What would Bradman average if he played in a typical (i.e. neither batsman or bowler favored) period of the modern era (1970 - current)?

[shortpitched713]

Obviously none of us will ever know. Just give what you think would be your best guess.

I think he would average 65.72 throughout his career, and would still be considered the GOAT batsman, although not nearly in the statistically untouchable and incomparable sense that he currently ends up being.

It would be fun, because we could use him in drafts and sims and whatever other **** too, because his numbers wouldn't make him an autowin cheat code either, but alas he played back in the day against a bunch of posh wastemen, so we'll never know imo.

 

[sledger]

I like how the poll options allow for him to average up to 90, and greater than 100, but not 91-99.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

The game has changed a lot since 70s to till now.

Doug Walters had a similar conversation with Bradman with Bradman replying by saying he wouldn’t have scored as much runs as he did back then but would still be far and away the best player in the world. Probably meaning around average of 80.

My guess would be around 80 in the 1970s or 2000s. And possibly 75 in 1980s,1990s and around 70-75 since 2017 bowling era. For a whole career I can’t see him average less than 70-80 in any era.

 

[shortpitched713]

I like how the poll options allow for him to average up to 90, and greater than 100, but not 91-99.

My B dawg. Added that option in now.

 

[kyear2]

My guess is somewhere between mis 60's to mid 70's. He was without doubt the GOAT, but as Peterhrt has illustrated not only did he play in an unprecedented time in terms of conditions, but one that was changed upon his retirement. He played in two countries and against some surprisingly poor minnows, and even the primary antagonist's bowling was at an all time low.
If we had even competent catching he would have averaged in the 40's in the one series vs the WI (not conjecture, we dropped him in single digits in one of his hundreds vs us), and even then out of 6 innings against us he failed 4 times and scored two massive hundreds. And if you're wondering that was probably the best pace attack of the era that also have Hammond fits. And note, this was on the Aussie roads, not the Caribbean.
Herman Griffith and Baron Constantine, Martindale wasn't even there.
Body line troubled him, but that's what most of the word constantly faced for three decades from Australia, Australia again then the W. I.
Yes Bradman is undisputedly the goat, but he was presented with the perfect storm, but kudos to him for taking full advantage.
What a champion.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

My guess is somewhere between mis 60's to mid 70's. He was without doubt the GOAT, but as Peterhrt has illustrated not only did he play in an unprecedented time in terms of conditions, but one that was changed upon his retirement. He played in two countries and against some surprisingly poor minnows, and even the primary antagonist's bowling was at an all time low.
If we had even competent catching he would have averaged in the 40's in the one series vs the WI (not conjecture, we dropped him in single digits in one of his hundreds vs us), and even then out of 6 innings against us he failed 4 times and scored two massive hundreds. And if you're wondering that was probably the best pace attack of the era that also have Hammond fits. And note, this was on the Aussie roads, not the Caribbean.
Herman Griffith and Baron Constantine, Martindale wasn't even there.
Body line troubled him, but that's what most of the word constantly faced for three decades from Australia, Australia again then the W. I.
Yes Bradman is undisputedly the goat, but he was presented with the perfect storm, but kudos to him for taking full advantage.
What a champion.

2 of the innings against WI were in rain-affected pitches in the last match of the series.Also the series against WI was more of relative failure after huge series against England and then later against South Africa. Didn’t score in the first 2 matches after huge series and one later,scored a flawless 150 except a catch drop early on which can of course happen to anyone and a flawless 200+ in the next match.

Applying same logic what is Headley averaging? Faced 3rd Xi line up from England in WI and managed to average 37 against Ironmonger and Grimmett when O’Reilly wasn’t even there.
I would think of around 45-50 at best if I am applying the same criteria like you did.Great player indeed for the time but won’t be the same if Headley isn’t averaging 50+ in today’s date applying the same criteria which I don’t believe in.
I would still think Headley would be a ATG regardless of the era.

 

[ankitj]

Pretty sure this question has been asked about a dozen times on this forum.

 

[shortpitched713]

Pretty sure this question has been asked about a dozen times on this forum.

Searched for Bradman, and got like 5 pages of results. Didn't see anything recent, so went ahead with the thread and poll.

 

[Slifer]

2 of the innings against WI were in rain-affected pitches in the last match of the series.

Applying same logic what is Headley averaging? Faced 3rd Xi line up from England in WI and managed to average 37 against Ironmonger and Grimmett when O’Reilly wasn’t even there.
I would think of around 45-50 at best if I am applying the same criteria like you did.Great player indeed for the time but won’t be the same if Headley isn’t averaging 50+ in today’s date applying the same criteria which I don’t believe in.
I would still think Headley would be a ATG regardless of the era.

We've been over this b4. He faced full strength English attacks in England in 1933 and averaged 55. He faced full English attacks in 1939 and averaged 67. Headley did just fine in England vs their full attacks. Therefore, it's logical to assume that if he faced the same attacks at home he'd do the same or better.

Regarding O'Reilly being missing, it's not , Headley’s fault that Bill debuted in 1932 ie a full year after the WI's one and only tour b4 WW2. The fact remains, he faced a full Aus attack in Australia and he came off 2nd best. Had he faced them at home, I have no doubt he'd have murdered them.

 

[The Sean]

Quite a lot to unpack here.

My guess is somewhere between mis 60's to mid 70's. He was without doubt the GOAT, but as Peterhrt has illustrated not only did he play in an unprecedented time in terms of conditions, but one that was changed upon his retirement. He played in two countries and against some surprisingly poor minnows, and even the primary antagonist's bowling was at an all time low.

Bradman playing in more countries would likely have improved his record, given that the only country he had the opportunity to tour was the one with the strongest possible opposition. And a combined England attack over the course of Bradman's career would include Larwood, Tate, Bedser and Verity (with Voce, Bowes, Farnes and Laker in reserve), which I wouldn't call an all time low.

If we had even competent catching he would have averaged in the 40's in the one series vs the WI (not conjecture, we dropped him in single digits in one of his hundreds vs us)

Always nice to see a return of the First Chance Average. Though there will be some serious reductions in historic batting averages now that we are going through the record of every batsman ever to establish what their average would be if they were never dropped. Because we can't do that for only Bradman and no one else.

And if you're wondering that was probably the best pace attack of the era that also have Hammond fits. And note, this was on the Aussie roads, not the Caribbean. Herman Griffith and Baron Constantine, Martindale wasn't even there.

No, it wasn't. Even including Martindale it probably wasn't as good as England's various combinations through the 1930s of Larwood, Voce, Allen, Bowes and Farnes. But as you have noted this particular attack didn't include Martindale. Additionally, Constantine took just eight wickets for the series at an average of 50, and two of Bradman's six dismissals came at the hands of Frank Martin - a slow left-armer with a Test bowling average of nearly 80. I don't think there was any specific weakness to the West Indies here. Bradman simply had a below-par series, averaging a mere 75.

As for the mention of "Aussie roads" to imply Bradman cashed in at home in a way he wouldn't have elsewhere - well, he averaged more in England than he did in Australia.

Body line troubled him, but that's what most of the word constantly faced for three decades from Australia, Australia again then the W. I.
Yes Bradman is undisputedly the goat, but he was presented with the perfect storm, but kudos to him for taking full advantage.
What a champion.

I'm not sure this praise could be any more faint or grudging.

 

[Slifer]

80 to 90 for me. Lower end in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s and higher end in the 2000s. People act like all the attacks from these eras were atgs. They weren't. All Don would need to do is go at 50-60 vs the better attacks and absolutely splurge on the weaker attacks.

 

[srbhkshk]

If you picked Bradman from his time and dropped him in the 80s? Around 25.

If he actually grew up during these times, around 70-75 I reckon.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

We've been over this b4. He faced full strength English attacks in England in 1933 and averaged 55. He faced full English attacks in 1939 and averaged 67. Headley did just fine in England vs their full attacks. Therefore, it's logical to assume that if he faced the same attacks at home he'd do the same or better.

Regarding O'Reilly being missing, it's not , Headley’s fault that Bill debuted in 1932 ie a full year after the WI's one and only tour b4 WW2. The fact remains, he faced a full Aus attack in Australia and he came off 2nd best. Had he faced them at home, I have no doubt he'd have murdered them.

Tbh I found his post to be more of unwilling praise.

 

[fredfertang]

He wouldn't have been quite as dominant - 99.93 I reckon

 

[Ali TT]

Who'd be the journeyman spinner that would dismiss him in his final innings within touching distance of the 100 average though? England have had a few candidates since the 80s - Edmonds, Hemmings, Croft, Such, Treadwell, Leach.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Who'd be the journeyman spinner that would dismiss him in his final innings within touching distance of the 100 average though? England have had a few candidates since the 80s - Edmonds, Hemmings, Croft, Such, Treadwell, Leach.

Yet another thread…

 

[_00_deathscar]

Think he’d be 60-70, on the higher side of that. Possibly as high as 80 but no higher.

 

[ataraxia]

Hardly deserved to average 85 in his own era (if it were, as this question asks, neither batsman- or bowler-favouring), and that's no slight on him. Agree with deathscar but also think he could be found out a bit more, like a moderate upgrade on S Smith. Still would be a tier above.

 

[Prince EWS]

230 or so.

 

[kyear2]

2 of the innings against WI were in rain-affected pitches in the last match of the series.Also the series against WI was more of relative failure after huge series against England and then later against South Africa. Didn’t score in the first 2 matches after huge series and one later,scored a flawless 150 except a catch drop early on which can of course happen to anyone and a flawless 200+ in the next match.

Applying same logic what is Headley averaging? Faced 3rd Xi line up from England in WI and managed to average 37 against Ironmonger and Grimmett when O’Reilly wasn’t even there.
I would think of around 45-50 at best if I am applying the same criteria like you did.Great player indeed for the time but won’t be the same if Headley isn’t averaging 50+ in today’s date applying the same criteria which I don’t believe in.
I would still think Headley would be a ATG regardless of the era.

Want to answer the Headley question first.
I haven't been rating him as highly, I've listed a top tier and special mentions and his name hasn't come up.
But Headley also faced a much different and tougher challenge than Bradman did, one was on the strongest team in the world, at home, and one on his first trip down under, against said team and against the best attack in the world.
To follow on from the argument that if you adjust Bradman you have to adjust everyone, that's also not true.
In the present era, we play against 7 other test teams, so subtracting one team (your own) doesn't have that great an impact on comparisons because you've faced at least 6 other good teams that you can base your comparative average on. When you have only 2 good teams, but only one great attack, and that's on your team, you aren't playing on an even playing field. Even Bradman vs someone like Hammond were almost playing different sports.
Now don't get me wrong, Hammond, nor Headley were in the class of the great man.
But Headley only got one innings vs India, and no opportunities vs N. Z or S. A.
He averaged 71 vs England, Bradman 89, but 35 in Australia. Hammond averaged 51 vs Australia, 112 vs NZ, 62 vs SA and 79 vs India. Bradman was the master of the minnows, averaging 201 vs SA and 178 vs India, all at home.

As Peterhrt also illustrated, there was a drastic drop off of averages and shift in the preparation of pitches (outside of the Caribbean) after the great man retired. There was also quite the improvement in competition and bowling the world round. Honestly believe the shift to a more professional and competitive world sport didn't fully materialize till after the war, though it probably started mid 30's.

I don't see how anything presented above correlates to facing the quartet in the '80's, Lillee and Thompson, Lindwall and Miller, Imran and Hadlee at home, Steyn, Ambrose etc etc.... The closest he came was bodyline and even that fails in comparison.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of my opinion and we are all, I believe at least, our own opinions.