LMAO. That tour was 33-34 iirc, the year Bradman had his major health issues. he was very (by his standards) hit and miss that series, but others picked up the slack - guys like Ponsford etc.
I mean, if you're insinuating that Bradman's performances in that series showed he was weak against express bowling or something like that, then you wouldn't expect the others, who had struggled so badly the year before agaisnt Bodyline, to have comprehensively trounced the Windies attack the way they did.
It astonishes me really, that you'd say that. Here is a bloke who was crook and "only averaged 74". Look, anyone can have whatever view they like and can indicate that Bradman's average would fall by a factor of between 30-50% if he played in different eras. But if that's the case, you've got to be consistent and do the same thing to Hammond, Headley, Hobbs, Morris, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Compton, McCabe, Barnes, Constantine et al.
So if you want to say Bradman would average 50 odd in this era or the 90s or the 80s, that's fine. But to be consistent you'd have to say Headley would average 30, Hutton 20 something, MacCabe 20-something etc etc.
And that's bollocks, frankly. Because great players are great players. They adapt, they find a way.
It's difficult I know to comprehend that there can be a player who is nigh on twice as good as the Laras, Tendulkars, Pontings, Chappells, Richards etc. But there is. He was that good. I find it hard to comprehend myself. If you wrote a Boys' Own story and had Bradman's career as its centrepiece, the editor would send it back saying you need to be more realistic. But it happened. It beggars belief, but it did.
