How much would have Bradman averaged against

[Laaloo]

O' Really!!!!!

[Crookbond]

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.

The problem is that people go on extremes here - I am not suggesting Bradman as the 'messiah' but you're suggesting Bradman as 'poor'. Let me know if I'm wrong. If so, you need to correct your stand. No matter how 'poor' his peers were he was still head & shoulders above his peers. Also, you're fixating on the age issue too much and ignoring the other factors. Even if age was an issue there are myriad other issues which weren't in Bradman's favor and are in modern batsmen favor which you fail to acknowledge. You need to understand how 'change' works and how improvement in various fields helps. The argument about tennis and football is very poor. Both, of these sports put players at a higher pedestal than their modern contemporaries. The problem is - you just want to ignore which I guess is fine. Last post on this thread from my side - These comparison arguments just go in cycles again and again. Lets leave it at this mess and discuss current cricket?

[Raghav_12]

The problem is that people go on extremes here - I am not suggesting Bradman as the 'messiah' but you're suggesting Bradman as 'poor'. Let me know if I'm wrong. If so, you need to correct your stand. No matter how 'poor' his peers were he was still head & shoulders above his peers. Also, you're fixating on the age issue too much and ignoring the other factors. Even if age was an issue there are myriad other issues which weren't in Bradman's favor and are in modern batsmen favor which you fail to acknowledge. You need to understand how 'change' works and how improvement in various fields helps. The argument about tennis and football is very poor. Both, of these sports put players at a higher pedestal than their modern contemporaries. The problem is - you just want to ignore which I guess is fine. Last post on this thread from my side - These comparison arguments just go in cycles again and again. Lets leave it at this mess and discuss current cricket?

Sorry, I am a bit busy, so may miss out on some part of your post. I am no way saying that Bradman was poor. In fact, I am also not saying that he would definitely not have performed as well in today's era, as he did in that era. My whole point here is, that Bradman's numbers came in poor standard cricket and so it is not a certainty, we know from various examples, that he would have translated those numbers in higher standard of cricket as well. My stand is that I won't compare Bradman with modern day cricketers, either way.

[pensionplan]

The argument about tennis and football is very poor. Both' date=' of these sports put players at a higher pedestal than their modern contemporaries. [b']The problem is - you just want to ignore which I guess is fine.

You need to realize for guys like Bossbhai, KT, Raghav, Sachdan etc cricket is only about Tendulkar. If it means putting down each and every cricketer(Sobers, Dravid, Kapil, Bradman, Viv, Ponting, Kallis) they will do so and ignore anything the other poster has to say. Sad but true.

[Crookbond]

Sorry, I am a bit busy, so may miss out on some part of your post. I am no way saying that Bradman was poor. In fact, I am also not saying that he would definitely not have performed as well in today's era, as he did in that era. My whole point here is, that Bradman's numbers came in poor standard cricket and so it is not a certainty, we know from various examples, that he would have translated those numbers in higher standard of cricket as well. My stand is that I won't compare Bradman with modern day cricketers, either way.

Exactly my point too. :cheers:

[Marut]

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

Agreed the 30s had some big totals, but in general 500+ scores during the era of uncovered pitches was lesser compared to the era of covered pitches. As an example, 1930-1939 Total Innings 315 500+ scores 25 Ratio = 7.9% 2000-2009 Innings1 1690 500+ scores 168 Ratio= 9.94% As you can see, scoring big total in the 30s was significantly more difficult than in 2000s even though there were timeless tests. And of the 25 500+ scores of the 1930s, ten were by Australia and Bradman scored triple hundreds, double hundreds and hundreds in each of those monster totals. Those totals were made possible primarily by Bradman's might not because they were easy pitches to bat on. No other batsman scored 200s and 300s so prolifically like Bradman during his time, so Bradman is certainly very special. All batsmen like to bat on good surfaces. They love challenging surfaces for a change and not every time. Not just Bradman. The reversing of the batting order was an ingenious winning strategy.

[Marut]

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.

See this http://www.normalbreathing.com/index-measure-CP.php This article states that the breathing patterns of the normal population, measured in terms of the body oxygen levels have been altered significantly in the last 50-100 years ( probably due pollution, stress etc), and the average human ability to breath and hold breath have diminished alarmingly. A 45 year old of the 1930s was probably as healthy ( measured as a function of breath which is so vital for health) as a 30 year old today.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Tapioca]

I have posted videos in the past but the playing conditions never stipulated that pitches be NOT covered. If both captains agreed they could have it covered.

I guess till 1960s, the pitches were uncovered most of the time, but there were differences : The pitches could be left uncovered all the time; then there was a rule at some points that pitches would not be covered during playing hours, ie, if it rained during the day, the pitch will soak. When India went to Australia in the 1947/48, we were given the choice of having the pitches covered or not. India opted to leave them uncovered which backfired as India was caught on stickies three times against one and a bit more for Australia (as when they were all out for 107 at Sydney). So some captains would have been given and exercised this option. The choice was still around when West Indies went to Australia in 1960/1 (wickets were covered for that series). A curious rule used in an England - SA series in the late 1940s was to leave the pitch open even during the rains, but to cover it after it was "saturated" (which was decided by the umpires). So it is very difficult to provide a definite answer to this unless someone has spent a lot of time researching this, except to say that "most of the wickets" that Bradman played on were uncovered.

[King Tendulkar]

Sport in the 30s Put Tendulkar in 30s and he literally would never get out. I would avergare 100 in 30s as well. I am better then Bradman. Messi in the 30s would average 10 to 15 goals per game. Bolt would win 100m with a rucksack on his back. Federer would win winbledon bare feet and still never drop a game. Tiger Woods would win the Open by 35 to 40 shots, maybe more. NZ rugby team would win a game by 200 points. F1 cars would win by 1 miunte per lap more. The 30s was just a different world, the only thing better then were the array of moustaches. Things always get better and better, thats just humanity. Grow up and deal with it Bradman loonies. Bradam would not average over 8 or 9 now. Thats how much things have moved on

[Sooda]

^Youre right, that is true of even with tennis even the 90's. That would imply then that say Defoe > Pele...I mean the pace and fitness levels of football now are nothing like what they were in his day.. Defoe would have scored loads more than Pele ever would have in the 60's. Same true about Maradona in the 80's and how the sport has changed since then. There are other factors like how much better protection players get from refs now.. but I think the advantages players have now offset those... Or a good-but-not-great tennis player like berdych is better than Sampras?-He would beat him had they faced off at their peaks today or even in the 90's....!

[Marut]

:acute: If pitches were so treacherous as you are trying to portray they would have resulted in a lot of low scoring inngs .... so here are the list for all low scores during Bradmans time and in the last 3 yrs . I took last 3 yrs because it yields roughly the same no.of tests that were played in Bradmans time... So even in a supposedly very Batting friendly era we find that there are almost the same no.of inngs that were sub 200 as there were in Bradmans time. How do you explain this? http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;innings_number=2;innings_number=3;innings_number=4;orderby=team_score;qualmax1=200;qualmax2=10;qualmin1=0;qualmin2=10;qualval1=team_score;qualval2=team_wickets;spanmax1=20+Apr+2012;spanmin1=20+Apr+2009;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team;view=innings http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=1;innings_number=2;innings_number=3;innings_number=4;orderby=team_score;qualmax1=200;qualmax2=10;qualmin1=0;qualmin2=10;qualval1=team_score;qualval2=team_wickets;spanmax1=31+Dec+1948;spanmin1=01+Aug+1928;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team;view=innings

Are you trying to say that it is not a batting friendly era today compared to what it was 30 years ago? Then I have nothing to argue. There were no protective equipment nor any anti bouncer rules back then...Difficult pitches do not necessarily mean low scores, but ones that are more dangerous to bat on. Players could get seriously injured. There are so many instances today of batsmen getting hit on the helmet, what do you think would have been the result in the pre helmet era? During the bodyline series, Bradman and others were targetted on the body - and many of them were hurt or dangerously close to getting fatally hurt- Bradman still averaged 56.0 in that series which is equal to the carreer heights attained by the modern batsman. In his leanest patch stretching across 13 innings from 1932-34, Bradman averaged 40+. Please check out the number of batsmen with 50+ averages across various eras and explain why there are so many of them today. Of players with over 3000 runs, 29 batsmen have average of 50+ and of those batsmen 14 of them started playing since the 90s. So there were only 15 batsmen from 1877-1990 who averaged 50+ ( many of them were true legends). Today it does not take a legendary batsman to maintain 50+ average over long periods, why?

[Crookbond]

Sport in the 30s Put Tendulkar in 30s and he literally would never get out. I would avergare 100 in 30s as well. I am better then Bradman. Messi in the 30s would average 10 to 15 goals per game. Bolt would win 100m with a rucksack on his back. Federer would win winbledon bare feet and still never drop a game. Tiger Woods would win the Open by 35 to 40 shots, maybe more. NZ rugby team would win a game by 200 points. F1 cars would win by 1 miunte per lap more. The 30s was just a different world, the only thing better then were the array of moustaches. Things always get better and better, thats just humanity. Grow up and deal with it Bradman loonies. Bradam would not average over 8 or 9 now. Thats how much things have moved on

:hysterical: Also add, after 70 years Tendulkar would average 8 or 9. :agree:

[Marut]

is that why you couldn't come up with the name of the player whos technique was copied by SRT ? :hysterical: :hahaha: the lengths to which you guys go to defend the undefendable ... so this guy beat up absolute piss poor bowling so you are convinced he was the best batsman in absolute terms with ZERO evidence to tell whether he could handle the very greatest of bowlers from modern times ?

Bradman is considered to be the greatest Australian batsman by Australians, even today. Had Bradman attained greatness through bashing piss poor bowling, no one would recognize him now. The bowling he faced was very good for the time and there is no reason why Bradman could not have adapted to whatever was thrown at him. If you think it is not possible, then consider this. Hypothetically, one could ask what could Tendulkar have averaged without helmets? How do you know he could have managed to bat at all without the helmet and other protective gear? Since Tendulkar has never had the experience facing pace bowling with helmets one could make an argument that he would have been scared to face the bowling and would have averged at the most 20 during Bradman's time. No point arguing about ifs and buts. Bradman retains the greatest peer-peer superiority across all eras. Let Tendulkar average at least 75 and then claim that he has established a similar superiority for the present age.

[Gambit]

Bradman is considered to be the greatest Australian batsman by Australians, even today. Had Bradman attained greatness through bashing piss poor bowling, no one would recognize him now. The bowling he faced was very good for the time and there is no reason why Bradman could not have adapted to whatever was thrown at him. If you think it is not possible, then consider this. Hypothetically, one could ask what could Tendulkar have averaged without helmets? How do you know he could have managed to bat at all without the helmet and other protective gear? Since Tendulkar has never had the experience facing pace bowling with helmets one could make an argument that he would have been scared to face the bowling and would have averged at the most 20 during Bradman's time. No point arguing about ifs and buts. Bradman retains the greatest peer-peer superiority across all eras. Let Tendulkar average at least 75 and then claim that he has established a similar superiority for the present age.

Don't want to get into this never ending and unfruitful debate :bird: but to correct the bolded statement, Tendulkar has batted against the likes of Hadlee and Marshall without a helmet.

[Crookbond]

And doesn't due mostly help the Batting team as we find from Day/Night games ? The point about reversing the batting order was to prove that just because the pitch was uncovered it doesn't mean anything because after the pitch dried Aus racked up a small matter of 564 runs on that same pitch were Eng were bundled out for 76.

On an uncovered wicket, dew helps the bowlers not batsmen. D/N games are not a good analogy as pitches are covered and the games back then weren't D/N. In addition, that reversal of batting order proved everything which was treacherous about an uncovered wicket if it rained. One can't use statistics to say whether a pitch is good or bad in either case. For example - India vs England Leeds 2002. The scoreline will suggest a belter of a pitch with India racking over 600 runs with Tendulkar and Ganguly racking up hundreds. Only the ones who watched know the importance of Sanjay Bangar's 68 and Rahul Dravid's 148.

[rkt.india]

On an uncovered wicket, dew helps the bowlers not batsmen. D/N games are not a good analogy as pitches are covered and the games back then weren't D/N. In addition, that reversal of batting order proved everything which was treacherous about an uncovered wicket if it rained. One can't use statistics to say whether a pitch is good or bad in either case. For example - India vs England Leeds 2002. The scoreline will suggest a belter of a pitch with India racking over 600 runs with Tendulkar and Ganguly racking up hundreds. Only the ones who watched know the importance of Sanjay Bangar's 68 and Rahul Dravid's 148.

Pitch conditions are neutralized a lot when bowlers quality was crap.

[Crookbond]

Pitch conditions are neutralized a lot when bowlers quality was crap.

Oh Lord! :headshake: What were the other batsmen doing then? Going by the same logic -- Tiger Pataudi, Vinoo Mankad and Vijay Manjrekar were also crap as they played piss poor bowling. :facepalm: