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

[the big bambino]

Some would argue he did face a fast bowler of that calibre, Harold Larwood. Sure, Larwood's Test stats are nowhere near as good as these guys, but that is arguably/at least partly because many of Larwood's Tests were actually against Bradman.

He did face Lindwall in post WWII state cricket and was successful against him despite being relatively old at the time.

Any thread about Bradman can guarantee kyear2 reproducing that meaningless bilge, as if mere names are a measure of anything.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't want this to turn into an Imran situation, because I have nothing against either player, but some things doesn't compute to me.

Between Peterhrt's post with regards to averages of players before and after 1950, play the fact that the quality of fast bowling improved thereafter as averages plunged and pitches were given renewed life, why do we believe he could produce a hundred average.
Bradman never faced a great fast bowler of the likes of Lillee, Thompson, Roberts, Trueman, Lindwall, Holding, Ambrose, Hadlee Marshall, McGrath, Donald Steyn, Imran, Wasim, Waqar. Never faced any number of Indian spinners, from the quartet to Ashwin, at home, what would give us any indication that he would average the same against these guys that he did vs the assorted of bowlers he plundered his hundreds from.

The more variables you add, the more chance his average drops rather than goes up.

I think he had some sort of cheat code that conditions of his time didn't allow his peers to find a way around.

 

[kyear2]

Any thread about Bradman can guarantee kyear2 reproducing that meaningless bilge, as if mere names are a measure of anything.

Or your meaningless bilge that we ignore context and just assume everything remains the same.
But I guess if you're trying to be a dick you resort to ad hominem attacks.
Some of the attacks Bradman plundered
Pharker, Amaranth, Rangachari, Hazare, Mankad.
Farnes, Bowles, Geary, Verity, Hammond
Bell, Quinn, Vincent, McMillan, Morkel
He also faced Larwood, Tate, Voce in intervals. None of them are not the calibre of bowlers of later eras, that's literally all I'm saying. But some of you act like I physically assaulted a family member, it's a forum to discuss differing views.
Some of it was talent, quite a bit was the pitches but let's not pretend that if he was dropped into the 70's, 80's or 90's that he would have scored the same kind of runs that he scored before the war. We rate Tendulkar, Richards, Lara higher than many with higher averages not only because of the runs they scored, but who they were against.

 

[Burgey]

Definitely agree with the first part, and I understand the logic that an outlier like Bradman could be less likely to occur in a more professional/higher quality game. I can't imagine that Bradman would be averaging as low as 60 or 70 though. There are too many factors pushing things the other way, eg. more minnows, less dodgy pitches and a few others that have been mentioned, eg. Spikey re. conversion rate.

If Bradman played the same games and opposition that Sangakkara did he'd be averaging 150

He also wouldn't have had to go to work every day and hide his involvement, if any, in Hodgetts' stockbroking fraud. Must have been stressful.

 

[Burgey]

Some of it was talent, quite a bit was the pitches but let's not pretend that if he was dropped into the 70's, 80's or 90's that he would have scored the same kind of runs that he scored before the war. We rate Tendulkar, Richards, Lara higher than many with higher averages not only because of the runs they scored, but who they were against.

You don't just drop blokes into different eras. If you put Richards et al in the 30s and they tried to drop kick blokes over long on they would probably have been caught 3/4 the way to the fence with the bats they used back then, or wouldn't know how to play on wet decks.

You have to assume if Bradman plays in later eras he's afforded the same opportunities, equipment and training modalities which those later generations had. That's not unreasonable at all. In fact, not to factor that in is ridiculous. Kind of get a bit sick of saying this, but if you want to knock 40-50% off his average, do it for everyone in his era who faced the same standard of bowling. And if you do that you end up in arguments about whether George Headley and Jack Hobbs are better players than Graeme Wood ffs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You don't just drop blokes into different eras. If you put Richards et al in the 30s and they tried to drop kick blokes over long on they would probably have been caught 3/4 the way to the fence with the bats they used back then, or wouldn't know how to play on wet decks.

You have to assume if Bradman plays in later eras he's afforded the same opportunities, equipment and training modalities which those later generations had. That's not unreasonable at all. In fact, not to factor that in is ridiculous. Kind of get a bit sick of saying this, but if you want to knock 40-50% off his average, do it for everyone in his era who faced the same standard of bowling. And if you do that you end up in arguments about whether George Headley and Jack Hobbs are better players than Graeme Wood ffs.

- "Bradman would only average 60 or 70 if he played today"
- "Jack Hobbs is a great opening batsman"

Can't have both

 

[Prince EWS]

- "Bradman would only average 60 or 70 if he played today"
- "Jack Hobbs is a great opening batsman"

Can't have both

You probably could in theory given their careers didn't really overlap at all. Hammond and Headley are ones it'd be hard to argue were still great if Bradman averaged 40% less.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You probably could in theory given their careers didn't really overlap at all. Hammond and Headley are ones it'd be hard to argue were still great if Bradman averaged 40% less.

Sure but it's taking some mental gymnastics to get there and gets rid of the main pathway anti-Bradmanists go down to discount him, ie. the lower standards in the past

 

[honestbharani]

Why waste time on hypotheticals? Bradman dominated the game and stood above his peers by such a huge margin that its never been replicated since. Hence, he is the GOAT. End of.

 

[Burgey]

HB having what is referred to in alcoholics as (an all too rare in his case) moment of clarity.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Why waste time on hypotheticals? Bradman dominated the game and stood above his peers by such a huge margin that its never been replicated since. Hence, he is the GOAT. End of.

It's human nature to try and find an explanation for things that we don't understand

I believe that's how religion got started

Or maybe it was just a way for certain people to build power and control the masses

I don't know I'm not exactly a history expert

 

[the big bambino]

Or your meaningless bilge that we ignore context and just assume everything remains the same.
But I guess if you're trying to be a dick you resort to ad hominem attacks.
Some of the attacks Bradman plundered
Pharker, Amaranth, Rangachari, Hazare, Mankad.
Farnes, Bowles, Geary, Verity, Hammond
Bell, Quinn, Vincent, McMillan, Morkel
He also faced Larwood, Tate, Voce in intervals. None of them are not the calibre of bowlers of later eras, that's literally all I'm saying. But some of you act like I physically assaulted a family member, it's a forum to discuss differing views.
Some of it was talent, quite a bit was the pitches but let's not pretend that if he was dropped into the 70's, 80's or 90's that he would have scored the same kind of runs that he scored before the war. We rate Tendulkar, Richards, Lara higher than many with higher averages not only because of the runs they scored, but who they were against.

More names proving nothing. As if modem players haven’t thrashed weak attacks. Your whole argument is a list, selectivity and recency bias and that’s it. Which you repeat like some weird vendetta.

 

[honestbharani]

HB having what is referred to in alcoholics as (an all too rare in his case) moment of clarity.

Still waiting for yours though.

 

[The Sean]

Some of the attacks Bradman plundered
Pharker, Amaranth, Rangachari, Hazare, Mankad.
Farnes, Bowles, Geary, Verity, Hammond
Bell, Quinn, Vincent, McMillan, Morkel
He also faced Larwood, Tate, Voce in intervals. None of them are not the calibre of bowlers of later eras, that's literally all I'm saying.

Ok, a few things to deal with here.

Firstly, that second attack you've listed is bloody excellent. Farnes and Bowes (not Bowles) were outstanding pace bowlers for England, Geary a fine medium pacer, Verity one of the greatest spinners of all time (with a good record against Bradman) and Hammond a great fifth bowling option who frequently bowled higher in the line-up. How you have gone through all of Bradman's scorecards to pick out the worst attacks he faced - and let's be clear, that is what you've done - and come up with this particular one is baffling.

Secondly, yep those other two attacks aren't very good. Not much to work with there. The positive thing though is that now you've started the exercise to trawl through the scorecards of every batsman in history to identify the worst attacks they faced, the results should be interesting. Because, as always, you can't do that for Bradman and no one else.

Thirdly, LOL at listing those random Indian and South African attacks out in full as though they're meaningful and then handwaving that he "also faced Larwood, Voce and Tate at intervals" when I know you know that Bradman played far more Tests against Larwood, Voce and Tate (and Verity and Bedser and Farnes and Allen) than against those minnows.

Some of it was talent, quite a bit was the pitches but let's not pretend that if he was dropped into the 70's, 80's or 90's that he would have scored the same kind of runs that he scored before the war.

This way of thinking has been refuted so many times in this thread and multiple others that it's almost a meme now. Most recently by Burgey a matter of hours ago.

But some of you act like I physically assaulted a family member, it's a forum to discuss differing views.

And now you're doing what you did in the thread about Imran. Yes, it is a forum to discuss differing views and to be clear by and large I really like reading yours - I think your insights into West Indian cricket, particularly some of the more obscure and largely forgotten elements, are fantastic.

But you're not really doing that here. You're repeating the same agenda-driven, hyper-selective, consistently-refuted points (often as fact when they are just plain wrong) over and over and over and over again, and then playing the "poor me" victim card when it is called out each time.

 

[trundler]

Dang, more kyear2 propaganda getting ripped to shreds. Won't have anything to post about at this rate.

 

[subshakerz]

Why waste time on hypotheticals? Bradman dominated the game and stood above his peers by such a huge margin that its never been replicated since. Hence, he is the GOAT. End of.

He would still be if he averaged 70/80 today or 99. So that isn't really up for debate.

 

[GIMH]

@Spikey making a serious post is not what I expect or want to see, frankly

 

[Victor Ian]

Another thing to consider, if Bradman were to play in the modern era. He would not have lost some of his most productive years sitting out due to a war. Also, he would have been turning up to games in England fit and ready, rather than having nearly died on a boat trip to get there like I've read reports of. Of course, one thing going against him is that in the modern era, it is unlikely that his parents would have been so tight as to have him need to find a stump and golf ball to play with against a water tank. He'd have probably been given a proper bat as a gift somewhere or other and become a **** mediocre player like the rest of the prodigies we see today who only have careers of 50 odd. Or worse still, he'd be a crack shot in call of duty but never pick up a bat.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Another thing to consider, if Bradman were to play in the modern era. He would not have lost some of his most productive years sitting out due to a war. Also, he would have been turning up to games in England fit and ready, rather than having nearly died on a boat trip to get there like I've read reports of. Of course, one thing going against him is that in the modern era, it is unlikely that his parents would have been so tight as to have him need to find a stump and golf ball to play with against a water tank. He'd have probably been given a proper bat as a gift somewhere or other and become a **** mediocre player like the rest of the prodigies we see today who only have careers of 50 odd. Or worse still, he'd be a crack shot in call of duty but never pick up a bat.

Or he could have gone trundler's route and never leave the house, stuck behind a computer screen watching porn all day and night

 

[Ali TT]

The thing I find remarkable about cricket is that pretty much since WWI, the best batters have typically averaged 50+ but never more than 60 and the best bowlers 25- but never less than 20. There's been some variation in the frequency of such players across different era's but those boundaries have pretty much held as a clear demarcation between the good and the great The one obvious exception is Bradman who is so beyond the bell curve as to be in a different church tower.

I don't think we can say the same about other sports with similarly long statistical histories, namely the big US sports. There are statistical records in basketball and baseball up until the 60s/70s that bear no relation to the modern game, others perverted by the juice, while the tactics and rules in American Football have changed so much in the last 15 years as to have completely changed what some positions are expected to do and the outputs they produce.