Bradmanesque or is it?

The Don of Greatness
Hunting for great quotes on the cricketing genius Don Bradman whom we fondly called the Don must be as easy as finding a verbal jab by an aussie on a touring English cricketer. After all when a man has an average of 99.94 and the next person a measly 60 surely the former can only be an incarnation of the divine cricketing god. A glimpse of quotes spoken in reverence of his strokness reveals the aura and awe commanded by him,

When Larwood bowled ineffectively at Bradman, P.F. Warner turned around to Lord Hawke and said, 'This is like throwing stones at Gibraltar.'"

“On and on he seemed to go batting into cricket eternity…. He was the genius absolute…” – J.H Fingleton Australian batsman

Never has any man defied the law of averages to this degree. There have been the supermen of other sports but somehow all their records no matter how great always seemed within grasp given time. People always knew that it would be a matter of time before those records were felled. Yes sir, all records felt that way, all but that of the Don. But how did he do it?
Going back in time to Bradman’s childhood we see a most beautiful amalgam of talent and champion desire in the unique way he practiced his cricket. A method that can only be conjured up by a bored genius tired of the predictable nature of daily challenges. Bradman as a boy practiced cricket by trying to hit a golf ball thrown against the base of a water tank, with the ball fizzing away at an unpredictable angle. The feat is difficult at the best of times, but he managed to do it more often than not at a tender age of 10. Such was the speed of eye and co-ordination of eye with arm.

A brief analysis of Bradman’s game highlights the man’s unique batting sense to his time. He was probably the only player who best resembled the modern day great cricketer like a Tendulkar or a Ponting, always eager to go for the extra run. He could carve up a bowler's line through nimble footwork and always kept the scoreboard ticking at a brisk pace. His batting resembled a modern day cricketer bred on one day cricket. Truly a man beyond his time and as evinced by his records, too much to handle for his peers.

Such was the greatness of the man... or was it? That he was capable of his mythical average during his time is true beyond a shred of doubt but would that be true now? Could the Don have conquered such peaks or even managed to rub shoulders with the greats of our time given the pressures, rigors and attrition of modern day cricket? Let’s find out.

His Mythical Average Tested
Bradman’s mythical average of 99.94 is oft talked about and it’s grandeur is further accentuated by the contrasting averages of people who follow. Here’s a look at some of the top aggregators in test cricket,
DG Bradman (Aus) 6,996 runs at 99.94 (52 Tests)
RG Pollock (SA) 2,256 at 60.97 (23 Tests)
GA Headley (WI) 2,190 at 60.83 (22 Tests)
H Sutcliffe (Eng) 4,555 at 60.73 (54 Tests)
R.Ponting (Aus) 9368 at 59.29 (110 tests)
E Paynter (Eng) 1,540 at 59.23 (20 Tests)

The contrast is clear, but one can see a pattern in this equation. All players barring Ricky Ponting are from eras long gone by and have played less than 55 test matches and some less than 25! Compare that to the modern day greats who play at the least twice that many during their careers.
The law of statistics states that the lesser the number of observations the more chances of a skewed result. Players today play a 100 tests while the Don played just 50. Statistics was with him, as he didn’t play many tests he was shielded to an extent from the law of averages. The more breaks you take the better your play will be as you get to regain your ability to perform at peak condition. Which is why sportsman are advocated to take timeouts during the game. Take for example a tennis player taking time before serving or a batsman taking some time before facing balls. Given genius and enough recuperation time, perhaps great players could take averages to much greater heights, even 100 and maybe the Don wasn’t an exception.

The Uncovered Pitches Argument
Before the 70s cricket was played on uncovered pitches, that were exposed to the elements and was anything but batsman friendly. That Bradman played in such a time and came out on tops is used to beat down any imposter who dare raise an eyebrow at the stature of the game’s greatest son. But one must remember that the Don rarely played on a devastated uncovered pitch and more importantly he didn’t have to do it against the modern day professionals. Modern professionals would have clinically cut open batting lineups on uncovered pitches and batsmen from the don’s time didn’t have to contend with such bowlers and that’s the key.

Bowling is a difficult art, more so than batting as one must battle fatigue while staying accurate. Apart from great fitness levels it requires the bowler to practice the art for very many hours to truly master it. During the ‘30s and ‘40s all cricketers were amateurs who practiced the art but did not live it and consequently they weren’t anywhere close to the consistency or greatness of modern day bowlers. Despite rules and pitches loaded in the bowler’s favor, they simply weren’t as great or effective barring a handful of them. The Don or any other great batting talent would have surely been much more successful facing bowlers who could only do so much as compared to the likes of a Mcgrath, Lillee, Warne or Kumble – bowlers who rated off the charts in skill and fitness. Ironically, the proponents of the uncovered pitches argument are batting on a sticky wicket!


Playing Under Pressure
Bradman was discomfited by Bodyline, the shameless method of attack which Douglas Jardine employed to depose him in Australia in 1932-33. It appears he was sidetracked and could muster up an average of just 56. Could it be that Bradman let all things unbecoming of the game affect him? If so the constant sledging of modern day cricket would have taken him to task, wouldn’t it?

The Don’s weakness against quality leg spin was often spoken about. Grimmett was not, in fact, the only wrist-spinner to make the great man seem, at times, almost mortal. Bill O'Reilly was another--Bradman called him the finest and therefore, presumably, the most testing bowler he played against--as were Ian Peebles and Walter Robins; and it was with a googly that Eric Hollies bowled him for a duck in his last Test innings, at The Oval in 1948, when he was within four runs of averaging 100 in Test cricket. Maybe wrist-spin was his undoing, given such a weakness and the modern techniques employed to attack such chinks in a batsman's armor, Bradman may have succumbed once too often and thereby setting off a chain of unfortunate batting troughs due to ebbing confidence levels. This would have resulted in the most cruel eventuality of pulling down his average.

Last Words on the Legend
Finally, add attrition, new age strategy, supremely athletic opposition into the mix and you are still left with constants- the pillars of a genius, concentration, divine talent and champion mentality. While the former would dip the batting average of the genius to mortal numbers the latter would keep his head up above his competition. Though it would be hard to say where he might have stood, an average in the high 60s might have suited him right and would still let him don the mantle of the greatest. But his rare genius and skill against varied opposition across a 100+ tests would make his life mean more than the callous signature of his numbers. His story would have almost been true, all but for the average and that ironically makes his legend 99.94% true!

Alexander The Great: Myth of the Great Gay Greek

The Man
Alexander the Great was the greatest conqueror in history. He conquered most of the known world by the age of 32 and was undefeated in battle over a period of 13 years of hard campaigning across varied terrains, a feat unmatched in history! His success was so great that his men were led to believe his atrocious claim of being the son of a god! The success was as much a result of the training given by his visionary father as Alexander’s unique courage and talent!

Not easy to think mature when young, but Alexander was more than that, he was a step ahead of generals twice his age. He attacked when his opposition least expected it, he inspired his men by throwing himself into battle without protection, despite a searing hot temper he was the coolest head in battle, a deep thinker his thoughts were out of the box something that came in handy while executing his audacious plans!

The Gay Myth
Alexander is a dual-headed figure among historians. The military men call him a genius and gloat over him while the philosophers make him to be a megalomaniac. However, it’s his sexuality rather than his character that evokes much controversy! Calling Alexander as a gay person is controversial because there is no hard evidence of it and yet that belief shadows all stories about Alexander. Was he a victim of a malicious smear campaign or is he really the gay pin-up boy for the ages? On the face of it he is easily the latter, but instances cannot lead to generalizations especially in the case of people as complex as Alexander. Here’s an argument to dispel the gay myth!

An Idealist
Alexander’s tutelage under one of the greatest of Greek thinkers Aristotle kindled his intellectual curiosity. It is here that he perhaps acquired the ideal of unifying the world under one order and this continued to be the driving force behind his life. That he chose to pursue this ideal as a warrior as opposed to a philosophical evangelist was a reflection of his time. Idealists such as Alexander are a rare breed who embody greatness for them a lust for materialistic pleasures take a backseat to their ideal. It’s easy to see now that as an idealist his focus was on expanding his kingdom and not pursuing harems which could have been misconstrued as gay behavior!

Insecurity
Royalty in Ancient Greece had a blood lust for power. Alexander’s father was himself murdered in mysterious circumstances! These circumstances clearly infused fears of betrayal and treachery in him. His insecurity only grew worse with time for he became a victim of his own ideal. Upon his first major victory, over the Persian king Darius he became the master of Asia and overnight the primary target for assassination.
While regular people fall into sea of mistrust, for the master of the world well he lived in the depths of that sea!
His primary confidant was his best friend since childhood Haephastion who came to share that bond by saving Alexander’s life. Considering his unique situation it’s easy to see why Alexander shared a lot of time with Haephastion who was not only his best friend and chief confidant but also one of the foremost generals in his army. While many think of his best friend to be a gay lover, the truth simply might be that Alexander’s insecurities meant he trusted his other friends less than haephastion and therefore spent more time with his best friend! Of course, this would eventually lead his other jealous generals to mock the king in private with gay connotations – sort of like imaginary gossip at the workplace.

True Love
The distinguishing factor of any gay person is to take a wife for namesake. If Alexander was one he would have taken a bride as per Greek customs and galloped about his gay ways. But what happened was very different, he married a Persian tribal chief’s daughter who held little political significance or passed the royal grade required to be wife to a person of his standing. It was true love and quite unlike a gay person!

Final words
Alexander may have indulged in homo-sexual behavior from time to time as it was the norm for his day. Greek royalty did before him did it and so might have Alexander, however it was not a lifestyle choice as depicted in fictitious biographies meant to rake in the moolah! Overtly affectionate behavior towards people was simply Alexander as he was a uniquely benevolent character for a warlord, this at times added to his gay legend.
In the modern world ,
“Men who’ve indulged in homosexual behavior are gay”
“Leaders who go to war for conquest are tyrants”
“Crucifixion and Impalement is evil!”
Alexander was from ancient times. In his world these were merely variety, duty and necessity!