What would a modern player need to beat Bradman?

[ma1978]

I do wish that sometimes we would look at context. Tendulkar and Lara played in how many countries in how many different conditions. Lara didn't face any minnows in his career, Lara and Tendulkar faced and had their averages greatly impacted by Wasim, Waqar, Warne, McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Muralitharan,, and that's just the ATGs. The 30's was literally was known for the flattest pitches in the history of the game. Not that anyone gives a damn, but can't sign on to thinking that Bradman was twice as good as SRT, BCL, IVAR, SPDS, GSAS.

then why didn’t Hammond and Headley and McCabe and Nourse andMerchant all benefit from those same advantages

the fact is what a great batsman averages is shockingly range bound, except one outlier that’s so ridiculous it breaks any statistical model - that’s Bradman. It’s so far off the page era and context are irrelevant

 

[Coronis]

I remember reading in a book at some point “it couldn’t have been that the pitches were flat for Bradman and nobody else”.

Obviously 30’s were a good batting era in general but what really bothers me is people trying to significantly downgrade his achievements whilst simultaneously still ranking the other greats from that time highly. Pick a lane.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I remember reading in a book at some point “it couldn’t have been that the pitches were flat for Bradman and nobody else”.

Obviously 30’s were a good batting era in general but what really bothers me is people trying to significantly downgrade his achievements whilst simultaneously still ranking the other greats from that time highly. Pick a lane.

You also don't see people rating the bowlers of that era way higher, which you would do with consistent logic.

If Bradman's average is inflated by 30+ runs because of the pitches then what about the bowlers of the time? Bert Ironmonger who averaged <18 in the games that Bradman played too . . . can't be because of the pitches unless you think Ironmonger would average 12 if he played in another era.

Same logic makes Bill O'Reilly miles ahead of Warne or Murali as a bowler, given he averaged 22 with the ball during the same time as Bradman played. Would he have averaged 16 or 17 in another era? Ridiculous.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You also don't see people rating the bowlers of that era way higher, which you would do with consistent logic.

If Bradman's average is inflated by 30+ runs because of the pitches then what about the bowlers of the time? Bert Ironmonger who averaged <18 in the games that Bradman played too . . . can't be because of the pitches unless you think Ironmonger would average 12 if he played in another era.

Same logic makes Bill O'Reilly miles ahead of Warne or Murali as a bowler, given he averaged 22 with the ball during the same time as Bradman played. Would he have averaged 16 or 17 in another era? Ridiculous.

If we try to adjust Bradman's average by 30 runs and do it equally with every player of that time; then players like Wally Hammond and George Headley would average in low 30s; Dudley Nourse, Bill Ponsford and Stan McCabe in low to mid 20s and the bowlers like Larwood, Voce, Gregory and McDonald all (while bowling average and batting average goes hand in hand, but even by reducing it in half) around 15..... Spinners like O Reilly, Grimmett and Verity even much lower. It doesn't even makes sense. The thing is, Bradman's record doesn't makes sense; and by using rationale to justify that he indeed was marginally ahead of Sachin, Lara, Smith, Sobers or Richards lands us into these problems.

 

[shortpitched713]

I think the way to get around this ( and I know it feels very wrong to the oldheads ), is to place asterisks next to the accomplishments of players before the modern era, and especially those playing before the post WWII era. It's the only logical way to incorporate Bradman's exploits into the history of cricket, without concluding that he's an alien from another planet. The game was a different, slower version than now. Bradman is the greatest pioneer of batting who led to the evolution of modern batsmen, ones that it is prerequisite to test their reflex in addition to all the other guile in the bowling toolkit, in order to beat ( in a way that the older players were simply not ). The speed gun creeping up is the most obvious way, but spinners with more revs can attain the same effect, for anyone who knows anything about batting.

We always ask about the older batsmen "who bowled to them". The clear, and most objectively reasonable answer would be "no one relevant by modern standards". Until we got to the modern era of bowling evolution, batsmen could not be tested in quite the same way.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think the way to get around this ( and I know it feels very wrong to the oldheads ), is to place asterisks next to the accomplishments of players before the modern era, and especially those playing before the post WWII era. It's the only logical way to incorporate Bradman's exploits into the history of cricket, without concluding that he's an alien from another planet. The game was a different, slower version than now. Bradman is the greatest pioneer of batting who led to the evolution of modern batsmen, ones that it is prerequisite to test their reflex in addition to all the other guile in the bowling toolkit, in order to beat ( in a way that the older players were simply not ). The speed gun creeping up is the most obvious way, but spinners with more revs can attain the same effect, for anyone who knows anything about batting.

Bradman also has played 15 matches post WWII and averaged over 100 in them......

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think the way to get around this ( and I know it feels very wrong to the oldheads ), is to place asterisks next to the accomplishments of players before the modern era, and especially those playing before the post WWII era. It's the only logical way to incorporate Bradman's exploits into the history of cricket, without concluding that he's an alien from another planet. The game was a different, slower version than now. Bradman is the greatest pioneer of batting who led to the evolution of modern batsmen, ones that it is prerequisite to test their reflex in addition to all the other guile in the bowling toolkit, in order to beat ( in a way that the older players were simply not ). The speed gun creeping up is the most obvious way, but spinners with more revs can attain the same effect, for anyone who knows anything about batting.

We always ask about the older batsmen "who bowled to them". The clear, and most objectively reasonable answer would be "no one relevant by modern standards". Until we got to the modern era of bowling evolution, batsmen could not be tested in quite the same way.

This is another great way to rationalise avoiding the uncomfortable reality

 

[kyear2]

then why didn’t Hammond and Headley and McCabe and Nourse andMerchant all benefit from those same advantages

the fact is what a great batsman averages is shockingly range bound, except one outlier that’s so ridiculous it breaks any statistical model - that’s Bradman. It’s so far off the page era and context are irrelevant

That's the easiest question of all, but before I get there. I'm sure @peterhrt demonstrated not only how flat those pitches were, but how there was a converted effort after he retired to lively up the pitches, which was more or less accomplished everywhere outside of the Caribbean.

Persons always reference Bradman as a statistical outlier, but Wilt had some crazy seasons as well, a 50 point, 25 rebound effort that may never be matched, the reason it's not celebrated as much today is the same reason why the Celtics championships aren't. Too few teams, two rounds of the playoffs and one team had most of the good players. It doesn't mean the same.

In that time there were two certifiable ATG bowlers, Grimmett and O'Reilly. It's not fair to say Bradman was even twice as good as Hammond because with each other being the only other competitive team it totally changes the equation.

SA, Ind, W. I and each other. SA, India and WI are minnows, outside of Bodyline England was not a force. So if each team faced 2 minnows, a feisty WI bowling attack (though minnow team over all) and each other as primary opposition, and one team was average to poor and the other had unquestionably the best two bowlers in the world, how is that an even playing field.

It's not like Viv, he didn't have to face his own bowlers but he had Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, Chandra, Lillee, Thompson. Bradman didn't have to face his guys but he had to face .... mainly medium pacers on flat decks.

I probably haven't articulated this as well as I wanted to, but basically with such a small amount of quality opponents, namely 1, and you have by far the best attack in the world, played in 3 countries and super favorable conditions, he had the perfect storm. And yes he capitalized better than anyone else, but does anyone where believe he would have done this in the '80's or 90's? Great batsmen are impacted more by good bowling way more than the other way round, that's proven in the game. Tendulkar and Lara struggled vs Donald, Wasim, McGrath, their numbers took a hit, that's what happens when you face the great ones in the slightest of favorable conditions.

Bradman was the greatest batsman ever, he was better than Hammond, better than Tendulkar, better than Richards, Sobers, Hobbs, all of them. But the only batsmen he was twice as good as we're the ones on his own team who faced similar circumstances, especially in the time of only two good teams.

I don't expect anyone would agree with me, and that's not my objective. I'm just explaining my perspective.

 

[howitzer]

That's the easiest question of all, but before I get there. I'm sure @peterhrt demonstrated not only how flat those pitches were, but how there was a converted effort after he retired to lively up the pitches, which was more or less accomplished everywhere outside of the Caribbean.

Persons always reference Bradman as a statistical outlier, but Wilt had some crazy seasons as well, a 50 point, 25 rebound effort that may never be matched, the reason it's not celebrated as much today is the same reason why the Celtics championships aren't. Too few teams, two rounds of the playoffs and one team had most of the good players. It doesn't mean the same.

In that time there were two certifiable ATG bowlers, Grimmett and O'Reilly. It's not fair to say Bradman was even twice as good as Hammond because with each other being the only other competitive team it totally changes the equation.

SA, Ind, W. I and each other. SA, India and WI are minnows, outside of Bodyline England was not a force. So if each team faced 2 minnows, a feisty WI bowling attack (though minnow team over all) and each other as primary opposition, and one team was average to poor and the other had unquestionably the best two bowlers in the world, how is that an even playing field.

It's not like Viv, he didn't have to face his own bowlers but he had Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, Chandra, Lillee, Thompson. Bradman didn't have to face his guys but he had to face .... mainly medium pacers on flat decks.

I probably haven't articulated this as well as I wanted to, but basically with such a small amount of quality opponents, namely 1, and you have by far the best attack in the world, played in 3 countries and super favorable conditions, he had the perfect storm. And yes he capitalized better than anyone else, but does anyone where believe he would have done this in the '80's or 90's? Great batsmen are impacted more by good bowling way more than the other way round, that's proven in the game. Tendulkar and Lara struggled vs Donald, Wasim, McGrath, their numbers took a hit, that's what happens when you face the great ones in the slightest of favorable conditions.

Bradman was the greatest batsman ever, he was better than Hammond, better than Tendulkar, better than Richards, Sobers, Hobbs, all of them. But the only batsmen he was twice as good as we're the ones on his own team who faced similar circumstances, especially in the time of only two good teams.

I don't expect anyone would agree with me, and that's not my objective. I'm just explaining my perspective.

Interested what @peterhrt takes would actually be rather than a post which assumes.

 

[honestbharani]

I think there may have been more important players for teams than Bradman was for his (and I could well be wrong about it as while I know a bit of the history of the game, I am hardly a student) but there has never been anyone more dominant. He was probably twice as dominant as the next best cricketer. I believe in comparing anyone only within their era and then trying to compare their level of superiority to their peers when comparing across different eras. So Bradman continues to be and will probably always be, the absolute platinum tier. Really difficult to see anyone dominate to that level in the modern game.

 

[ma1978]

The difference between Bradman and Tendulkar is greater than the difference between Tendulkar and say, Mark Ramprakash

 

[Victor Ian]

That's the easiest question of all, but before I get there. I'm sure @peterhrt demonstrated not only how flat those pitches were, but how there was a converted effort after he retired to lively up the pitches, which was more or less accomplished everywhere outside of the Caribbean.

Persons always reference Bradman as a statistical outlier, but Wilt had some crazy seasons as well, a 50 point, 25 rebound effort that may never be matched, the reason it's not celebrated as much today is the same reason why the Celtics championships aren't. Too few teams, two rounds of the playoffs and one team had most of the good players. It doesn't mean the same.

In that time there were two certifiable ATG bowlers, Grimmett and O'Reilly. It's not fair to say Bradman was even twice as good as Hammond because with each other being the only other competitive team it totally changes the equation.

SA, Ind, W. I and each other. SA, India and WI are minnows, outside of Bodyline England was not a force. So if each team faced 2 minnows, a feisty WI bowling attack (though minnow team over all) and each other as primary opposition, and one team was average to poor and the other had unquestionably the best two bowlers in the world, how is that an even playing field.

It's not like Viv, he didn't have to face his own bowlers but he had Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, Chandra, Lillee, Thompson. Bradman didn't have to face his guys but he had to face .... mainly medium pacers on flat decks.

I probably haven't articulated this as well as I wanted to, but basically with such a small amount of quality opponents, namely 1, and you have by far the best attack in the world, played in 3 countries and super favorable conditions, he had the perfect storm. And yes he capitalized better than anyone else, but does anyone where believe he would have done this in the '80's or 90's? Great batsmen are impacted more by good bowling way more than the other way round, that's proven in the game. Tendulkar and Lara struggled vs Donald, Wasim, McGrath, their numbers took a hit, that's what happens when you face the great ones in the slightest of favorable conditions.

Bradman was the greatest batsman ever, he was better than Hammond, better than Tendulkar, better than Richards, Sobers, Hobbs, all of them. But the only batsmen he was twice as good as we're the ones on his own team who faced similar circumstances, especially in the time of only two good teams.

I don't expect anyone would agree with me, and that's not my objective. I'm just explaining my perspective.

The reason you haven't articulated it as well as you'd have liked is because you're wrong.

 

[shortpitched713]

This is another great way to rationalise avoiding the uncomfortable reality

Which is?

 

[Gob]

I don't endorse one player beating another but if it is necessary, one can look up to Ben Stokes

 

[peterhrt]

Interested what @peterhrt takes would actually be rather than a post which assumes.

There are Aussie posters here who will know more about Bradman than I do, one or two of whom saw him in action. As usual there are two sides to the argument.

While he was still playing, and for some time afterwards, Bradman was not universally considered the greatest-ever batsman. The sticking point was his performance on bad pitches. On these surfaces he failed virtually every time and never looked like getting any runs. Bradman did not deny this and responded simply that he did not believe proper cricket should be played in such circumstances as batting was too much of a lottery. He did enjoy a little English rain as it helped the ball come on to the bat, like dew in India.

Perhaps the best biography of Bradman was written in 1978 by Irving Rosenwater, who was a huge admirer of the Don. In it he said:

Was it rather that in conditions which the Don's mind, rightly or wrongly, could not accept as 'fair', he did not choose to play seriously? The evidence seems to suggest that undoubtedly there was something psychological in Bradman's approach to a bad pitch – the approach, for example, that Hobbs never adopted. If a great batsman is to be judged in his periods of ordeal, rather than in his periods of ease at the wicket, then Bradman does not come out on top.

Jack Fingleton spent the last years of his life trying to persuade everyone that Trumper was Australia's greatest batsman. Rain-damaged wickets were a significant part of his argument. And there were still plenty who believed that nobody could have scored as many runs as Grace on the rough pitches of the 1860s and 1870s. Certainly not Bradman.

So how did Bradman still average over 90? The fact is that he played very few innings on bad pitches. Australian wickets were allowed to be fully covered from the early 1920s and most were. Grace was brought up on dodgy tracks. Hobbs saw plenty of them. Trumper fewer but still more than Bradman. Trumper also practised assiduously on damaged net pitches. Why couldn't Bradman do the same?

Maybe a hard-nosed calculation that it was not worth tinkering with a technique that was serving him so well on decent surfaces, for the sake of scraping a few extra runs in an occasional low-scoring match while risking injury in the process. Given their respective experience, it was unfair to compare Bradman on a bad pitch with Grace or Hobbs, and not entirely fair to compare him with Trumper.

In any case the argument is dead and gone. Sticky wickets no longer exist and the term is no longer part of the English language (meaning facing adversity). Bradman is now solely judged by his overall averages. He played well over 90% of his innings on reasonable surfaces, and on these he proved himself the best by some way.

With his successors having also played mainly on covered pitches, it is difficult to consider any of them equal to Bradman, given the large discrepancy in average. None of them dominated their contemporaries like he did. For those who went before him, it is a question of weighing versatility and completeness against overall runscoring.

 

[Starfighter]

The idea of judging batsmen on their ability on conditions that were only faced a small proportion of the time is really a romanticist disguise for not wanting to admit a newer player is better. Fingleton of course also had personal animus.

Also the argument with respect to WG Grace is interesting. In his time pitches were left entirely open. This meant that he would rarely, if ever, have faced a bowler above medium pace on a rain damaged surface, unlike in Australia in 36/37 or 50/51, when as was common post-war the landings were covered.

 

[peterhrt]

Also the argument with respect to WG Grace is interesting. In his time pitches were left entirely open. This meant that he would rarely, if ever, have faced a bowler above medium pace on a rain damaged surface, unlike in Australia in 36/37 or 50/51, when as was common post-war the landings were covered.

This is true. He may have been less bothered about rain than about bumps, ridges and pebbles.

 

[Nintendo]

Now this is the claim we have trouble with. Is he twice better as a 50 averaging batsman, say Tendulkar or Lara. Very difficult to say because there is no particular way to compare the quality of cricket they played, or the effect of increasing number of oppositions and conditions to play in. At best this is a subjective analysis.

May be some one use AI to model for all these variables and can come up with an answer.

50+50=100?

 

[Migara]

50+50=100?

50 oranges + 50 mandarins

nah . . .

 

[Nintendo]

50 oranges + 50 mandarins

nah . . .

Fact's don't care about your feelings.