How much would have Bradman averaged against

[msb1991]

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

You may be joking with this post, I cannot tell, but you have raised some often raised points so I will look into them... Batting has not moved on like sprinting or the manufacture of cars. There have not been an array of shots invented since the 1930s which have revolutioned the effectiveness of the best batsmen. Jeff Thomson is certainly no slower than Brett Lee - cricket has not moved on like other games and is still reliant upon natural technique moreso than almost all other sports. And remember, I used an example there of quick bowling, where technique has been scrutinized a lot by various sports scientists and biomechanists and still we do not have bowlers who make Thomson look slow. Batting has had no such heavy scrutiny, not since the 1970s and not since the 1930s. Things such as good footwork, chuck downs and bowling machines mean we have a great number of competent batsmen, just as we have a greater number of 140kph bowlers, but does not change the top batsmen nor the all-time quick bowlers. You noting that you are better than Bradman really sums up the absurdity of such an argument. It is a bit of a straw man but it implies some sort of genetic advancement in the game of cricket; that raw talent is somehow better than it was in the 1930s whereas I'd argue that it is the same. The difference is perhaps how talent is honed through quality competition or coaching (of which I assume you have none, but correct me if I am wrong) and that is an argument worth looking at. One in which you say you are better than Bradman is absurd! The argument that he'd average 10 is absurd. 10 is the average someone could attain with little natural talent and just professional coaching and years around Test cricket. It implies a state of affairs where a tailender from the 1930s could enter professional modern coaching for a few years and come back to his time, better than Bradman. Of course, that is absurd.

[msb1991]

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

Bradman at the age of 68 was not crap by 1970s-1980s standard though. I refer back to the quote from Thomson. The only thing that is for sure is that Bradman could definitely not be crap in the modern day.

[Marut]

waah kya logic hai bhai? just because everyone else "worships" him doesnt mean we shouldn't. Every player in the world who has played will get "pulled" down. So what? Why are you so worked up? Anyways' date=' you still haven't answered my previous post? How much of footage have you watched of Bradman that you came up with that conclusion?[/quote'] Did I hit a nerve?! Yeah, I watched quite a few of them. The logical idea is that Bradman was capable of batting solidly and consistantly like Tendulkar and was also capable of scoring big hundreds like Lara. If you take Tendulkar alone, he has not proved that he is capable of playing a mammoth innings and his highest is 248 against Bangladesh. If you take Lara alone, on his day, was capable of playing an innings like he only can but he was probably not as dependable like Tendulkar. Bradman was both. Not every player in the world will get "pulled down". I have never seen Bradman getting pulled down to the extent seen on this forum, anywhere else. Bradman will win nearly every poll hands down. If at all legends like Bradman, Sobers, Richards get "pulled down" you know that it will only from a certain quarter.:haha:

[akshayxyz]

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.

I understand what you are trying to convey, but it is not useful in this context for the following reasons: I referred to this "complete" table. (http://www.normalbreathing.com/index-CP-normals-complete.php) a) Sample sizes are too small and inconsistent - sometimes even less than 10!! b) Assuming you were referring to "CP" data, the values are not consistently decreasing. especially if you refer to only "Normal subjects" - it is unfair to compare high values of trained professionals ( Aviators, fit instructors, Pilots) from early 1900s- with "Normal Subjects" of present. c) This data is absolutely useless when you want to compare cardiovascular health of international class athletes from 1920-30s with today's elite athletes. It is possible (due to pollution, and predominantly sedentary life style of today) that "normal population" of early 1900s is healthier than "normal population" of today - cardiovascular health wise. But this data ( due to small sample sizes) is useless in that regard too. d) I could't resist saying - the website looks like one of those "snake-oil" sellers. Talking about elite athletes - across eras - I don't even need such resource - progressively improving athletic records (in Olympics and every other competition) speak for themselves. So, try something else in proving why, in era around 1930s, 40+ year old were still figuring in international teams. I say, it was amateur era and level of competition was not much. You could be doing some other day job and yet play cricket for National side.

[dial_100]

^ The ability to play long innings - Tendulkar's highest First Class score is not even 250 runs. His maiden First Class double hundred came 11 years after his First Class debut - his maiden test double hundred took even longer. Think of Bradman as someone with the consistency of Tendulkar and the ability of Lara to knock off big scores.

Interesting. I didn't know that. You are right. SRT only has 6 doubles vs Don's 12. But wait if you add up his 194* and ODI 200, he has 8. but for argument sake lets tkae 6. What about the current fielding standard. Do you think that all of sudden Jonty's and Mark Waughs and Azhar would start dropping Dollies when Don comes over to bat??. CHeck out the # of 250+ scored in test cricket in different eras. See if any of that addup with what you are saying. 30s 12 50s 9 60s 5 70s 8 80s 4 90s 12 2k 30 Wonder how come there are so many people with ability to score 250+ runs in this era and still none of them managed to get even the avg of 60? Here is what I think. Long innings are only possible on a flat track with pathetic bowling on the other side. Human brain cannot focus for that long when conditions are very trying. You know that, dont you? To support my point check out an interesting era of 80s, when Marshal, holding, Andy, Imran, Kapil, Handlee were playing not many doubles were scored. Barely 4. I dont think long innings can be a measure here. Tendulkar has score 7 international doubles and if you add that 194* then 8 and Lara has made 9. So not much of a difference in their abilities. Just scoring 400 and 375 does not make him so much better that with this same ability he could become Bradmanesque. That is totally unimaginable. And same thing about SRT, if had couple of 350+ with whatever consistency that you claim he has better than Lara and that would have made him Bradmanesqueonly in terms of avg I mean. All other factors that have changed over the period of last 3 decades like team strengths, other batsmen supporting the team, opposition, fielding, pitch and conditions, amount of cricket, money etc etc makes it humanly impossible to sustain anything beyond 50s. Let alone 99, I would say even 60-65 would be impossible to sustain for more than 20-30 test.

[Laaloo]

Did I hit a nerve?! Yeah, I watched quite a few of them. The logical idea is that Bradman was capable of batting solidly and consistantly like Tendulkar and was also capable of scoring big hundreds like Lara. If you take Tendulkar alone, he has not proved that he is capable of playing a mammoth innings and his highest is 248 against Bangladesh. If you take Lara alone, on his day, was capable of playing an innings like he only can but he was probably not as dependable like Tendulkar. Bradman was both. Not every player in the world will get "pulled down". I have never seen Bradman getting pulled down to the extent seen on this forum, anywhere else. Bradman will win nearly every poll hands down. If at all legends like Bradman, Sobers, Richards get "pulled down" you know that it will only from a certain quarter.:haha:

Err no you did not touch a nerve. I'm way beyond that :isalute: Nice try though. So how many videos did you exactly watch? I have also never seen Sachin getting pulled down to an extent seen on this forum, anywhere else. If at all a legend like him get "pulled down" you know it will only come from a certain quarter :winky:

[dial_100]

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.

If I get the tone of your reply, I sense that you claim that Bradman had much much better technique than his peers. So whatever technique that the best batsman needed back then he had it. Let me tell you this. I read one article back then about his foot work and technique. He was so better with that he would manage to change is footwork twice after the ball is released and adjust to the length of the ball second time. So what I got out of that article that others could barely manage to get some foot work by judging it with whatever way they could but Bradman had ability to adjust as well. Does that tell you something. One thing I liked about Brado was that he used to practice with 1 stump to improve his ability to middle the ball. :hatsoff: some commitment for that time and era there.

[akshayxyz]

A significant number of sub 200 totals happen in the 4th innings so I don't think comparing these values across eras makes sense. Do it for the first and second innings and perhaps the third as well. It has been difficult to score 200 in the 4th innings in all eras ( including today) and so I am not surprised to see that sub 200 totals are comparable. Let us see: 2000-2012 Total innings (excluding 4th innings) = 1651 sub 200 innings in first three innings = 367 = 22% 1930-1950 Total innings (excluding 4th innings) = 396 sub 200 innings in first three innings = 108 = 27% It is indeed much easier to score over 200 today when we take into account only the first three innings. The 5th day wicket ( and sometimes the 4th day also so excluding the 3rd innings may throw more light on the matter) has always been challenging to bat in all eras and hence I have excluded them here.

It is funny that _for current era_ you are attributing this to the playing conditions, and not to the fact that there are more professionals these days, and even tail enders try to contribute. Where as in case of _Bradman's era_, you want to attribute every single std-deviation-distance he managed away from general population - you attribute to Bradman's individual skills and not to the conditions/lack-of-competition. With that logic - since almost every other sprinter in Olympics is able to run 100 mts in less than 10 seconds - it is because gravity and air resistance has reduced ...and no credit should be given to the athletes and the level of competition...

[Marut]

I understand what you are trying to convey, but it is not useful in this context for the following reasons: I referred to this "complete" table. (http://www.normalbreathing.com/index-CP-normals-complete.php) a) Sample sizes are too small and inconsistent - sometimes even less than 10!! b) Assuming you were referring to "CP" data, the values are not consistently decreasing. especially if you refer to only "Normal subjects" - it is unfair to compare high values of trained professionals ( Aviators, fit instructors, Pilots) from early 1900s- with "Normal Subjects" of present. c) This data is absolutely useless when you want to compare cardiovascular health of international class athletes from 1920-30s with today's elite athletes. It is possible (due to pollution, and predominantly sedentary life style of today) that "normal population" of early 1900s is healthier than "normal population" of today - cardiovascular health wise. But this data ( due to small sample sizes) is useless in that regard too. d) I could't resist saying - the website looks like one of those "snake-oil" sellers. Talking about elite athletes - across eras - I don't even need such resource - progressively improving athletic records (in Olympics and every other competition) speak for themselves. So, try something else in proving why, in era around 1930s, 40+ year old were still figuring in international teams. I say, it was amateur era and level of competition was not much. You could be doing some other day job and yet play cricket for National side.

Snake oil seller? I myself gained immensely from those practices. And so did many others I know. Sort of like yogic pranayama, whose religeous, psychic and physical benefits are not properly understood by modern science. Health is not just gym fitness. A sportsman creating records does not imply that he will be the same 10 years later healthwise. A healthy and strong individual like Yuvraj Singh was very unlikely to get cancer in the 30s at the age of 30, now it is something about his lifestyle that may have something to do with it. Being a healthy sportsman does not free you from the risks of pollution, stress, UV exposure etc, which are increasing day by day. People are unable to play beyond 40 these days because they carry too much stress and niggles - during Bradman's time he played 52 tests in 20 years. Today they play 52 in 5-6 years along with hundreds of ODIs and T20s, not to speak of attending late night parties, and what not. These are taking immense toll on the health though at young age you get along fine, but when you reach late 30s you will be struck down.

[Marut]

It is funny that _for current era_ you are attributing this to the playing conditions, and not to the fact that there are more professionals these days, and even tail enders try to contribute. Where as in case of _Bradman's era_, you want to attribute every single std-deviation-distance he managed away from general population - you attribute to Bradman's individual skills and not to the conditions/lack-of-competition. With that logic - since almost every other sprinter in Olympics is able to run 100 mts in less than 10 seconds - it is because gravity and air resistance has reduced ...and no credit should be given to the athletes and the level of competition...

Cricket has not changed as much as sprints. Bradman was capable of playing every shot the modern batsman is capable of playing. So the evolution in cricket is more on the lines of nutrition, strategy planning, fitness etc and not because modern cricketers know how to play better than Bradman. With sprints, the vast improvements have come about primarily through physical conditioning, short sprinters look like weight lifters these days - they pack in enormous power and strength that the sprinters of the 30s did not have and records came down tumbling. But how far can they go? Will 9s barrier be broken in 100m race? Will they do 6s after 200 years? Only time will tell if we have hit upon a saturation already. But in cricket, batting has not progressed much beyond Bradman, he knew nearly everything about cricket the modern cricketer knows.

[msb1991]

In the interest of balance, I think that uncovered pitches and lack of helmets are both red herrings.

[akshayxyz]

Snake oil seller? I myself gained immensely from those practices. And so did many others I know. Sort of like yogic pranayama' date= whose religeous, psychic and physical benefits are not properly understood by modern science. Health is not just gym fitness. A sportsman creating records does not imply that he will be the same 10 years later healthwise. A healthy and strong individual like Yuvraj Singh was very unlikely to get cancer in the 30s at the age of 30, now it is something about his lifestyle that may have something to do with it. Being a healthy sportsman does not free you from the risks of pollution, stress, UV exposure etc, which are increasing day by day. People are unable to play beyond 40 these days because they carry too much stress and niggles - during Bradman's time he played 52 tests in 20 years. Today they play 52 in 5-6 years along with hundreds of ODIs and T20s, not to speak of attending late night parties, and what not. These are taking immense toll on the health though at young age you get along fine, but when you reach late 30s you will be struck down.

I know the benefits all these things. "Snake-oil seller" remark was in context of the statistical-data reference you pointed to and the general look and feel of the website. I will say again - the point you wanted to make - that data is absolutely rubbish to prove that, you better find some other source.

[akshayxyz]

Cricket has not changed as much as sprints. Bradman was capable of playing every shot the modern batsman is capable of playing. So the evolution in cricket is more on the lines of nutrition' date=' strategy planning, fitness etc and not because modern cricketers know how to play better than Bradman. With sprints, the vast improvements have come about primarily through physical conditioning, short sprinters look like weight lifters these days - they pack in enormous power and strength that the sprinters of the 30s did not have and records came down tumbling. But how far can they go? Will 9s barrier be broken in 100m race? Will they do 6s after 200 years? Only time will tell if we have hit upon a saturation already. But in cricket, batting has not progressed much beyond Bradman, he knew nearly everything about cricket the modern cricketer knows.[/quote'] You missed the point, here it is again. You want to attribute all bradman's achievement to his skills, but today's relatively better stats on 200+ score - you are attributing solely to batting conditions and completely ignoring the fact that - on an average batsmanship has improved, and even tail-enders contribute towards those 200+ scores - more often than not. So, by citing - better ratio of 200+ scores today - you do not prove anything about "easier batting conditions today".

[Marut]

Err no you did not touch a nerve. I'm way beyond that :isalute: Nice try though. So how many videos did you exactly watch? I have also never seen Sachin getting pulled down to an extent seen on this forum' date=' anywhere else. If at all a legend like him get "pulled down" you know it will only come from a certain quarter :winky:[/quote'] Which quarter? IMO nobody disputes the greatness of Sachin as an accumulator except perhaps some jealous Paki supporters. Having played close to 200 tests, his credentials as a big match winner (especially in test matches) has been challenged by many quarters, and rightfully so. If none of his 300+ innings could make their way into the wisden 100 ( which features many other Indians so it was certainly not biased against India), it is all the more a good reason to raise the issue.

[Laaloo]

Which quarter? IMO nobody disputes the greatness of Sachin as an accumulator except perhaps some jealous Paki supporters. Having played close to 200 tests' date=' his credentials as a big match winner (especially in test matches) has been challenged by many quarters, and rightfully so. If none of his 300+ innings could make their way into the wisden 100 ( which features many other Indians so it was certainly not biased against India), it is all the more a good reason to raise the issue.[/quote'] Wisden also rated Sachin as the second greatest test cricketer ever behind Bradman. Raise the issue as what? I was merely arguing the point you made about sachin and lara. Don't know how you managed to drag wisden in here?

[Crookbond]

^ Now, they will say Wisden is partial.

[Marut]

You missed the point, here it is again. You want to attribute all bradman's achievement to his skills, but today's relatively better stats on 200+ score - you are attributing solely to batting conditions and completely ignoring the fact that - on an average batsmanship has improved, and even tail-enders contribute towards those 200+ scores - more often than not. So, by citing - better ratio of 200+ scores today - you do not prove anything about "easier batting conditions today".

It is also about batting equipment and rules of cricket which are turning batsman friendly constantly. Do you think Bradman used the same bat used by modern batsman? Do you think he had the same protective gear? Average batsmanship has improved? Not core skill wise. There are more FTBs today ( percentage wise) than ever before, thanks to the shorter formats. There may be more "hit or miss" bullies who make lots of runs, but we are talking about cricketing skills. Top batsmen have not changed much over the years. Gavaskar was much more skilled than most Indian batsmen who play today, though he retired long ago. That the tail enders are contributing more significantly needs verification, and if true it may even explain that batting is easier these days, than in the past!

[Marut]

Wisden also rated Sachin as the second greatest test cricketer ever behind Bradman. Raise the issue as what? I was merely arguing the point you made about sachin and lara. Don't know how you managed to drag wisden in here?

Still they found no innings worthwhile to be included in their top 100? This means most of his knocks served to boost his personal records and did not make the biggest impact on the team's fortunes. I was not brining in Wisden out of context - it was a reply to this "If at all a legend like him get "pulled down" you know it will only come from a certain quarter ". Including none of Tendulkar's innings in their 100 is indeed pulling him down, rightly or wrongly.

[yoda]

Which quarter? IMO nobody disputes the greatness of Sachin as an accumulator except perhaps some jealous Paki supporters. Having played close to 200 tests' date=' his credentials as a big match winner (especially in test matches) has been challenged by many quarters, and rightfully so. If none of his 300+ innings could make their way into the wisden 100 ( which features many other Indians so it was certainly not biased against India), it is all the more a good reason to raise the issue.[/quote'] Wisden 100 list is about as bogus as it gets. 281 at #6, you kidding me? Leaving aside the question of whether SRT had any great innings worth making that list, if you look at the list and some of innings and their ranking, it fails the common sense test.

[Crookbond]

^ Look at the context in which he's making this argument and read the final line of post 178.