How did Bradman get as good as he did?

[AldoRaine18]

Given the standard of cricket was far lower 100 years back, pretty sure Lara and Tendulkar would have adopted.

I'm not buying your standards were lower and higher nonsense, unless you can provide a half decent argument for it. How is a standard of a batsman who has to face bowlers on messed up pitches without having decent protective gear or helmets and no no bouncer rules or anything lower than one who has been allowed all these privileges? I'm not even saying one's standard is better than the other or anything, just whatever you've said here is terribly flawed. Writers, journalists, players who have played and seen the game for decades never seem to bring up the standards being lower back in the day or anything? Richie Benaud saw Bradman and saw Tendulkar, I don't remember him ever making a remark on either's eras. And they have far more reasons and evidence to compare these things, than you or me, unless you are some 150 year old using speech to text feature to post here or something.

 

[Pratters]

None of that means Bradman would've been worse today if he was raised in these conditions. This isn't difficult to understand.

But would he have been as good to average 99.9. No freaking way I think. You have seen Lara and Tendulkar. Can any one really average 99.9 in the 90s playing 100 tests? I'll start believing in any thing then.

 

[AldoRaine18]

But would he have been as good to average 99.9. No freaking way I think. You have seen Lara and Tendulkar. Can any one really average 99.9 in the 90s playing 100 tests? I'll start believing in any thing then.

It's 99.94.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I am reminded of how people refer to as good. We can't question God. We have lived like this regarding Bradman as cricket fans. I love Bradman as well. But any one who thinks he would average lower than 99.9 80 years later has broken a sacred trust. I don't get it. It is good for the sport that standards have improved in 80 years, not bad. No one is saying Bradman wouldn't have been great or the greatest even.

Do you agree that Hammond and Hutton and Compton and Hobbs would also have averaged 20-30 points less in today's environment and thus ended up with averages in the range of the Suresh Rainas and Shane Watsons? This is a question you have quite conveniently sidestepped.

Anyway, the reason your arguments make zero sense is because the entire debate is disingenuous. Using a time machine to drop a freak player from the 40s who is used to handling the conditions of his time, into the current era without considering what advantages he may gain by using today's superior training, fitness schedules, and in your own words, more professional atmosphere, is just stupid. And you just fail to keep this in mind.

 

[indiaholic]

I think Pratters' actual point is that when athletes set a bar that was previously thought to be impossible for example Bannister breaking the four minute mile, it results in a huge number of athletes emulating him. Nobody has come close to Bradman in all the years since. This leads him to the conclusion that there was something objectively different about the standard of the sport. We all believe that there was something objectively different about the man.

 

[OverratedSanity]

But would he have been as good to average 99.9. No freaking way I think. You have seen Lara and Tendulkar. Can any one really average 99.9 in the 90s playing 100 tests? I'll start believing in any thing then.

"He was so good that I don't believe he was that good"

Predictable argument in Bradman debates.

 

[Furball]

If Bradman averaged 70 in the 90s, it wouldn't just be good, it would be mindblowingly amazing.

Just because batsmen averaged 50 in the 30s and 40s and batsmen average in the 50s today doesn't mean the standard of cricket is the same as it was 80 years back. There is no sport where standard is the same.

That's not what's being argued you fool.

 

[Pratters]

Do you agree that Hammond and Hutton and Compton and Hobbs would also have averaged 20-30 points less in today's environment and thus ended up with averages in the range of the Suresh Rainas and Shane Watsons? This is a question you have quite conveniently sidestepped.

I have not sidestepped this question. I have said they would probably average 43-46.

Anyway, the reason your arguments make zero sense is because the entire debate is disingenuous. Using a time machine to drop a freak player from the 40s who is used to handling the conditions of his time, into the current era without considering what advantages he may gain by using today's superior training, fitness schedules, and in your own words, more professional atmosphere, is just stupid. And you just fail to keep this in mind.

No, even this argument doesn't apply. A player from an early era can get proper training and his standard can be at par with today's era. However, how can he then average double of today's era? If athletes are running 100 metres at 10.5-10.7 seconds, and some one suddenly runs at 10 seconds. That geometrically makes his Bradmanesque. However, if today athletes are running at 9.5, doesn't mean that great athlete will suddenly run at 10% lower today too at 8.8 seconds. He would probably run at 9.35. Similarly Bradman would probably average 65-70. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Pratters]

That's not what's being argued you fool.

Getting to insults. Typical.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No, even this argument doesn't apply. A player from an early era can get proper training and his standard can be at par with today's era. However, how can he then average double of today's era? If athletes are running 100 metres at 10.5-10.7 seconds, and some one suddenly runs at 10 seconds. That geometrically makes his Bradmanesque. However, if today athletes are running at 9.5, doesn't mean that great athlete will suddenly run at 10% lower today too at 8.8 seconds. He would probably run at 9.35. Similarly Bradman would probably average 65-70. It's not that hard to understand.

Knew it.

your only argument is that Bradman was too good to have been that good. This is a line of thinking that repeatedly pops up in this debate, and always makes me lol.

So, lol.

 

[Furball]

I am reminded of how people refer to as good. We can't question God. We have lived like this regarding Bradman as cricket fans. I love Bradman as well. But any one who thinks he would average lower than 99.9 80 years later has broken a sacred trust. I don't get it. It is good for the sport that standards have improved in 80 years, not bad. No one is saying Bradman wouldn't have been great or the greatest even.

So standards have improved but the greatest of all time gets worse despite having access to better sports science, better medical care, better training and better equipment?

Logic seems to have taken a holiday.

 

[Pratters]

Knew it.

your only argument is that Bradman was too good to have been that good. This is a line of thinking that repeatedly pops up in this debate, and always makes me lol.

So, lol.

Do you honestly believe any one could average 100 in a career in the 90s and 2000s? SRT and Lara finished with 53. Can you logically think Bradman was double as good as them?

 

[Furball]

I have not sidestepped this question. I have said they would probably average 43-46.



No, even this argument doesn't apply. A player from an early era can get proper training and his standard can be at par with today's era. However, how can he then average double of today's era? If athletes are running 100 metres at 10.5-10.7 seconds, and some one suddenly runs at 10 seconds. That geometrically makes his Bradmanesque. However, if today athletes are running at 9.5, doesn't mean that great athlete will suddenly run at 10% lower today too at 8.8 seconds. He would probably run at 9.35. Similarly Bradman would probably average 65-70. It's not that hard to understand.

What is your basis for saying players from the past, with access to all the improvements of the modern age, would actually do worse?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Do you honestly believe any one could average 100 in a career in the 90s and 2000s? SRT and Lara finished with 53. Can you logically think Bradman was double as good as them?

yes

 

[NZTailender]

I love how there's also a lot of talk about batsmen being magically transported to today would adjust and be similar or just as good as today's batsman because of increased knowledge and technology etc. For all we know these 'club level' bowlers could've been just as great as McGrath, Akram and Holding had they the better shoes (seriously have you seen photos of some of the shoes they wore back then? About as 'sporty' as a pair of clogs), training regimen, knowledge about the science of swing, etc. Everything is relative and the bowlers then were probably just as good as they could've been given the circumstances.

For me it comes down to Bradman being a bit of a freak both physically (talent, whatever you want to call it) and mentally (application and determination).

 

[Pratters]

So standards have improved but the greatest of all time gets worse despite having access to better sports science, better medical care, better training and better equipment?

Logic seems to have taken a holiday.

Not really getting it, are you? Haha.

 

[OverratedSanity]

What is your basis for saying players from the past, with access to all the improvements of the modern age, would actually do worse?

Hope this question isn't dodged.

 

[Pratters]

yes

Okay. Clearly we differ on this.

 

[Pratters]

Hope this question isn't dodged.

I am not dodging any question ffs. Re read the athlete example I gave. The one you lol at.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But would he have been as good to average 99.9. No freaking way I think. You have seen Lara and Tendulkar. Can any one really average 99.9 in the 90s playing 100 tests? I'll start believing in any thing then.

As stupid as it is trying to make guesses like this, I'd bet that if anything he'd average higher. Flatter pitches, covered when it rains, protective equipment, bats that aren't just planks of wood. If Bradman grew up to today he'd be more likely to average 120ish