What would a modern player need to beat Bradman?

[subshakerz]

Assuming we are talking a modern player who has a full length career of at least 100 tests, what would be the minimum statistical record assuming batsman, all-rounder or bowler which if achieved you would be agreeable to rank slightly ahead of Bradman as the greatest cricketer ever?

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Batting average of 99.95.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Alternatively, a bowling all-rounder so dominant they average, say 33 or so with the bat and sub 22 with the ball at home. And maybe won the World Cup in both white ball formats on top of that. That player would probably be the best.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Alternatively, a bowling all-rounder so dominant they average, say 33 or so with the bat and sub 22 with the ball at home. And maybe won the World Cup in both white ball formats on top of that. That player would probably be the best.

Perhaps throw in a Compton Miller medal?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

If only WI would have persisted with Chandrika.

Wasted talent

 

[Ali TT]

A bat or some kind of club, although I guess bare hands would do.

 

[turnstyle]

A bat or some kind of club, although I guess bare hands would do.

Blokes been dead for over 20 years. I think a sneeze would be enough.

 

[ataraxia]

Something on the level of Imran Khan (so it won't happen)

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Perhaps an allrounder who plays all formats, averages over 40 with the bat and under 20 with the ball in tests, is an ex keeper, dynamic fielder, big hitter, and the fastest in the world between wickets.

 

[ataraxia]

Perhaps an allrounder who plays all formats, averages over 40 with the bat and under 20 with the ball in tests, is an ex keeper, dynamic fielder, big hitter, and the fastest in the world between wickets.

Sounds like Michael Bracewell to me

All-rounder: tick
All formats: tick
Averages over 40 with the ball and under 20 with the bat in tests: tick
Ex-keeper: tick
Dynamic fielder: kinda
Big hitter: tick
Fastest in the world between wickets: probably

 

[Migara]

Average 75+, and 60+ in all conditions as a batsman.

And of course as players Imran and Sobers have already beaten Bradman.

 

[Qlder]

With bigger bats, covered wickets and shorter boundaries they would need to average at least 149.94

 

[Line and Length]

Average 75+, and 60+ in all conditions as a batsman.

And of course as players Imran and Sobers have already beaten Bradman.

Only in your eyes.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

It's not always about numbers.

It's about being the best every time you get on the cricket field.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Something like player with Ponting with Bat and McGrath with the ball is probably equalling him. A player as good as Smith with the bat and McGrath with the ball probably even has Bradman beat.

For a bat, just average Twice as much as players as good as McCabe or Ponsford like Bradman did or average 1.75x than some of the best in history like Hammond,Sutcliffe, Headley, Nourse etc.

It’s already insanity level of how much better a player averaging mid 60s is better than someone averaging mid 50s for 20 ish year career for a secondary skill to comprehend. This just gets even insane trying to even think about equalling Bradman. That average of 99.94 sits somewhere around 95 ish and at worse 80-85, if one wants to make Bradman more human. Ofc it is 10x harder averaging 75 from 65 compared to averaging 65 from 55.

Anyway, anyone averaging 66 ish or above for a 20 year career for me retires as the best player ever except Bradman.

 

[subshakerz]

Something like player with Ponting with Bat and McGrath with the ball is probably equalling him. A player as good as Smith with the bat and McGrath with the ball probably even has Bradman beat.

For a bat, just average Twice as much as players as good as McCabe or Ponsford like Bradman did or average 1.75x than some of the best in history like Hammond,Sutcliffe, Headley, Nourse etc.

It’s already insanity level of how much better a player averaging mid 60s is better than someone averaging mid 50s for 20 ish year career for a secondary skill to comprehend. This just gets even insane trying to even think about equalling Bradman. That average of 99.94 sits somewhere around 95 ish and at worse 80-85, if one wants to make Bradman more human. Ofc it is 10x harder averaging 75 from 65 compared to averaging 65 from 55.

Anyway, anyone averaging 66 ish or above for a 20 year career for me retires as the best player ever except Bradman.

I think that is exaggerating.

If a player even was Shaun Pollock as a bowler and Chanderpaul/Clarke as a bat that would be enough to beat Bradman for me. Essentially world-class in two disciplines.

Also think someone averaging 80 odd over 100 tests should have longevity to beat Bradman.

For a bowler, averaging 17 and taking 7 wickets a tests may do it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Something like Garner as a batsman and Symonds as a fifth bowler.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Batsman: Minimum 10000 runs at over avg of 85; 70 in every country.

Bowler: Minimum 400 wickets at below avg of 15; 18 in evey country.

All-rounder: Minimum 7500 runs at over avg of 60; 50 in every country; and minimum 300 wickets at below avg of 20; 25 in every country.

(Or play something like Ajit Agarkar; but we all know that's even tougher, actually impossible heights too reach)

 

[Red]

Something like Tendulkar and Kohli rolled into one.

 

[Ali TT]

Something like Tendulkar and Kohli rolled into one.

While cricket has always given opportunity for players with less standard athletic physiques, I think a 5'8, 20 stone batter would struggle even with their talents.