How much would have Bradman averaged against

[Nova]

Please no ad-hominem attacks. Keep it civil and constructive. Thanks.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

^ I will get back to you on this soon, thanks.

[Marut]

They would have averaged 250 plus in 30s, maybe never get out. And laughed at the pies being chucked down at them, laughed at the field settings to them and laughed at the unathletic fielding. In fact the biggest danger for any sportsman if transported to the 30s would be laughter at the game they were now playing.

This is absurd. There are lots of FC bolwers today who are probably similar to the levels of the 1930s top bowlers. But that does not mean SRT, BCL or RP average 250 in first class cricket. SRT failed to score a single individual 250 in first class cricket, leave aside average of 250 for SRT in any era against any set of FC bowlers. To average beyond 60 in any form of crikcet, against any opposition, in any era has been difficult ( Bradman's acheivements are to be seen in the light of this and not based on horrible reasoning advanced in this thread) and this has been proved by stats. Bradman averaged 99.94 in test cricket and 95 in first class cricket. If you think weaker bowlers enable batsmen to average big, then the first class averages of great test batsmen must be super bigwhich includes many average bowlers. But stats show that for most top batsmen their test and fc averages are not very different. No good test batsmen averages 100 in FC cricket just because FC has poor quality bowlers compared to test cricket.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King Tendulkar]

This is absurd. There are lots of FC bolwers today who are probably similar to the levels of the 1930s top bowlers. But that does not mean SRT, BCL or RP average 250 in first class cricket. SRT failed to score a single individual 250 in first class cricket, leave aside average of 250 for SRT in any era against any set of FC bowlers. To average beyond 60 in any form of crikcet, against any opposition, in any era has been difficult ( Bradman's acheivements are to be seen in the light of this and not based on horrible reasoning advanced in this thread) and this has been proved by stats. Bradman averaged 99.94 in test cricket and 95 in first class cricket. If you think weaker bowlers enable batsmen to average big, then the first class averages of great test batsmen must be super bigwhich includes many average bowlers. But stats show that for most top batsmen their test and fc averages are not very different. No good test batsmen averages 100 in FC cricket just because FC has poor quality bowlers compared to test cricket.

Do you realise how much everything has improved since 30s. Literally Messi would score 15 to 20 goals plus every game. Bowlers like steyn would at times get 10 wickets in a game, it would be embarrasing!!! It is laughable you think he would do well in 2012. Seriously laughable!! Deluded stuff!

[OmOr]

75-85! Comparing with modern greats a bit out of logic. What was the difference of avg between n the 2nd best of hir time? Near about 40!! N now what is avg difference between the #1 to # 5!?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Old guy]

:hysterical: mcenley=bradman supporter ? :omg:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Old guy]

Converted ? :woot: :woot: :woot: :woot: :woot: :woot: :woot:

to atheism :proud::--D

[Crookbond]

:WTF: Does it have to be Bradman OR Tendulkar fan? Can't I be both? But, just being fan I will critique (good & bad) on both players. I don't consider it an issue and YES, I am a huge Tendulkar fan contrary to expert ICF opinion. Also, I love the game more than anything else. I played quite a few years professionally and watch matches apart from Tendulkar too & will continue watching them. In addition, I will also post on non-Tendulkar threads as I find cricket more interesting than a player.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

and will also continue to run when in pickle as illustrated in this thread ... BTW the last time you critiqued Bradman - as per your claim - or anyone from that ERA was when ?

This thread is low priority - I have already explained the flaw in comparing the distributions by posting a graphs with same means and varying variances. I also evaluated your Cricinfo query and all doesn't seem right there too. However, you want a detailed answer - which is fine - but will take some of my time & there's quite amount of active cricket going on. I will reply to this thread but when there's no cricket going on and I have time on hand, because the way I see it - you only seem to be interested in Tendulkar-Bradman comparisons. It's your personal choice and I'm fine with it. Btw, if you start a mature thread without bringing in Tendulkar or an era comparison into picture I have some pretty good points to critique Bradman and his peers. I have written detailed blog posts on issues with their techniques, their vulnerabilities and my opinions on why they wouldn't make my all time XI list ahead of Tendulkar. But, at least you seem to be hell bent proving just one thing - Tendulkar is the best and that's it. I can't argue with one who isn't willing to accomodate another person. Also, the tone and nature of your posts are overtly aggressive and when the other's do it, you feel offended. What I can't stand is making statements like - "I saw videos, I think they are sh!t" type of arguments and especially era comparisons. So, if you want a critique about Bradman or his peers from me - start a separate thread and make sure you don't bring in any era based comparisons. Also, in the same vein I have never seen you on other threads which gives me the impression that you're only here for one thing - Tendulkar holiness. I am not. You can call other threads "uninteresting" and again deflect the argument but it takes two to tango & I find it surprising that a person who claims to understand the "nitty-gritties" of the game trawls/replies and sleeps on Tendulkar threads ONLY. You are free to disagree but this is my opinion of the limited time I've spent here. There may be of course history to your course of actions but if a person loves the game no other poster/player can ever change one's passion. Since, you love and respect Tendulkar so much probably it's time to take a leaf out of his book.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Impossible to figure out.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Jersey #10]

Bradman wouldn't even make the big team XI such as India, OZ, England, SA with the kind of bowlers we have in this era.

[someone]

This question is equivalent to questions such as how fast would a person from 1930s have typed with the computer keyboard today? The answer is he would have failed as it did not have any necessarily training and gained the prerequisites for today's environment. Similarly, Bradman would have failed.

[Crookbond]

^ What you conveniently ignore is such a comparison is unfair. It's like saying would Newton understand computer science? The answer in this case would be NO as you say but it takes a lot of factors unaccounted for. There's no definitive way to prove who would fail unless there's time travel.