TRUMPER OR BRADMAN?

Patea Mail, Volume LII, 2 January 1931, Page 3

TRUMPER OR BRADMAN?

j ARTHUR MAILEY’S OPINION. Aithu.r Mai ley, writing recently, stated that he was asked by a Cootamundra sport if Bradman is as good as his English performances suggested, ami if he is as great a batsman as Victor Trumper. His reply was as follows: — The answer to the lirst question is obdious'ly “yes.” I will begin the answer to the second with a little story. Victor Trumper, when in his prime, being in a hurry to get to the (bucket Ground, rushed through his sports store in Hunter Street, picked up the first bat in the rack ami arrived at the ground in time to put on the pads. He knocked up a beautiful century, ami on returning to the pavilion received an over for his bat. “I’m not sure of the price of this bat,” said Victor (Vic was never sure of the price of anything), “but I think the shop price is 30 shillings.” Had it been £5 it would have made no difference to the bidder. The bat was sold, and on. returning- to the store after the match Vie handed the 30 shillings to his partner.

“What’s this for?” “Thai bat I took out of the rack.” said V.T. “But,” said the surprised partner, “that was only a seven and sixpenny bat! ” This was Victor Trumper’s character in a nutshell. Donald Bradman would probably have tried several bats and would not have been late lor the cricket. match. 1 did not know Victor Trumper in his prime and, therefore, feel somewhat diliident about making comparisons. Bradman’s mentality and common sense were in a great measure responsible for his amazing performances in England. He has better mentality than most international sportsmen and possesses an extraordinary amount of physical ability. Respect and rapid coordination between the eye, mind, and muscle is another great asset in his make-up. He has everything except height. That is one reason why he is not so graceful as Victor Trumper was,, and Trumper was nearly six feet, while Bradman is probably about sft 6(in or sft 7in. His short stature compels him to play certain shots with a cross bat, particularly those through the covers.

Although I remember Trurnper when his star was on the -wane, I still have a memory of his glorious off drives and back cuts-. Trurnper’s batting was refined, cultured, and never undignified. Some of Bradman’s strokes are crude by comparison but, perhaps, more effective. The value of a batsman depends, I suppose, on the number of runs he scores. When making comparisons under the heading of value we must sacrifice artistry and grace for effectiveness. People say that Trurnper, had he chosen, could have made many more runs after making his century. He invariably sacrificed his innings after scoring the coveted hundred. His generosity came out even in his batting. It is a. well-known fact that after scoring a century he invariably hit with tremendous power, and if he did happen to collect a hundred or two more it was because fortune was kind to him rather than his determination to amass a colossal score. Trurnper was satisfied with a century. Bradman is not. That makes Bradman a more valuable batsmau, but not greater than Trurnper. It is fashionable now to break records. Ponsford strted it.and Bradman is finishing it with a vengeance. Brail man could never do the things Trurnper did, and Trurnper probably never wanted to do the things Brad man is doing.

I saw Bradman jump down the pitch at The Oval and lose his footing when the ball was about two yards from him. Most batsmen in the position would have given up the ghost. But Bradman, in a kneeling attitude, reached out, played the ball on the off and scrambled back to the crease. Undignified, mind you —but very sensible! Had this stroke happened at Lord's, Bradman would have been banished to St. Helena for the term of his natural life. I'm almost sure of that. That stroke was proof of his resourcefulness and quick understanding between mind aud body. Bradman realised that the hall had to be played somehow and realised also that he was playing at The Oval and not at Lord's. The next ball was dispatched to the boundary like lightning. Bradman has another groat asset. He never underrates the bowler. He gives the bowler credit for being able to bowl an occasional dangerous ball. Bradman applies all his common-sense to his batting. He retains his character on and off the Held. If he were not a great cricketer ho might be a successful golfer or tennis player, or even a Liudrum. I have seen cricketers who, in private life, are careful, sedate, and unimaginative and rather dull, yet when seen at the wickets they step out of character ami thrill he spectators with a daring and spectacular display of batting. They take all the risks about the place the moment they pick up the bat and the same applies to the cricketer who gambles with the serious part of his life, yet when at the wickets he is a dour, dull stonowaller. F am doubtful whether I have answered my Cootamuudra friend's question satisfactorily, but giving it in tabloid fashion I might say that Victor Tnunper was a great batsman ami Donald Bradman is a great run-getter.