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

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

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.

Everyone can have their own opinion. But must be said both Bradman and Headley’s average against England are of course not compable as Headley in average faced lot weaker attacks which can’t be argued.

The only time Bradman faced his own attack was in 1936 when O’Reilly and Grimmett had came after murdering South Africa’s strong line up and both of them at their absolute best got destroyed.Bradman as usual made a double ton.

As you mentioned yourself neither Hammond nor Headley were near Bradman class.The only question is how much closer were they which is all one’s opinion really. So, I think we could ageee to disagree really.

 

[the big bambino]

Always nice to see a thread containing a question that no one has ever thought of asking before. He'd play more often against modern minnows and bog average XIs. Suspect he'd average north of 120.

 

[Burgey]

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 since 2017 bowling era. For a whole career I can’t see him average less than 70-80 in any era.

When Bradman said that, he was asked why he'd "only" average 80 in that era and said "Well I am in my 60s."

Anyone thinking Bradman having to play more vs SA, the Windies and India in his era would have depleted his average has rocks in their head. Those sides were barely FC standard in his time. He played India in 1948 as an old man and averaged the small matter of 178. He'd have to undergo a double amputation to be rendered only moderately dominant against those sides home or away.

In the modern era he'd probably average somewhere between 90 and 110. If you want to argue he'd average 60 odd, that's fine as well, but just make sure to be fair you knock 40% off everyone else's averages from his era as well, so Hammond and Hobbs would average about 35 in today's era, and Headley about 37 which makes them about as good as [checks notes] Shaun Marsh or Mike Gatting.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

When Bradman said that, he was asked why he'd "only" average 80 in that era and said "Well I am in my 60s."

He'd probably average somewhere between 90 and 110. If you want to argue he'd average 60 odd, that's fine as well, but just make sure to b fair you knock 40% off everyone else's averages from his era as well, so Hammond and Hobbs would average about 35 in today's era, which makes them about as good as [checks notes] Shaun Marsh.

I don’t think he is averaging less than 70-80 in any era as I mentioned in the post. After thinking a bit I actually believe on him averaging 80-90 other than of course from 2017 bowling era where all ATGs (Kallis,Sobers,Hammond etc.) are gonna get their batting stats lowered too.

 

[subshakerz]

Bodyline shows that Bradman runscoring was restricted due to pace bowling.

 

[the big bambino]

It was restricted due to a subsequently outlawed tactic.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Always entertaining when people try so hard to downplay Bradman. Still haven't seen anything original here but you never know

 

[OverratedSanity]

Bodyline shows that Bradman runscoring was restricted due to pace bowling.

No this is a pretty ignorant thing to say. His runscoring was restricted because of field placements that were completely unfair.

Do you think Larwood or the other English bowlers didn't try to bowl fast in other series where they got smashed by Bradman?

 

[Burgey]

As OS just noted, Bodyline showed that Bradman's run scoring was restricted due to the field settings, not the bowling itself. He destroyed Larwood in 1930 when he operated with orthodox fields, and he'd destroy everyone else who had the misfortune to pick up a cricket ball and bowl to him with one as well.

 

[Prince EWS]

As OS just noted, Bodyline showed that Bradman's run scoring was restricted due to the field settings, not the bowling itself. He destroyed Larwood in 1930 when he operated with orthodox fields, and he'd destroy everyone else who had the misfortune to pick up a cricket ball and bowl to him with one as well.

Shardul vs Bradman. Imagine the punishment.

 

[Burgey]

Shardul vs Bradman. Imagine the punishment.

#punished

 

[kyear2]

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.

He has difficulty with Grimmett to begin the tour but improved and was improving as the tour went on. Wasn't this also his first overseas tour? Could be mistaken, but none the less he never got another shot against them.
The continued argument with some stating that he didn't face a full strength England in the Caribbean, speaks more to the times that it does to Headley.
It just simply wasn't the same game back then, don't understand how that part is in question.

 

[subshakerz]

No this is a pretty ignorant thing to say. His runscoring was restricted because of field placements that were completely unfair.

Do you think Larwood or the other English bowlers didn't try to bowl fast in other series where they got smashed by Bradman?

Fair enough, it was a legside field placing, but shortpitched bowling aimed at the batsmen's upper body was a common tactic by early 80s WI, most notably Sylvester Clarke. Don't see Bradman averaging 99 against that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Fair enough, it was a legside field placing, but shortpitched bowling aimed at the batsmen's upper body was a common tactic by early 80s WI, most notably Sylvester Clarke. Don't see Bradman averaging 99 against that.

Ok you can think that if you want to but the West Indies bowlers of the 80s didn't actually bowl anything resembling Bodyline tactics.

Look at this image and tell me what actually sticks out more, the fact that the ball was bowled short or the field placing? Modern batsmen didn't even have to face this.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fair enough, it was a legside field placing, but shortpitched bowling aimed at the batsmen's upper body was a common tactic by early 80s WI, most notably Sylvester Clarke. Don't see Bradman averaging 99 against that.

Can't see why not. Regardless he doesn't have to average 99 against the best team of the time to average 99 overall.

As someone said earlier, Bradman getting to play against 2000s Bangladesh & Zimbabwe, or the WI even, would have shot his average up even further.

 

[ataraxia]

Can't see why not. Regardless he doesn't have to average 99 against the best team of the time to average 99 overall.

As someone said earlier, Bradman getting to play against 2000s Bangladesh & Zimbabwe, or the WI even, would have shot his average up even further.

TJB implying that black-and-white cricket was equivalent in quality to modern cricket

 

[Howe_zat]

Bradman would be a poor player today, on account of being dead.

 

[TheJediBrah]

TJB implying that black-and-white cricket was equivalent in quality to modern cricket

It's customary in these discussions to apply scaling, ie. assuming the older players had the benefit of modern technology, time to train, professionalism etc.

 

[Ali TT]

Ok you can think that if you want to but the West Indies bowlers of the 80s didn't actually bowl anything resembling Bodyline tactics.

Look at this image and tell me what actually sticks out more, the fact that the ball was bowled short or the field placing? Modern batsmen didn't even have to face this.

View attachment 37129

Harry Brook would average 140 against this.

 

[Coronis]

Golf ball and cricket stump > any era adjustments imo.