The 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame Part 2

First topic message reminder :

NOTE: This is the second part of the 606v2 Cricket Hall of Fame thread. The first part can be found here: https://www.606v2.com/t17447-the-606v2-cricket-hall-of-fame-part-1

kwinigolfer wrote:Surely, it doesn't matter how fast he was compared to those of the 70's and later? There is exemplary anecdotal evidence that he was the fastest of the early Lindwall era and for thirty years before.

Precisely, and the only thing that really matters. He was undoubtedly faster than anything had been before, at the time, or shortly afterwards. But we should be wary of people who say "I saw Larwood and Thompson bowl, and Larwood was as fast": they are using different frames of reference for comparison.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:In his '100 Greatest Batsmen', John Arlott describes Hanif as 'a batsman of immense talent.', 'capable of quite brilliant attacking strokes, especially on the leg-side'.
He goes on to say, however, that such was Hanif's 'desperate concern' for the 'standing and honour of Pakistan' that 'most of his historic innings-and many of them were indeed historic-were of a defensive character'
Arlott concludes by saying: 'It is intriguing to conjecture how much more successful-statistically at least-he might have been in an established team, in which he did not need to be so deeply involved with the prestige of a rising cricket power. It is important that the outstanding contemporaries of other countries never questioned his title to greatness'.

Food for thought.

Hi Hoggy - thanks for that input on Hanif.

I do think it is particularly relevant (as Arlott suggests in his conclusion) that Pakistan, apart from Hanif, were a very ordinary Test side much of this time. There were really no others in the team upon whom Hanif could reasonably expect to rely. It is therefore not surprising that in many Test matches during this era Pakistan were soon under the cosh. That they were saved so often, let alone at all, is due to the supreme defiance and defence of Hanif. Even a truly great batsman can do no more than save a game through his own abilities and efforts if the other ten are not fit for purpose.

Shelsey - thanks for your earlier input on Hanif.

I'll add what extra I can about Hanif tomorrow. I think Kwini plans to as well some time.

Meantime, can anyone add anything in support of Marsh, particularly post his own playing career. A gutsy and difficult opponent but just a little bit short for me as a player. Possibly his role with the Australian Academy merits a YES but I confess I don't know enough about that.

And here's some of the things Wisden has to say about Hanif:

'It can scarcely be claimed that his Test career has been one of uninterrupted success. It could hardly be so in view of Pakistan's comparative immaturity as a Test-playing nation. But though he has had lean years through loss of form or injury or both there have been enough truly herculean feats along the way to make Hanif's name synonymous with defiance and endurance.'

'Few major innings since the war have provoked such contradictory critical appraisal as that played by Pakistan's captain in the Lord's Test of 1967. It began at 4.40 p.m. on Friday, July 27, and ended only when he ran out of partners at 3.24 p.m. the following Monday.

His actual entrenchment at the crease, after deductions for rain, meals, sleep and an interminable English sabbath, lasted nine hours two minutes and his eventual score was 187 not out.
....At one point, after an hour's play on the third day, Pakistan were 99 for six in reply to England's first innings 369. Of those 99 Hanif had himself scored 43. When he limped away, still unbeaten, at the loss of his last partner shortly before tea on the fourth day, Pakistan's total was 354.
....His Lord's Test innings of 1967...was but one peak in the mountain range. In 1954, in Pakistan's very first Test at Lord's, he occupied the crease for 195 minutes over 20 runs to ensure a draw. In another at Dacca he batted all day for 64. His first Test century, against India, was an affair of some eight and a half hours. In Australia, in the only Test of Pakistan's first tour, he scored 104 and 93 to save the match.

All of which achievements fade into the commonplace compared with his vigil in the sun at Bridgetown, Barbados, in 1958. A crushing first Test defeat seemed inevitable there when West Indies amassed 579 for nine and then bowled Pakistan out in their first innings for 106.

Three and a half day's play were still possible when Pakistan batted again. To save the game, therefore, it was virtually imperative for some batsman to smash the world endurance record.

Cometh the crisis to end all crises, cometh Hanif Mohammad. He scored 337 in an occupation of 16 hours 39 minutes. It was the longest innings ever known. The Test was drawn and Hanif, for his pains, had three layers of skin burned away beneath his eyes by the harsh glare reflected from the pitch.'

More food for thought

i will prob get my votes in, within the next few days.

cricketfan90 wrote:i will prob get my votes in, within the next few days.

CF - why the rush?

Still a lot to cover, particularly on Hanif and Marsh.

i said few days, meaning probably friday!

That still leaves 1 week though cf, in which you could be considering the opinions offered.

i have made up my mind on all the players except for Lindwall.

cricketfan90 wrote:i have made up my mind on all the players except for Lindwall.

CF - can you give me a few key points about Hanif plus Marsh's contribution to the Australian Academy then please. Cheers, mate.

why? now it sounds like your trying to say to me, that if i dont prove every single reasoning then im wrong.........


lindwall will prob get a yes as will miandad, but not convinced by the others.

CF - as Fists said to you the other day, it's not the world against you, mate.

I particularly haven't made my mind up on Hanif and Marsh. You suggested you have. I was just asking what the key points are for you about them. It might help me and others to know. Sorry if that upset you.

There is no suggestion you are wrong on anything. However, you need to understand that your opinion would count for a lot more if it were explained and took into account the views of other posters even if you don't end up agreeing with them.

AS for me and current thinking on the other nominees. Unless compelling evidence is introduced otherwise, I expect to vote YES for Lindwall and May. Although they were both too early for me to watch, I already knew a fair bit about their careers and influence on the game. The extracts supplied by Shelsey in support of Lindwall are very relevant. Whilst I don't always agree with CMJ, it's significant to me that Lindwall is at No. 31 in his Top 100 Cricketers of All Time whilst Alan Davidson (to whom we gave a clean sweep of YES votes) doesn't even make the List at all.

The Corporal has made an extremely fine case for May. This has been well supported by further extracts supplied by Shelsey and hopefully already reinforced by myself.

I'm interested to see if Mike, in particular, adds to the debate on Miandad - I will say though that Hoggy has been robust in his support.

hmm ok...im just saying just because someone tells me to provide certain evidence dosent mean i will right away!

guildfordbat wrote:I'm interested to see if Mike, in particular, adds to the debate on Miandad - I will say though that Hoggy has been robust in his support.

Seeing as you brought Miandad up , I thought I'd just share a further couple of pieces of evidence relating to the treatment of Pakistani cricketers, and Miandad in particular, by the British press in the 80s and 90s, and some of the context behind it.
The first:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MU_edUoPYaYC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=pakistan+pariahs+of+cricket+simon+heiffer&source=bl&ots=9OWwbsbwaE&sig=ojOo5F2Cc2nSI1FvuIvb_sx49Lc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gR0UT9OXGcuXhQeG_9ihAg&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pakistan%20pariahs%20of%20cricket%20simon%20heiffer&f=false

is a book by historian Jack Williams which has some interesting things to say about the treatment of Pakistani players as a whole, but the most interesting part in the context of this discussion, perhaps, starts on page 155 under the heading 'Stereotyping Pakistanis' which outlines some of the reactions of the British papers to Pakistani cricketers, including a description in the Daily Mirror of the Pakistan team of 1992 as, 'Javed's Brat Pack', and a description of Javed himself as looking like, 'a wild man with a face you might spot crouched behind rocks in an ambush along the Khyber'.

The second piece of evidence is a cricinfo article looking at the historical context of antagonism between England and Pakistan in terms of cricket.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/252827.html

Among various interesting aspects of the article is a quote from Javed which, as well as being a dig at Imran, relates to my argument that his background, and the rough edges associated with it, may have led to him being treated a little differently by the British press. Javed says: "Those who try to conform are better tolerated... if I too had gone partridge shooting... or had been photographed in morning dress at the Ascot, people would have found me more palatable."


Hope I'm not going into overkill on this but, as well as my growing conviction, based on my research, that Miandad fully deserves membership of our HoF, I do find the whole subject of race, class and sport very interesting as it was one of the primary areas discussed in my PhD.

hoggy i agree that Miandad should defo be in there mate

Hoggy
Some interesting comments, especially the implicit comparison between Imran (better educated, more conformist - the sort who could go on a partridge shoot and not appear out of place) and Miandad.

There were reasons for the poor relationship between England and Pakistan cricket during the 80s and 90s, but much of that related to competence of the umpires and administrators and should not (but almost certainly did) carry over into the relationship between players.

im sure i will end up voting yes for lindwall though that will please ya guildford

guildfordbat wrote:
I'm interested to see if Mike, in particular, adds to the debate on Miandad - I will say though that Hoggy has been robust in his support.

I'm sorry to keep you waiting, but still catching up with work after a week-end away, so no time to research, construct and write one of my long posts. I will give a few tidbits now.

Hoggy has made some excellent points on Miandad, and how perhaps had he been white (sorry to be so blunt but let's be honest) there wouldn't have been such an issue. Perhaps he is right, perhaps not.

The impression I get from talking to guys who know players who played against Miandad though, is that his behaviour was different. Whereas with people like Lilee, Steve Waugh, McGrath you often got the impression they became abusive in the heat of the moment, under some genuine belief that it would help them win, there was often a slight element of humour in the situation. With Miandad it was calculated gratuitous abuse, and seemingly for the sake of it. His mentality is summed up by his quote "cricket is war": it isn't. At the end of the day it's a game, played fiercely, competitively and passionately, but a game. And when play finishes that should not be forgotten. With Miandad it often was.

Guildford, don't know if you saw my post a day or so ago about the abrasive nature of Miandad, but hopefully it goes to show that he certainly hasn't been alone in causing such issues.

Thanks, Hoggy. Just to reassure you - I'm not that Daily Mirror writer of twenty tears ago!

Do your history books also cover Marsh and the Australian Academy?

Mike Selig wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:
I'm interested to see if Mike, in particular, adds to the debate on Miandad - I will say though that Hoggy has been robust in his support.

I'm sorry to keep you waiting, but still catching up with work after a week-end away, so no time to research, construct and write one of my long posts. I will give a few tidbits now.

Hoggy has made some excellent points on Miandad, and how perhaps had he been white (sorry to be so blunt but let's be honest) there wouldn't have been such an issue. Perhaps he is right, perhaps not.

The impression I get from talking to guys who know players who played against Miandad though, is that his behaviour was different. Whereas with people like Lilee, Steve Waugh, McGrath you often got the impression they became abusive in the heat of the moment, under some genuine belief that it would help them win, there was often a slight element of humour in the situation. With Miandad it was calculated gratuitous abuse, and seemingly for the sake of it. His mentality is summed up by his quote "cricket is war": it isn't. At the end of the day it's a game, played fiercely, competitively and passionately, but a game. And when play finishes that should not be forgotten. With Miandad it often was.

Not wanting to appear argumentative Mike , but Australian sledging was pre-meditated, at least from the mid 80s onwards, as the Merv Hughes interview I showed earlier shows. So that was hardly 'heat of the moment'.
And Gavaskar, for one, thought Miandad's 'banter' was highly amusing.

Yeah the sledging was, but when it got out of hand, it generally wasn't. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense. Anyway the point on Gavaskar is well made.

As for not being argumentative...

Mike Selig wrote:
As for not being argumentative...

Well it is sort of the point of the thread, isn't it?

we're back to square one lol

Miandad should be in there!

Fists of Fury wrote:Guildford, don't know if you saw my post a day or so ago about the abrasive nature of Miandad, but hopefully it goes to show that he certainly hasn't been alone in causing such issues.

Fists - yes, I did see your earlier post. Sorry for not responding at the time - probably too dazed after another mauling from Hoggy!

Firstly, just to emphasise that my comments about Miandad have always been concerns rather than definite reasons for a NO vote. I've actually moved closer to the YES camp as a result of Hoggy's very well argued and extensive case.

I do though think Mike's excellent cameo post (his first one today on this thread) is very relevant. This goes some way to showing why I dislike(d) Miandad and what possibly distinguishes him from the others. However, as Mike acknowledges and I did previously, part of this was whipped up by the Western media. That needs to be taken into account.

A few weeks ago another poster (forget who - possibly Shelsey or JDizzle*) turned down Greenidge with the explanation and partial apology - ''you probably had to be there to appreciate how good he was''. It is almost exactly the opposte here as far as I'm concerned and very much a personal feeling. Due to that, I certainly wouldn't urge others to vote NO. I do though find it interesting and a little reassuring that Mike's conversations with others who might know others who might know suggest I'm not totally barking up a wrong tree.

I will continue to consider the case including anything further submitted.

* We're missing your considered views and input, JD. Hope all is well.

guildfordbat wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Guildford, don't know if you saw my post a day or so ago about the abrasive nature of Miandad, but hopefully it goes to show that he certainly hasn't been alone in causing such issues.

Fists - yes, I did see your earlier post. Sorry for not responding at the time - probably too dazed after another mauling from Hoggy!

I will continue to consider the case including anything further submitted.

Don't worry Guildford, I reckon I've entered just about all my evidence.
Just the summation to come sometime later in the week

Hoggy - quite genuinely, you've done yourself and your man proud here.

guildfordbat wrote:Hoggy - quite genuinely, you've done yourself and your man proud here.

Appreciated Guildford.
I just hope my efforts bear fruit

Where I'm at is:
YES for Lindwall and May. Both seem clear cut. Both for many years have widely and rightly been regarded as greats of the game.
Tending toward NO for Marsh - unless discussion about his Academy role significantly shifts the balance.
Miandad - a probable YES unless there is stronger evidence than I'm currently aware of that his character influence on the game was seriously detrimental.
Hanif - 50/50. As a fan of Barrington I cannot but admire Hanif's monumental efforts of concentration.

Evening Corporal - pretty similar to you on the current nominees. Not such a strong YES as you on Miandad but Hoggy is getting me there. I'm more 65/35 in favour of Hanif and must sort out a post supporting the first Little Master.

PS What happened in the Test? I thought you had inside info three days ago that Monty was definitely playing!

Guildford - re the Test it was more the other way round. I was querying the decision alleged to have been taken that Panesar was to play. So on the Eng v Pak thread last Saturday I wrote: "I'd be surprised if Panesar plays, and I would be even more surprised if a decision to play him had been taken this far in advance of the match... "

Corporal - it was more the view of our inside man from the People's Republic of Chelmsford who gave you the info that I was querying.

Back to topic. Not being in any way disrespectful to the rightly revered Barrington but worth bearing in mind that Hanif had no one like May, Cowdrey, Dexter,Graveney etc alongside him or to follow.

Must admit that, initially, I thought Hanif would be my most likely no of this round, but the more I've read about him, the more likely it is that I'll be changing my mind.

Hoggy,

While you're there please and as our esteemed historian -

I read Hanif's greatest ever - certainly as regards time taken - triple century was in a six day Test. Did the number of days per Test vary then? When was the last six day Test played?

Grateful for any details. Not really to do with Hanif, just interested. Many thanks.

Must admit Guildford, I didn't realise that. From what I can tell though, it seems that 5 days hadn't become the uniform length of test matches by the end of the 1950s. Don't actually know when that happened.
Perhaps it was due to local conditions. Certainly the matches during the 1959/60 England tour of the WIndies were also 6 days long.
It does seem, however that tests varied between 5 or 6 days throughout the 1950s and into the 60s.
For example Australia's tests in Pakistan in 1959/60 were 5 days long, while England's in the WIndies the same Winter were 6.
All rather confusing really.

Thanks, Hoggy. Interesting stuff.

Gives a really different take on run rates etc at that time. To think an English county game then was 3 days, half the length of some Tests.

You would have thought that to escape with a draw if well behind on first innings would have been almost impossible, barring bad weather. Puts some of Hanif's rescue acts with a negligible supporting cast (no Gomes equivalent alongside him! ) in a different and even higher context.

guildfordbat wrote: Puts some of Hanif's rescue acts with a negligible supporting cast (no Gomes equivalent alongside him! ) in a different and even higher context.

Is it possible that Hanif WAS the Gomes of his day (only far more talented, of course)

Hoggy -what greater compliment could Hanif or any other Test batsman ever seek!

I (just) remember Tests of 6 days at times in the 50's ... I think the hours of play in those days were correspondingly shorter , however , so the overall playing time was generally the same.

Think provision for an extra day was made for the deciding Test of a series in more recent times also , on a couple of occasions , although I'm not sure it was ever actually needed.

Just for anyone who might be wavering on Lindwall, (though I wouldn't have thought there were many, if any), I thought I'd share Derek Hodgson's obituary which, I think, gives a good insight into his greatness.

"Ray Lindwall was the best fast bowler I ever saw. His faster ball was of such speed that it has been matched since the Second World War only by Michael Holding and exceeded only by Frank Tyson.
He could also employ a vicious bouncer, ferocious enough to embarrass or endanger - before helmets and body padding - batsmen of the class of Hutton, Compton, Weekes and Worrell. Add an outswinger that moved late enough to have even the great players committed, a break-back savage enough to break a shin, a devious slower ball and assorted cutters.

All these were the end- product of Lindwall's art. It emanated from a most beautiful, rhythmical run-up and delivery, the left shoulder turning into the batsman, the final delivery stride ending with a leap as the right arm completed the circle, leaving the man facing praying, in the fraction of a second left to him, "Oh, dear Lord, what's next?"

In those days the great professionals did not rush into print with tittle- tattle about their friends, their foes or themselves: we shall never really know how frightened were Hutton and Compton, the two English champions who, for a decade, bore the brunt of Lindwall's reign of terror. We do know that Compton has admitted paying visits to "the little room" before going out to face Lindwall and his fast- bowling comrade Keith Miller.

Hutton, less physically strong and with a left elbow damaged in a wartime accident, would emerge from the pavilion even paler than usual. We can surmise that Hutton would be most concerned with his dignity, Compton determined to give as good as he got. The quartet between them, in the years 1946-56, provided some of the most entrancing cricket in the game's history.

As a child Lindwall saw Larwood bowl. He joined the St George club in Sydney, whose previous roster included the names of Bradman and Bill O'Reilly. He learnt to bowl in his street, at paraffin tins. He served with the Australian army in the Solomon Islands; a harrowing experience.

England had some inkling of what to expect when Hammond took the first post-war touring team out in the autumn of 1946. An Australian Services team had toured England in the victory year of 1945 and virtually matched England, blow for blow. The shock came in Australia when only two of that fine Services side, Miller and Lindsay Hassett, were considered good enough for the full Australian team. Among the new names was Lindwall's.

He was then 25, just under six feet, fair-haired. What might he have done had he played Test cricket earlier? Lingering malaria, followed by chicken pox, limited the impact he had on that series, Australia winning 3-0, but when he arrived in 1948 England were soon conscious of a new mega-star.

He took 27 wickets in Tests, 86 on the tour. Bradman used him in controlled bursts, although any incoming batsman knew that he would have to face either Lindwall or Miller very quickly, the new ball being then available after 55 overs.

Jack Robertson, a Middlesex opener good enough to play for England, ended in hospital with a broken jaw. Compton was carried off, in the middle of a courageous 145 at Old Trafford, after trying to hook a no ball. Yet Lindwall, compared with the West Indians of recent vintage, used the bouncer sparingly; it was the ace up the sleeve, not the cosh.

World-famous, he returned to complete his education on using the seam by playing in the Lancashire League. The league's amateurs were simply not good enough to get near his stock ball, the outswinger, and, when he showed his exasperation one day at Nelson, he was told, in forthright Lancastrian terms from the pavilion: "Bowl at t' bloody stumps."

He made three tours of England and visited South Africa, West Indies and New Zealand. For 12 years he took the cherry for Australia. He was a more than useful batsman as his record in 29 Tests against England proves: 759 runs at an average of 22 (and 114 wickets, also for 22). He will be remembered at the Oval for his 6-20 when England were dismissed for 52.

He was amiable and polite with admirers off the field. I once asked for his autograph, explaining that an associate editor of the Daily Express in London thought him "the best there ever was". Ray looked startled at such an assertion, then grinned: "Tell the bloke to come over. I'll buy him a beer."

One noted cricket writer summed up his career: "Most of his cricket was played at the highest level, on the best wickets and against strong opposition. His skill, unaccompanied by histrionics, was something for the connoisseur to savour."

He moved from NSW to Queensland in 1955, was appointed MBE and became a successful florist in Brisbane. His lifelong friend and comrade, "Nugget" Miller, a feted guest during the current Test match at Lord's, will grieve.

Whenever Lindwall began his limbering-up exercise in the outfield the ground became electric as the crowd waited for Bradman to call him up to bowl. It was the signal that Australia were about to go nuclear."

"Ray Lindwall was the best fast bowler I ever saw. His faster ball was of such speed that it has been matched since the Second World War only by Michael Holding and exceeded only by Frank Tyson. "

The scary thing about this is (applying t both Lindwall and Tyson) that under the then-applied back foot no ball law, the ball was being released anything up to a yard closer to the batsman than is now the case.

When/if he eventually comes up as a candidate, Tyson's going to be an interesting one to evaluate.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Must admit Guildford, I didn't realise that. From what I can tell though, it seems that 5 days hadn't become the uniform length of test matches by the end of the 1950s. Don't actually know when that happened.
Perhaps it was due to local conditions. Certainly the matches during the 1959/60 England tour of the WIndies were also 6 days long.
It does seem, however that tests varied between 5 or 6 days throughout the 1950s and into the 60s.
For example Australia's tests in Pakistan in 1959/60 were 5 days long, while England's in the WIndies the same Winter were 6.
All rather confusing really.

The NZ team that toured England in 1949 played 4 3-day tests. All 4 matches were drawn, with the 3rd innings not completed in 3 of the matches (and only 16 wickets fell in the other test). From then on NZ was "upgraded" to 5 day matches.

The lack of Wikipedia slowing down contributions to this thread today?

The debate usually begins to tail off after the initial bombardment, before picking up again in a late dash to sway the hearts and minds.

hoggy, don't let Mike see that thing about Lindwall's faster ball

In all honesty, I'm still very torn on my votes this week.

Lindwall is an easy YES.

May - leaning towards YES.

Marsh - unsure, we really need to find out more about his academy role IMO.

Miandad - I just can't shake the feeling that while he was an excellent cricketer he wasn't a very nice person. Probably still leaning towards YES.

Mohammed - leaning towards YES as well.

Fists
Wikipedia would have given us a source for answering the outstanding question about the length of Tests.

I was also surprised to find that Australia were still bowling 8 ball overs in Tests as late as the 70s.

Hoggy - wonderful obituary of Ray Lindwall written by Derek Hodgson. It changes nothing for me but confirms everything. Thank you for sharing.

I note that after his cricket career Lindwall became a florist. Applying a bit of Hoggy's 'cod psychology' , perhaps there's something in the calm beauty of flowers that individuals who have spent their early careers frightening others seek. Twenty years ago I used to be on nodding terms with and a very occasional customer of another famous florist - the late Buster Edwards, the Great Train Robber.

Dummy - a late family friend who took me to my first ever cricket match used to praise Frank 'Typhoon' Tyson from the rooftops. If only for his sake, I would love Tyson to be included in our HoF. However, I believe it will be difficult as Tyson's success was so short lived - the Typhoon blew in and then blew out! I would be extremely happy to be proved wrong on that.

Alfie, Kiwi and Hoggy - thanks for all the details about varying numbers of days and hours per Test. Strange that only in comparatively recent years has far more uniformity been introduced.

dummy_half wrote:

I was also surprised to find that Australia were still bowling 8 ball overs in Tests as late as the 70s.

Hi Dummy - certainly remember that through distant mists. Believe the '70-71 Ashes series consisted of 8 ball overs.

Here's an interesting question - what is the greatest number of runs scored off an 8 ball over?

And no, it wasn't by Hanif Mohammad (by the way, I don't know the answer to the above).

Fists of Fury wrote:Here's an interesting question - what is the greatest number of runs scored off an 8 ball over?

And no, it wasn't by Hanif Mohammad (by the way, I don't know the answer to the above).

In tests I believe it's 32 or 34. Not sure.
I do know that Don Bradman scored 100 off just three 8 ball overs in a club game once, including 40 off one of the overs.

[quote="Hoggy_Bear]

.... I do know that Don Bradman scored 100 off just three 8 ball overs in a club game once, including 40 off one of the overs.
[/quote]

Hoggy - I'm surprised by that. I just mean I'm surprised - not that you're wrong!

Bradman hardly ever hit a six in his Test career. I'm sure you'll know the exact number immediately!

guildfordbat wrote:[quote="Hoggy_Bear]

.... I do know that Don Bradman scored 100 off just three 8 ball overs in a club game once, including 40 off one of the overs.

Hoggy - I'm surprised by that. I just mean I'm surprised - not that you're wrong!

[/quote]

Apparently one of the bowlers had bowled Bradman in a country match earlier that same season and had been bragging about it. Bradman obviously decided to teach him a lesson
Interesting article on it from cricinfo:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/457074.html