If Bradman played in today's era?

[Migara]

Probably average 10 more than Smith, and that it self would be a ****ing ridiculous achievement. It may drop a bit more if a real monster f a bowler keeps pinning him down as happened to some players like Warne - Cullinan

 

[Migara]

Batting averages haven't changed much since Bradman's era. 50 is now, as it was then, a very good average. Someone needed to be pretty exceptional to average much more than 50. I think you can assume Bradman in the modern era playing only test cricket would average something similar to what he did back then. Maybe more with new bats and better equipment and better pitches.

Bradman was a masterful batsman, and had immense fitness and powers of concentration, but he was also a very introverted, conservative and introspective man. If he had to face the modern demands of social media and the playing schedule of tests, T20s and ODIs, I'm sure his test average would suffer a little bit. He was someone who was happy to play the game and then get away from everyone sooner rather than later.

Good analysis, but you did not mention that, current bowlers are exceptionally fitter than what Bradman played, and will keep the pressure on whole day. Then fielding would be light years better than during his time, short singles and boundaries will be cut short more often. And there would be few more additional run outs as well. Then the variability of the pitch conditions is much more than his day. We have hard bouncy perth and Durban to dust bowls of Chennai and Galle. Next, current bowlers have far more variations like reverse swing, and this makes the chances of getting a corker at any time of the innings equally possible. Another consideration is that bowling actions differ from country to country slightly. This may be the reason Bradman averaged less against Martindale and Constantine, who were allegedly, open chested bowlers. Finally, you can dissect techniques of a batsman better now. Once a deficiency is found all the bowlers will home on it.

I would pay anything to see Bradman playing WI pace quartet or him taking on Wasim and Waqar with the old ball, or Murali and Warne from two ends.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Probably average 10 more than Smith

Unless Smith ends up averaging 90, then nah

 

[GIMH]

Average runs per wicket in 3 decades when Bradman played: ~33
Average runs per wicket in last 2 years: ~28

Doesn't add up.

Aside from the time discrepancies. How do these averages break down if you just look at top six bats? Gives a better indication of batting quality than overall RPW IMHO

 

[ankitj]

3 decades v 2 years. And that’s the bloke who lectures about sample sizes.

I included start of 2017 to 2019 when a total of 4011 completed innings were played which is significantly large. In comparison in 3 decade when Bradman played total of 5750 completed innings were played.

But actually the reason for selecting 2-3 years was that I was in my head thinking of very recent times when bowlers like Rabada, Abbas, Cummins, Bumrah and few spinners have made batting much harder. If you do extend it to last 10-15 years, yes averages have been higher. From 2000 to now, it's 31.5.

It does if you factor in the fact that Bradman played in his own era...

Fair point.

 

[ankitj]

Aside from the time discrepancies. How do these averages break down if you just look at top six bats? Gives a better indication of batting quality than overall RPW IMHO

From start of 2000 to now: 38.71
From 1920 to 1949: 39.86

 

[Daemon]

Aside from the time discrepancies. How do these averages break down if you just look at top six bats? Gives a better indication of batting quality than overall RPW IMHO

Top 6 1920-1949: 43.1
Top 6 1990-2019: 36.8

Bradman has been excluded.

 

[the big bambino]

There are at least three ways averages from Bradmans era bias toward a higher total and Bradman accounts for two of them. Firstly by being Bradman. If you consider him an outlier then the average is one of the lowest, on par with the 90s. Secondly he bats a proportionately higher percentage of his eras innings compared to say SRT. Higher scores occurring more frequently will be more influential on a datasets mean. I have a piece of paper somewhere showing Hammond having a greater impact on a decadal average than SRT for that reason though their averages are much the same.

Finally sides like India, NZ and WI played proportionately fewer tests than Aus and Eng and their lower means are less influential in dragging down an eras average. Even SA avoided playing Aus all that often. They were usually bowled out for small scores when they did. Once again limiting that influence on the overall average.

I get the point about the number of innings over two modern years. But it’s still not a fair comparison over the time frames when decades see many rule changes, personal changes, changes in pitch conditions, different types of balls etc. all factors which are generally homogenised over short spans of time.

 

[MrPrez]

In Bradman's era, most Tests were competed between two amateur teams.

That's not discounting the quality of the players, but discrepancies between the best and the rest are always going to be larger in this sort of scenario than is the case today, where there is much more competition and much more professionalism and coaching infrastructure.

I reckon Bradman would probably average 70-75 in today's day and age.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In Bradman's era, most Tests were competed between two amateur teams.

That's not discounting the quality of the players, but discrepancies between the best and the rest are always going to be larger in this sort of scenario than is the case today, where there is much more competition and much more professionalism and coaching infrastructure.

I reckon Bradman would probably average 70-75 in today's day and age.

So you've decided that Bradman playing in the modern age would be playing against the more professional players but not benefit from improved coaching and professionalism himself?

That's fine if that's your point but it's making a pretty big assumption about the nature of this thread

 

[stephen]

Most sports were amateur back then. Rugby union was amateur until the 70s iirc.

Being amateur basically means that only the wealthy could play unless they were exceptional players, who would go pro (I think in Bradman's day there was only a couple of amateurs in the side).

 

[Starfighter]

'Most' tests then involved an England side who were usually a comfortable majority professional. And there were some very good amateur players over the years. Mid-seventies Australia were amateurs too. I think WI had a similarly late shift to professionalism in their test team, and their domestic competition has only become professional this decade​.

 

[Starfighter]

So you've decided that Bradman playing in the modern age would be playing against the more professional players but not benefit from improved coaching and professionalism himself?

That's fine if that's your point but it's making a pretty big assumption about the nature of this thread

Part of it is that people will compare by plonking a player from the thirties in the modern era and vice versa. A lot of modern fast bowlers either wouldn't have careers or would have slowed down to medium pace due to back injuries until not too long ago.

 

[Flem274*]

i see bradman as an extreme form of jonah (or you could say jonah is bradman-lite). just so far ahead of their time.

if we transported their past selves to the present then i think we'd see the rest of the world has caught up with them. if both were allowed to grow from scratch in todays game with access to todays resources, well who knows.

bradman is the goat sportsman worldwide and i doubt he will ever be equalled in cricket.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Just a wild bit of speculation, but given Bradman was know to be good playing the pull and he knew about actually moving back-and-across to do so (something modern players are generally unable to do), I wouldn't be surprised if he would have been able to take quite a toll of modern short-of-a-length bowling.

 

[Starfighter]

i see bradman as an extreme form of jonah (or you could say jonah is bradman-lite). just so far ahead of their time.

if we transported their past selves to the present then i think we'd see the rest of the world has caught up with them. if both were allowed to grow from scratch in todays game with access to todays resources, well who knows.

bradman is the goat sportsman worldwide and i doubt he will ever be equalled in cricket.

If the rest of the world has caught up with Bradman, as your comment directly implies, why is no one averaging what he did and piling on the runs in the same merciless fashion?

 

[Migara]

Just a wild bit of speculation, but given Bradman was know to be good playing the pull and he knew about actually moving back-and-across to do so (something modern players are generally unable to do), I wouldn't be surprised if he would have been able to take quite a toll of modern short-of-a-length bowling.

Modern players don't do it on purpose because they can pull straighter of the pull in front of their face. And one invariably gets through and hits the helmet and some times the grill and re arrange facial anatomy.

 

[Migara]

So you've decided that Bradman playing in the modern age would be playing against the more professional players but not benefit from improved coaching and professionalism himself?

That's fine if that's your point but it's making a pretty big assumption about the nature of this thread

You are making a big assumption too, that Bradman has the same room left for improvement as his peers, by using technology As far as I know better players need lesser technology. It is the middle tier who benefit from it.

 

[Bolo]

I highly doubt bradman would see much improvement, if any, if he had modern coaching etc. available to him.

What we would see would be a greater aquired ability for dealing with modern bowling. Transport him directly from his era to now and it would not surprise me if he wasn't the standout bat (not to say I would bet against it, but challenges are pretty different).

If he'd learned his cricket in this era he would no doubt have been the best bat by some distance, but I'm not sure it would have been by as much as he managed in his own era- the level of professionalism and the fact that he is sonewhat unproven against high quality pace attacks leave questions that we can't answer with certainty.

 

[Bolo]

I highly doubt bradman would see much improvement, if any, if he had modern coaching etc. available to him.

What we would see would be a greater aquired ability for dealing with modern bowling. Transport him directly from his era to now and it would not surprise me if he wasn't the standout bat (not to say I would bet against it, but challenges are pretty different).

If he'd learned his cricket in this era he would no doubt have been the best bat by some distance, but I'm not sure it would have been by as much as he managed in his own era- the level of professionalism and the fact that he is sonewhat unproven against high quality pace attacks leave questions that we can't answer with certainty.