, lost it for England.

Although I won the toss and elected to bat, the decision was by no means straightforward. The wicket was damp after early rain. Kippax, Gilligan and Woodfull, commenting on the pitch as the game progressed, all referred to its uncertainty, and indeed Woodfull and Mailey both took me to task, claiming that I should have gone in lower in the batting order when the pitch had improved.

When Australia were 33 for 1, Fingleton and myself batting comfortably, an almost unprecedented thing happened. There was a change in the bowling and Verity was brought on. As was my normal habit, I glanced round the field to see where every man was stationed just before he ran in to bowl. Robins was roughly alongside the square-leg umpire. The ball was delivered on the leg stump, just short of a length, and I quietly turned it off my thigh behind square without taking any particular care to deflect it downwards because, as I had observed, there was no fieldsman there.

To my utter amazement Robins appeared on the scene some five yards from the bat and took the catch. He was at least ten yards from the position he had been occupying when Verity started his run!


I told my bowlers they were not to get any more wickets that day


As corroboration of the event, C. G. Macartney wrote: Bradman made his fatal shot as if unaware of the fieldsman who caught him.

At the end of the day I remonstrated with Robins about this extraordinary happening.

Now he and I were the greatest of friends. He would have been incapable of performing an unsporting act. Nor would his captain, Gubby Allen, have condoned one. But Robbie apologised profusely and gave an explanation that just as Verity started his run, he, Robins, realised he was not where his captain wanted him, so he moved in several yards as the bowler ran up. As he was on the leg side behind square, I couldnt see him, and so his change of position was unknown to me. It was a simple ball which I could have placed anywhere.

There was no animosity over the incident. It was not premeditated and therefore not construed by me as unfair. But it had a profound effect on our team, and my score of a mere 13 was infinitely lower than was expected under the prevailing conditions.

With Australia only 181 for 6 on the first day, England were in the box seat, and from that position should have been able to dictate the terms of play for the rest of the match.

It rained on the Friday night and play was not resumed until after lunch on the Saturday. The pitch was very wet and difficult, with the ball flying dangerously. Having taken our score to a bare 200 for 9, I saw no point in risking injury to one of my two key bowlers for the sake of a couple more runs, so I closed the innings.

The English team batted on an extremely difficult pitch one of the worst I have ever seen. After the loss of early wickets I began to get worried that Allen would declare. Australias batting could have been wrecked in an hour on that pitch. The ideal situation for me would have been to see England nine wickets down at stumps; but, as so often happens, play doesnt always proceed as desired. Hammond and Leyland in particular handled the conditions extremely well. The score got to 56 for 2, and then, sparked off by Len Darling, taking two of the greatest catches Ive ever seen, it deteriorated to 76 for 7. It became increasingly unlikely that England could bat out the day and the last thing I wanted was for Australia to be forced to bat again on the Saturday. So quietly, and in the hope that it wouldnt be observed, I told my bowlers they were not to get any more wickets that day.

For a while the strategy appeared to be working. But eventually, with Gubby Allen himself now at the crease, and with Sievers disguising his intent with the finesse of an elephant, the English captain saw through my tactics and closed at 76 for 9. Englands last seven wickets had fallen for a mere 20 runs, but the most precious hour of the day had been wasted. Had Allen declared at 56 for 2, instead of 76 for 9, Australia would have been compelled to bat during that crucial period and would certainly have lost at least some of her main batsmen.

Back in the dressing-room, after Allen declared, I ruminated on the prospects and then said, Chuck and Bill, put the pads on.

A startled Fleetwood-Smith said, You want me to open? I said, Yes.Why me? he said. To which I replied, brutally, Chuck, the only way you can get out on that wicket is to hit the ball. You cant hit it on a good one, so there is no way theyll get you out tonight.

With over half an hour to stumps we could easily have lost three or four wickets, especially when OReilly was caught-and-bowled by Voce first ball for 0.

But courage and good luck favoured us.

True to my forecast, Fleetwood-Smith missed every ball at which he played that evening (and was out on the Monday to the first one he touched). Frank Ward, still suffering from a broken nose caused by a rising ball on a sticky wicket in the First Test at Brisbane, took OReillys place, and displayed enormous courage in holding up his end, repeated, I might add, on the Monday when he bravely held on for another hour to gain invaluable time for Australia.

When a light appeal was upheld with nearly half an hour to go, Australia had lost but the one wicket. Everything now hinged on the weather and Australias batting on the Monday.

It became fine on the Sunday, enabling a reasonable pitch to be prepared for Mondays play; but even so, the weather was overcast on the Monday and showers interrupted play.

Australia had lost five for 97 by mid-afternoon a fragile lead of 221, with only five wickets in hand and the match now wide open.

History records that Fingleton and I put together a record partnership of 346 for the sixth wicket (a record which still stands), and, when the Australian innings ended, England needed 689 runs to win a task clearly beyond her. In retrospect I am in no doubt that had Allen declared on the Saturday, 150 behind, Australia would have been easily beaten.

Australians do not handle sticky wickets as well as the Englishmen, and would almost certainly have lost five wickets on the Saturday. The ploy of using tailenders could only have endured briefly, and the recognised batsmen would have been dismissed.

It all added up to the most fascinating tactical duel with which I was ever associated.

Though I believe Allen had the winning of the match in the palms of his hands, this is a view in retrospect, and not a criticism valid at the moment. Well over 100 runs behind on the first innings, he desperately needed more runs. How was he to know what the weather gods would bring on the Monday? What if we got caught on a nasty wicket that day, leaving England to bat on perhaps a dry pitch on the Tuesday? It was a sheer gamble with fate, and had I been in Allens shoes, I may well have acted as he did.

All in all a fascinating. Test match, which so attracted the public that 87,798 people attended on the Monday (then a world record) and the total attendance for the game was an all-time record of 350,534. Inflation, and the changing value of money, subsequently caused the gate-takings to be exceeded, but never again have so many people watched one cricket match. It is good to remember that they were rewarded with a game of changing fortunes which produced all those skills and variety for which cricket is renowned.

Indeed a memorable match.

Wisden Cricket Monthly, 1983.

Get 'em if you can

West Indies needed 836 v. England @ Kingston, 1929/30.

Australia needed 741 v. England @ Brisbane 1928/29 (Bradman's first Test).

West Indies needed 740 v. Australia @ Adelaide, 1968/69.

England needed 707 v. Australia @ The Oval, 1934.

Sth Africa needed 701 v. Australia @ Melbourne, 1910/11.

England need 696 v. Sth Africa @ Durban, 1938/39.


This list is probably not be complete, they are instances that readily spring to mind.

West Indies needed 836 v. England @ Kingston, 1929/30.

England need 696 v. Sth Africa @ Durban, 1938/39.

These two ended as draws, remarkably they were both 'timeless Tests'. The WI v. Eng Test ended when the last two days had been washed out and England had to get on the boat to get back home. The SA v. Eng Test ended in a similar fashion after 11 days, 10 of which were scheduled for play, though one of these was washed out, the other day being a rest day. England had to take a two day train trip back to Cape Town in order to catch the ship back home. England were 5/654 chasing 696 when the match was finished.

I was aware that the others (bar Adelaide) were timeless, the remarkable thing is that two timeless Test matches ended in draws (England paticipating in both).

In the Kingston Test of '29/30 England had a first innings lead of 563 and did not enforce the follow on. They had no one to blame but themselves for not winning that Test.

Australia won the first two series (30/31 & 51/52) 4-1.

It was 30-26, Australia's favour after the 92/93 series, the closest it has been since the start of these fixtures. It is now 45-32.

statserver.cricket.org/li...MMARY.html

The trophy was struck to commemorate the Tied Test and was actually played for in the 60/61 series.

I have a photo in front of me with Benaud and Worrell both with a hand on the trophy at the completion of the 5th Test @ Melbourne.

The ball on top of the trophy is one of the balls used in the tied Test.