How much would a batsmen need to average to overtake Bradman?

[capt_Luffy]

If the question is whether twice as many tests across conditions and opponents or much longer career against fewer familiar opponents is likely to result in maintaining a 100 average, it's debatable.

Doesn't matters that much without the longevity

 

[TheJediBrah]

Maintaining the standard over 20 years is more impressive than a variety of conditions (which isn't even comparable between the 2). Anyway wasn't back in Bradman's day uncovered pitches? Could be more variety in conditions based on that alone

Could make the argument that Bradman would have averaged higher with modern wickets

 

[subshakerz]

Maintaining the standard over 20 years is more impressive than a variety of conditions (which isn't even comparable between the 2). Anyway wasn't back in Bradman's day uncovered pitches? Could be more variety in conditions based on that alone

Could make the argument that Bradman would have averaged higher with modern wickets

It's not just variety of conditions and attacks it's twice as many tests, more opportunities to stumble and face bogie opponents. I'm just arguing it's not as clear cut.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's not just variety of conditions and attacks it's twice as many tests, more opportunities to stumble and face bogie opponents. I'm just arguing it's not as clear cut.

And we all are saying given the difference in number of years, it's pretty clear cut

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's not just variety of conditions and attacks it's twice as many tests, more opportunities to stumble and face bogie opponents. I'm just arguing it's not as clear cut.

You're more likely to suffer a drop in average from an extended time frame than a larger number of Tests over a smaller time frame.

If Steve Smith played twice as many Tests between 2014 and 2018 he would probably still average the same. But if you made him play an extra 5 years either side of his peak but with less Tests his average would be a lot lower.

It is pretty clear cut tbh

 

[subshakerz]

And we all are saying given the difference in number of years, it's pretty clear cut

In the example you gave you did the difference at 13 years versus 20 years.

So to distill it you are arguing maintaining that average for 7 more years of a career is worth more than doing so against several more opponents and attacks and pitches and doing so in double the games. I think there is a good case to be made for both being statistically as impressive.

 

[capt_Luffy]

In the example you gave you did the difference at 13 years versus 20 years.

So to distill it you are arguing maintaining that average for 7 more years of a career is worth more than doing so against several more opponents and attacks and pitches and doing so in double the games. I think there is a good case to be made for both being statistically as impressive.

There isn't. 20 years is significantly more impressive than 13 years.

 

[subshakerz]

You're more likely to suffer a drop in average from an extended time frame than a larger number of Tests over a smaller time frame.

If Steve Smith played twice as many Tests between 2014 and 2018 he would probably still average the same. But if you made him play an extra 5 years either side of his peak but with less Tests his average would be a lot lower.

It is pretty clear cut tbh

What about twice the number of opponents?

 

[TheJediBrah]

What about twice the number of opponents?

Not a relevant factor to average either way. Again you could even make an argument the opposite that limited opponents in Bradman's time actually held him back from averaging more because he was playing against the very best most of the time.

I'm not interested in making that argument but it's more convincing than saying you think he would average less

 

[subshakerz]

There isn't. 20 years is significantly more impressive than 13 years.

Dude all it takes is one bogie team for Bradmans average to drop.

Imagine if he had a couple more teams of England and WI quality to play as well. Again, no 100 average.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Dude all it takes is one bogie team for Bradmans average to drop.

Imagine if he had a couple more teams of England and WI quality to play as well. Again, no 100 average.

Lol if you think a single bogie team would have plummeted Don's AVG.

And imagine, if he had a few more teams like India and SA and probably even worse ones.

 

[subshakerz]

Not a relevant factor to average either way. Again you could even make an argument the opposite that limited opponents in Bradman's time actually held him back from averaging more because he was playing against the very best most of the time.

I'm not interested in making that argument but it's more convincing than saying you think he would average less

You have no idea how he would average with more opponents since it depends on the quality of opponents added to play. Add one more stronger opponent and he doesn't average 99. One weaker and he averages 110. Hence why I say it's debatable.

 

[subshakerz]

Lol if you think a single bogie team would have plummeted Don's AVG.

And imagine, if he had a few more teams like India and SA and probably even worse ones.

A single bogie team means a 99 average may be a 80-90 average.

That is my entire point, there are more variables with more teams. This is obvious.

 

[capt_Luffy]

A single bogie team means a 99 average may be a 80-90 average.

That is my entire point, there are more variables with more teams. This is obvious.

Add another minnow to balance then, it shoots to 110.

Bottomline, playing more Tests might put you against more challenging teams, but also leads you more wankers as well. 20 years is just objectively superior here. You basically are arguing Cook had a more challenging career than Hobbs.

 

[subshakerz]

Add another minnow to balance then, it shoots to 110.

Bottomline, playing more Tests might put you against more challenging teams, but also leads you more wankers as well. 20 years is just objectively superior here. You basically are arguing Cook had a more challenging career than Hobbs.

No I am arguing it is debatable based on the quality of opponents added for him to play. You cant assume it will be an equal mix and he won't have any bogie team. Hence we can't have a blanket statement that longevity automatically is more impressive than higher and more varied samples.

And If he played for Aussies he wouldn't be playing many minnows anyways.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No I am arguing it is debatable based on the quality of opponents added for him to play. Hence we can't have a blanket statement that longevity automatically is more impressive than higher and more varied samples.

And If he played for Aussies he wouldn't be playing many minnows anyways.

Slightly Weak teams were enough for him to score tons. And it's a fact that maintaining a level of output over 20 years is more impressive than over 13. Doesn't matters if 13 has a more *squeaky clean* record across opponents. That level of output for 7 years just snatches it

 

[sayon basak]

If the lad averages 87, the gap between him and the Don is about the same as the one between Graham Thorpe and Garfield Sobers.

Look at the ratios.

 

[subshakerz]

Slightly Weak teams were enough for him to score tons. And it's a fact that maintaining a level of output over 20 years is more impressive than over 13. Doesn't matters if 13 has a more *squeaky clean* record across opponents. That level of output for 7 years just snatches it

You didn't address my point because I think you agree that a mix of maybe 60 percent stronger opponents means Bradman won't maintain that average.

So your position should be that 20 years is more impressive with the caveat that he faces the same quality overall opponents which we can't be sure of.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You didn't address my point because I think you agree that a mix of maybe 60 percent stronger opponents means Bradman won't maintain that average.

So your position should be that 20 years is more impressive with the caveat that he faces the same quality overall opponents which we can't be sure of.

It we can be sure of. Bradman faced WI and England most of his career and averages high 80s vs them. A nominal mix of weaker opponents and the glimpse of runs he scored against them, easily shoots it to mid 90s to mid 100s. His average is pretty bulletproof.

And 20 years in this regard is factually more impressive than someone maintaining a slightly better and more balanced record over 13 years.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You have no idea how he would average with more opponents since it depends on the quality of opponents added to play. Add one more stronger opponent and he doesn't average 99. One weaker and he averages 110. Hence why I say it's debatable.

Your only point is to say that "it's debatable"?

A variance in his average based on his opponents is just as likely to bump him up to 110 as it is to lower it to 90. So how about we just average it out back to 100 then.

Add 15 runs for uncovered wickets, make it 115.

There you go, if a modern batsman plays for 20 years they need to average 115.01