How much would have Bradman averaged against

[akshayxyz]

So I am still not able to understand whats the fuss about. I am not really able to imangine which skill(s), if Don had played today, would have been almost twice as better than SRT. Technique Footwork Timing Placement Temperament Fitness Ability to Handle the pressure. Just for argument sake, if we say the last one, then SRT has made 18K in ODI alone. How is it possible to make it with half the skill that is needed in the international cricket. To be honest, if Don was playing in this era, he would be caught Jonty B Alan Donald dozen times. With Jonty, Dilshan, Ponting, Mark Waugh, Azhar and many more, it is impossible to play every single stroke along the ground with 140K+ bowling. These guys are amazing in the field. If it can be convinced to SRT fans how Don could have double the skills that SRT has, then I am sure we will all accept it.

One thing that you did not mention and could have definitely helped him / anyone to put big scores (leading to higher average) - maintaining focus over long periods. But, with Jonty's in the field, Murali/Warne, Donald/McGrath's on the bowling end...effectively 11 other people in the field who are as focused ( if not more) to try to get you out - the playing field becomes leveled and its almost impossible to maintain bradman-esque domination over peers for over the years/decades. Today also we have seen people able do play long innings ( Lara, Sehwag...) but we have seen it all evens out in longer duration. You can dominate a series here and there, but not for long, as there are teams of people who are committed to get you out (working off and on-field - all the times).

[Marut]

Some factors to be taken into account while comparing Bradman with modern players. Advantages for Bradman: 1. Lesser number of powerful teams which makes it easy to settle down against an opposition. 2. lighter schedules, less mental and physical fatigue 3. Overall weaker fielding and fitness standards of fielders. Disadvatages for Bradman: 1. Poor unprepared and uncovered tracks that frequently make batting difficult. 2. Cricket still in its early days and batting techniques were not fully developed. ( probably evens out against the bowling/fielding standards of those days) 3. Poorer equipment, inferior bats, no protection etc which made it even dangerous to face decent fast bowlers especially on poorly laid tracks. 4. More bowler friendly laws - did not enjoy "few bouncer rule" etc. Advantages for modern batsman: 1. Well laid wickets and wickets used at the time of Bradman would today be cancelled as unfit for cricket. ( like it happened at Nehru Stadium, Indore) 2. Super bats, better equipment and protection - the batsman can face a fast bowler without the risk of a fatal injury. 3. Batsmen friendly laws since the 80s. 4. The advent of ODIs have moulded the batsmen to score faster and hence more runs. 5. Highly computerized methods for preparing strategies. ( probably evens out) 6. Better standards of fitness. Disadvantages for modern batsmen: 1. Too much cricket, which certainly reduces the highest level of performance possible, even assuming good fitness. 2. A lot of teams and formats to play one after the other. ( probably evened out by the presence of many weak teams today ) 3. Agile fielding. Even granting all the factors, Bradman was still the greatest because he was well above his peers. Bradman facing England was not the same as Tendulkar facing Bangladesh, it was more like Tendulkar facing Australia or SA all the while, as England was one of the top teams of the day. Bradman was Tendulkar (solidity and class) and Lara (grace and flamboyance) combined for his era, that is why he scored heavily and also very fast and stood heads and shoulders above others whether it be averages, top scores, top series scores, big scores, big partnerships, strike rate etc.

[Crookbond]

Good post Marut please do post more often. Btw, this doesn't take away anything from Tendulkar or Lara. They are still great batsmen in their own right. You can only do good with what you have. AS you mention, I don't think there's an quantitative and objective way in comparing these players.

[msb1991]

say A. WI pace quartet ( Marshall,Roberts,Garner,Holding) or B. Pollock, Donald, Steyn. Let's see the delusions of Bradman fanatics or are they realistic

There were some good bowlers in Bradman's day. The aforementioned attack are/would be better than the one's in Bradman's day. I venture to say very few batsmen had success against A. or would do against B. If you were to time-travel a primed Bradman to face either attack - then I think he would do well. Whether that is an average of 40 or 50 or more, I simply do not wish to venture a guess. I am sure he would not flounder. I'm not going to say anything about the bowlers he was facing, I don't know. However, Jeff Thomson saw some of the great batsmen and yet, he had this to say... "On a rest day during the Indian tour in 1977-78, Don Bradman was around in the nets. I was bowling only legspin to him, but he had a couple of young blokes trying to get him out. With no pads, no nothing ... for a 68-year-old, he belted the hell out of them on a turf wicket. And he hadn't batted for 20 years. I went back in and said, "Why isn't this bastard playing with us tomorrow?" That's how good I thought he was." You can succeed with a wide array of batting techniques. Unique techniques tend to be coached out of players and perhaps rightly so. But Chanderpaul shows that hand-eye and concentration allow you to break the norm. The coached technique is not a monopoly for success.

I genuinley believe he would averge under 10. Should be option for that. The game of cricket was just so different and so vastly improved from 30s to 70s/90s. It would have been embarasing for him

As I say, check out the quote from Thomson. Forget who he faced, the man looked so good that Thomson thought he was Test match quality at the age of 68! This is in the 1970s. Thomson did not think it was a batsman of a horrific quality with a torrid technique. You may say that anyone can look world class against low quality bowling, but this simply isn't true. I've never been playing a club fixture and thought "that person is Test match quality".

BCL' date=' SRT, RD, JK, RP, MJ, and many more have very very good foot work. I heard once that Bradman was known to have best footwork compared with his peers. Nobody had that kind of footwork. Why? because that concept was not developed as much. If others had adopted to play their game with little bit better foot work who knows they would have gotten much better averages than 60s.[/quote'] Batting coaching is not the difference between a poor batsman and a Test match batsmen. It can assist a batsman to reach his potential, but it does not make a poor batsmen to a world class batsmen. Tendulkar was a prodigy from a young age - his ability was not coached into him. Moreover, batsmen often say that techniques are only scrutinized when one is in bad form. Form is the more important primary factor that comes first. If you see the ball brilliantly, react quickly to line and length and movement, then you can have any number of techniques and be successful. Techniques put you into a good position to exert power over the ball and put you in a good position to adjust for movement - Bradman was a powerful batsman from reports and was not undone by much movement, as there must have been on the pitches in his day. I'm not getting into the debate about whether uncovered pitches were more difficult, but they certainly would have been ones to punish a poor, anachronistic technique.

[Marut]

Great post msb. People struggle to believe an average of 65+ in Test cricket is impossible, that it is an anachronism but let me close on this...nobody else averaged 99.94 in his day either! Exactly. That is why Bradman would average high ( 75+ at least?) if he played now, assuming he got the right training/coaching/chances/luck etc. No player from any era could scratch 60, and here we have an argument to the abilities of Bradman who got to 99?!! If batting was easier during Bradman's time and bowlers were Bangladeshi like then why others did not average 80, 90 etc? Does that mean other batsmen of Bradman's time were like batsmen who average in the 30s today?:winky: One thing is even more clear to me. It was relatively very difficult to play during Bradman's time. Let us say we have an exam in which all questions are easy and many people get high marks. This is the modern era where top batsmen are all close and can't be separated much. But if the exam is tough some questions will only be answered by a few, and there will be clear difference between the topper, the next topper and so on. Today's matches are played in such a way that the truly extraordinary batsman is unable to gallop ahead of others based on stats or averages alone because the playing conditions are pro-batsmen and lesser batsmen make as many runs as superior batsmen. The "tough questions" that enable the best batsman to create a distinction for himself is missing now. At no time in the past there were so many contemporary batsmen with 50+ averages.

[msb1991]

One thing is even more clear to me. It was relatively very difficult to play during Bradman's time. Let us say we have an exam in which all questions are easy and many people get high marks. This is the modern era where top batsmen are all close and can't be separated much. But if the exam is tough some questions will only be answered by a few' date=' and there will be clear difference between the topper, the next topper and so on. Today's matches are played in such a way that the truly extraordinary batsman is unable to gallop ahead of others based on stats or averages alone because the playing conditions are pro-batsmen and lesser batsmen make as many runs as superior batsmen. The "tough questions" that enable the best batsman to create a distinction for himself is missing now. At no time in the past there were so many contemporary batsmen with 50+ averages.[/quote'] This is an intricate point that needs to be read by more skeptics about Bradman's talent. This is truly an excellent point in this discussion, imo.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

Surely, covered wickets are much easier to bat on that uncovered ones. Is there even a point of contention on this? :blink:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

First of all not all wkts were uncovered at all times.

Need some reference for this.

Secondly uncovered wkts don't become dangerous to bat on unless it rains and you are asked to bat on a drying pitch. There are very few such occasions that this happened to Bradman and his record is nothing spectacular. By his own admission Bradman liked batting on good batting surfaces. The greatest example is when he reversed the batting order to buy time so that the pitch eased by the time he came in to bat at #7. some of the highest team totals were made in the 30s it is simply not possible to score that many if the pitches were unsuitable for batting and there would be no point in having timeless tests.

Uncovered wickets are also susceptible to overnight dew. I'm not sure how many times it happened to Bradman. Are there any numbers? All batsmen would love to bat on batting surfaces. Indeed 1930s did include some of the higher totals but his career spanned another 10 years. Finally, the reversal of batting order was not due to "Bradman's liking for batting surface" but to have the best chance for Australia to win the Test match. A wonderful tactical decision and a brave captain to try that out. It remains - if I'm not wrong - the only series in the history of Test cricket to be won after a team is down 0-2.

[Laaloo]

Even granting all the factors, Bradman was still the greatest because he was well above his peers. Bradman facing England was not the same as Tendulkar facing Bangladesh, it was more like Tendulkar facing Australia or SA all the while, as England was one of the top teams of the day. Bradman was Tendulkar (solidity and class) and Lara (grace and flamboyance) combined for his era, that is why he scored heavily and also very fast and stood heads and shoulders above others whether it be averages, top scores, top series scores, big scores, big partnerships, strike rate etc.

How many videos have you watched to draw that conclusion? Just curious

[Raghav_12]

Surely' date=' covered wickets are much easier to bat on that uncovered ones. Is there even a point of contention on this? :blink:[/quote'] If uncovered wickets were as treacherous as projected, then how come so many players well past their 40's were able to play international test cricket? Would not such treacherous wicket need much sharper reflexes? People on this forum may accuse me of using this age argument way too often. However, I think this is one irrefutable evidence on poor quality of cricket we had in bradman's era, wickets may be covered or uncovered.

[akshayxyz]

If uncovered wickets were as treacherous as projected, then how come so many players well past their 40's were able to play international test cricket? Would not such treacherous wicket need much sharper reflexes? People on this forum may accuse me of using this age argument way too often. However, I think this is one irrefutable evidence on poor quality of cricket we had in bradman's era, wickets may be covered or uncovered.

back during that time, they used to eat healthy and organic food.. it is only in modern days that reflexes slow down as soon as one crosses 38/39. P.S. bold part - apologetic tone is a sign of weakness in the land of internet warriors.

[Crookbond]

If uncovered wickets were as treacherous as projected, then how come so many players well past their 40's were able to play international test cricket? Would not such treacherous wicket need much sharper reflexes? People on this forum may accuse me of using this age argument way too often. However, I think this is one irrefutable evidence on poor quality of cricket we had in bradman's era, wickets may be covered or uncovered.

I think it's a valid question you have but what has Bradman got to do with it. He averaged 99.99 across 20 years in an era where no one else reached 60. So, whatever the conditions he was head & shoulders above his peers. As said earlier, one can't be sure of how Bradman would've performed now or how Tendulkar would've performed earlier. All four combinations possible - good, bad.

[Crookbond]

back during that time, they used to eat healthy and organic food.. it is only in modern days that reflexes slow down as soon as one crosses 38/39. P.S. bold part - apologetic tone is a sign of weakness in the land of internet warriors.

Just for the record - you (and myself) are no different.

[akshayxyz]

Just for the record - you (and myself) are no different.

what about others :winky:

[Raghav_12]

I think it's a valid question you have but what has Bradman got to do with it. He averaged 99.99 across 20 years in an era where no one else reached 60. So, whatever the conditions he was head & shoulders above his peers. As said earlier, one can't be sure of how Bradman would've performed now or how Tendulkar would've performed earlier. All four combinations possible - good, bad.

It doesn't have anything to do with Bradman directly. But based on this fact, obvious conclusion is that playing conditions were not difficult in times of Bradman. On contrary thwy were easier so that middle-aged people can survive. Second leg of this argument is that, records made in easier conditions can not be extrapolated to tougher conditions in any sense.

[Crookbond]

It doesn't have anything to do with Bradman directly. But based on this fact, obvious conclusion is that playing conditions were not difficult in times of Bradman. On contrary thwy were easier so that middle-aged people can survive. Second leg of this argument is that, records made in easier conditions can not be extrapolated to tougher conditions in any sense.

Middle-aged people "survived" important term ... not beat the hell but survived. Therefore, there's no proof that conditions now are tougher than earlier. Hence, extrapolation doesn't work. For a moment, lets assume that pitch conditions are tougher now (for argument sake) but that's not the only variable factor. There are myriad other things like technology, equipment, medical conditions etc. which differ and the current generation benefits from. So, extrapolation in most senses don't work. Btw, this is NOT just for cricket. It's true for any sport - Formula1, Tennis and Football. Extrapolation can't be done, unfortunately.

[Raghav_12]

Middle-aged people "survived" important term ... not beat the hell but survived. Therefore' date= there's no proof that conditions now are tougher than earlier. Hence, extrapolation doesn't work. For a moment, lets assume that pitch conditions are tougher now (for argument sake) but that's not the only variable factor. There are myriad other things like technology, equipment, medical conditions etc. which differ and the current generation benefits from. So, extrapolation in most senses don't work. Btw, this is NOT just for cricket. It's true for any sport - Formula1, Tennis and Football. Extrapolation can't be done, unfortunately.

No matter how you twist the fact but this is irrefutable argument. If so many players were able to play international test cricket past their age of 40 (30-35 between 2 WW from 4-5 teams only. In last 12 years of 2000's we have had just one such player), that means nothing but poor quality overall. And these were the same players whom against and for Bradman scored all of of those runs. Tennis or Football are not as stat based as cricket is and none of these sports put one of their past player at the same padestal as does cricket.

[pensionplan]

Just curious

O' Really!!!!!