Would a batsmen be considered greater then Bradman if?

[SaeedAnwar]

Would a batsmen be considered greater then Bradman if he plays only 20 tests then retires averaging more then him?. lets say this were his scores in the 20 Tests he plays

157, 93
22, 89
6,17
102,56
76,32
274*, 80
188, 14
287*, 4
12, 194*
0, 88
177, 33
9, 20
304*, 7
22, 52
176, 17
62, 34
10, 48
199, 104*
226, 82*
39, 0

Career:
Matches: 20
Runs : 3412
Average : 100.35
HS : 304*
100's : 12
50's : 9
not outs : 6

 

[GotSpin]

Why would he retire?

 

[SaeedAnwar]

^ because he lost one of his balls during batting

 

[Somerset]

0.39 of an average is hardly the final determinant in saying that the hypothetical player is better than Bradman IMO - theres so many other factors to consider before making that call.

 

[TumTum]

Not even close, he needs to average at least 120.

 

[GotSpin]

Indeed. I'm no great shakes at stats guru but this is Bradman after 19 matches

filtered 1928-1932 19 2695 334 112.29 12 1 1/8 18.00 0 10 0

 

[_Ed_]

^ because he lost one of his balls during batting

 

[age_master]

0.39 of an average is hardly the final determinant in saying that the hypothetical player is better than Bradman IMO - theres so many other factors to consider before making that call.

Agreed. Quality of the opposition would certainly come into it, standards of pitches etc etc etc

 

[Migara]

Average 75 with a SR of 80 against non - minnows over 100 tests. Would be best batsman in my book over Bradman, because at that SR batting would be a killler blow. Sehwag with 50 @ 80 showing the impact. Imagine some one doing it averaging 75

 

[GotSpin]

Bradman scored at a pretty good clip himself

 

[Migara]

Bradman scored at a pretty good clip himself

Yeah, SR of 55 - 60 may be. But I am sure it was no where close to 80.

 

[Ikki]

I'd take 100 @ 60 over 75 @ 80 TBF. I'm not sure the SR is going to benefit the team as much as 25 more runs per inning.

Bradman scored at a pretty good clip himself

Cricinfo estimates at about 58.61.

 

[GotSpin]

I'd take 100 @ 60 over 75 @ 80 TBF. I'm not sure the SR is going to benefit the team as much as 25 more runs per inning.



Cricinfo estimates at about 58.61.

Agreed. In a test match 25 more runs per innings at a rate faster than most batsmen is more valuable IMO. Furthermore, I'd warrant that Bradman's SR is far far greater in comparison to his contemporaries and would tend to suggest he'd be just as destructive as modern day batsmen

 

[Migara]

Agreed. In a test match 25 more runs per innings at a rate faster than most batsmen is more valuable IMO. Furthermore, I'd warrant that Bradman's SR is far far greater in comparison to his contemporaries and would tend to suggest he'd be just as destructive as modern day batsmen

You can look it in an alternative way. Most bowlers Bradman faced were not the same quality of today.

We'll agree for disagreement. I would take a faster scorer because it gives extra time for other batters to cash in or saves time for bowlers. But I could not say 100 @ 60 is worse than that.

 

[Migara]

Or put it easily like this. Viv Richards esque player averaging 75. That will give a better idea.

 

[GotSpin]

You can look it in an alternative way. Most bowlers Bradman faced were not the same quality of today.

We'll agree for disagreement. I would take a faster scorer because it gives extra time for other batters to cash in or saves time for bowlers. But I could not say 100 @ 60 is worse than that.

Bradman faced a number of very good bowlers. There's no need to get into such an argument though.

There's really no need for extra time for other batters to cash in when you already have someone that averages just a tick under a 100 at the crease. And since said batsman usually scores at an already impressive SR of 60 he should easily be able to up the ante. However,

I can see the advantages of having an explosive batsmen like that at the top of the order, especially opening, but I'd prefer a Bradman coming in at number 4 with his superior average.

 

[Teja.]

People forget that not only did Bradman have a Brilliant career(to put it mildly), he also had an incredibly long one lasting from 1928-1948. So, NO

Not unless someone scores at a Bradman-esque rate for ten years will he deserve comparison and not unless he does it for 15-20 will he better than Bradman for mine.

And talking of strike rates, Bradman scored his runs at sixty when the other run machines of the period did so at 35-40. It would be good if someone standardized the Strike rates from that period to ours.(I would, for my inability with Statsguru)

 

[GotSpin]

The most amazing thing about his career is that he lost six of his best years to WWII

 

[Teja.]

The most amazing thing about his career is that he lost six of his best years to WWII

Yes, would very possibly have been the first to get to 10,000 runs(or atleast improved that damned average to hundred ) His godly FC record provides an indication that he would still have scored at an insane rate in an era with a lot more matches.

An ever sadder case is that of Vijay Merchant, who many considered to be second best after Bradman, He lost most of his career due to the war and averaged 72 in FC games, played only ten games and averaged 48 in them(All against very good sides, and outscored only by Hammond if I remember well)

 

[Burgey]

The most amazing thing about his career is that he lost six of his best years to WWII

Arguably not, given his self-avowed health problems through much of the war, which saw him invalided out of the army..