What would a modern player need to beat Bradman?

[capt_Luffy]

Don't rate any of those lovely old ****s.

Don't really comment anymore at all on pre WWII cricket, honestly.

Except I do think Bradman would definitely be ATG, and probably clearly head and shoulders above Specialist batting peers in any era. I just cannot honestly comment on the numbers, which is a big part of any cricketing discussion.

Yeah, I expected that you won't think cricket existed pre 1970s....

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, I expected that you won't think cricket existed pre 1970s....

Hayden is the GOAT opener too

 

[Fuller Pilch]

This is basically saying Bradman was a massive outlier in his era, so he should be in this era too. But here we make an assumption his peers and modern players are from same player population. That assumption needs to be proved, which is quite difficult because of the reasons I have given.

Well actually cricket was MUCH MUCH bigger in England than it is today (perhaps as popular as football, or at least close) and despite class snobbery drew from a far wider socioeconomic range of the population than it has in recent decades.

 

[Migara]

How highly do you rate Wally Hammond, George Headley and Herbert Sutcliffe? Either you could think they're among World's top 10-15 batsmen and hence Don is miles ahead of everyone else, or if you think there's open interpretation for like Sachin or Sobers to be better, then they aren't top 100, even probably 200.

That is the exact difficulty I have described. Game has changed to such a level, that comparisons have become moot. Some of succesful players become unsuccesful in this era (and visa vs) due to the fact.

 

[Migara]

Well actually cricket was MUCH MUCH bigger in England than it is today (perhaps as popular as football, or at least close) and despite class snobbery drew from a far wider socioeconomic range of the population than it has in recent decades.

Probably yes. But the number of players involved in cricket I suppose has grown exponentially over time.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Well actually cricket was MUCH MUCH bigger in England than it is today (perhaps as popular as football, or at least close) and despite class snobbery drew from a far wider socioeconomic range of the population than it has in recent decades.

Cricket most probably peaked in Australia during Bradman’s era as well. At least lot bigger than now.

 

[Bolo.]

Cricket most probably peaked in Australia during Bradman’s era as well. At least lot bigger than now.

In absolute numbers or proportionally? Population will be up several hundred percent.

 

[shortpitched713]

Hayden is the GOAT opener too

Gavaskar is, but Hayden not too far behind as a clear second for me.

The longer we we go on in modern cricket, and get to see **** all in comparable quality of run scoring openers to what we so ungratefully poo-pooed in the 2000s the more clearly this will come into focus.

 

[Nintendo]

Gavaskar is, but Hayden not too far behind as a clear second for me.

The longer we we go on in modern cricket, and get to see **** all in comparable quality of run scoring openers to what we so ungratefully poo-pooed in the 2000s the more clearly this will come into focus.

Craig Symmonds>matthew hayden. Hayden doesn't even have 1 bbl hundred.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

In absolute numbers or proportionally? Population will be up several hundred percent.

Despite the growth of population, total men playing cricket in Australia would be higher in Bradman’s day than now. If we are considering proportionally then then the gap would ofc would be way higher.

 

[Bolo.]

Despite the growth of population, total men playing cricket in Australia would be higher in Bradman’s day than now. If we are considering proportionally then then the gap would ofc would be way higher.

You reckon something like 25%+ of men were playing in Bradman's time? I have no idea what the numbers are, but it sounds like a lot.

 

[Burgey]

Cricket most probably peaked in Australia during Bradman’s era as well. At least lot bigger than now.

Was massive in the 70s tbh and immediately post-WSC too. Until the Aus Open became properly relevant again, it had very little summer competition

 

[TheJediBrah]

Despite the growth of population, total men playing cricket in Australia would be higher in Bradman’s day than now. If we are considering proportionally then then the gap would ofc would be way higher.

This seems a bit hard to believe

 

[Starfighter]

This seems a bit hard to believe

I'd suspect the actual numbers now are higher, but by nowhere near as much as the population relatively. Might not be higher than, say, the seventies though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'd suspect the actual numbers now are higher, but by nowhere near as much as the population relatively. Might not be higher than, say, the seventies though.

Isn't Australia's national sport cricket? Is it really that unpopular now?

 

[Coronis]

Despite the growth of population, total men playing cricket in Australia would be higher in Bradman’s day than now. If we are considering proportionally then then the gap would ofc would be way higher.

Yeah doubt this very much. Australia’s population during Bradman’s career was roughly 6.5-7.5 mill over the course. So roughly 3.25-3.75 million.

Australia currently has roughly 1.5 million registered players, of which 70% are male, so, roughly 1 million men. Even without counting for whoever is not registered, I very much doubt 1 in 3 Aussie males were ever playing cricket.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah doubt this very much. Australia’s population during Bradman’s career was roughly 6.5-7.5 mill over the course. So roughly 3.25-3.75 million.

Australia currently has roughly 1.5 million registered players, of which 70% are male, so, roughly 1 million men. Even without counting for whoever is not registered, I very much doubt 1 in 3 Aussie males were ever playing cricket.

I mean, if cricket with your school or neighborhood mates in some yard counts then I am pretty sure 90% of Aussie male population were cricketers..... And may even be now.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Isn't Australia's national sport cricket? Is it really that unpopular now?

No it's AFL. Except in Queensland and NSW where as far as I'm it's NRL or Union, though they still play AFL there just not as much. Cricket my be close in those 2 states I'm not sure. Frankly the less I know about NSW and Queensland the better

 

[TheJediBrah]

I mean, if cricket with your school or neighborhood mates in some yard counts then I am pretty sure 90% of Aussie male population were cricketers..... And may even be now.

The vast majority of males in Australia wouldn't have anything to do with cricket. A surprisingly large proportion are either born overseas or 2nd generation by now

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

I highly doubt there are more male cricketers now despite the 4x increase in population. It is definitely not much higher.

Outside of few Anglo-private schools,may be 1 kid in 15 plays cricket (thats actually being liberal). In Bradman’s or even Trumper’s era I doubt the figure would be any higher than 1 out of 4.