What a breadth of Worldly Vision: "There is but one God, Allah, and Mohamet is his prophet" transcribed to "There is but one God, Cricket, and Bradman is his prophet"(and in relation to Bradman's early entry into the business world, perhaps the spelling might more appropriately be profit).
What a hopeless nation we would be if Bradman was our only focus.

Fascinating. A succinct encapsulation of the process by which Australia began its long - and as yet unfinished - journey towards adolescence.

>>This was a time when Australians were being asked by the English to reduce their standards of living as a means of countering the problems of the Depression.<<

This was a time, in fact, when some of the broader realities of the depression came home to roost. Australia had become dependent upon a never-ending stream of inward investment from the UK, and to a bottomless pit of money from which to borrow. In much the same way as our own central bank would turn off the tap in times of recession, the UK slowed this particular source of funds.

Through the traditional lens of "it's those bloody poms again", this morphs from sound economic policy into an act of bastardry.

I am beginning to suspect that Australia will only become a republic when it can find a way to take responsibility for itself a little more, and stop blaming Britain for all the growing pains.

As for this little gem...

>>The 1948 team, and Bradman in particular, helped fuse the national psyche once again in a nation that had been ravaged by the war<<

A very strange statement. Is the author suggesting that the fact that England had been ravaged by war played a part in the fusing of Australia's national psyche? What an odd concept - at face value, it is devaluing the Australian team's achievement, which, given the tenor of the rest of the piece, is somewhat unlikely.

Bradman was undoubtedly a great cricketer, arguably the greatest that has ever been and will ever be. One of his enduring measures of greatness is that his personal humility stands out most graphically when compared to today's media-hungry ship of fools.

But tributes of this quality do him a massive disservice. And at the same time illustrate our tendency to rely upon iconic individuals - Bradman, Phar Lap, Alan Bond etc. - to carry the burden of defining our national characteristics.

Pericles,

The me and we:

The affirmation of the warrior and hero as good, being superior to individual needs, whilst maintaining subordination of the self the leaders of the community, was a characteristic of National Socialism.
But one doesn't have to be a NAZI for it to be evident. It's about the State and the Individual, and, how indivuals are to perceive this relationship.

Else put, individuals in nations can be mustered by polticians, but we need certain individuals, whom by proxy, make-up for the loss of the personal self, the truer form of indivudualism. The sports hero is the embodiment of the ideal self, whom carries the collective, over the individualist rational self, whom indwells in personal thought.

Regards,

p.s. I do hope the static is changed to 100 to recognize Bradman's talent :-).

Nice little article. Bit of news sense here too.

Like the writer I reckon Bradman is tops. I didn't even much care that in some quarters he was disliked. Seems to be a criterion for true courage and fame.

The author said that it's hard to conceive of another Australian hero in the same league. It's true. He defined an era or we defined it for him and placed him in the centre of our myth making. At a stretch you could include Monash and Curtin in the same breath as Bradman, although they are much less known.

It's curious that when we talk of fast bowlers we forget the fastest of them all: Harold Larwood - and he was bowling just leg short of a length. Nasty.

"...it boiled down to my dislike of artificiality and publicity.”[said Bradman] Such intolerance of pretence has become a defining characteristic of Australians and it was certainly true of “The Don”."

Oh what twaddle. Talk about living vicariously. Next you'll be calling him a 'hero'.

Oops! You already did.

Grip on reality here folks. He was a guy that could hit a ball with a stick and played a game only a few counties in the world did and do.Hmmm thats important... not.

This John Howard like 'love in' is just a manifestation of a fairly immature understanding of what it means to be part of this counties culture.

I think a more important review of what he did in his stokbroking life ater he left the stick and ball behind would elicit a more honest review of his character

Some years ago the Australian government gave an award to Olivia Newton-John for her 'services to music'. The Canberra journalist Ian Warden suggested at the time that it would have been more appropriate to give the music industry an award for its services to Olivia Newton-John. Likewise with Don Bradman. He achieved lasting fame and a reasonable fortune from doing something he found relatively easy and congenial. How does that make him a character to admire and emulate?

And what about the hundreds of would-be Bradmans before and since who put in just as much time and effort but simply didn't have the same ability or luck? Heroes all? Or hapless losers?

Why does Sir John Eccles not make a mark on the Australian identity? What is more important discovering how the brain works, or, how to swing a piece of wood? Sir Mark Olphant helped saved the knecks of the free West in WWII [significant contributions at Los Alamos & shinking the size of radar units to fit into planes]