Bradmans average in contemporary cricket..

[SJS]

You should seriously be writing books........That was awesomely well said.

Thanks.

Actually, I am writing one. It'll take two years I think.

 

[a massive zebra]

84.7 IMO. And that is not just a random stab in the dark, but a calculated figure taking into account the differing conditions of the times.

 

[a massive zebra]

Thanks.

Actually, I am writing one. It'll take two years I think.

And it is about......

 

[PY]

I think it's pretty obvious what it is about....

How about a Megane, a crazy economist with ginger hair and 3 failed driving tests.

Don't forget to credit me.

 

[Langeveldt]

Lets have a look..

+ Covered pitches and quicker outfields
+ Better Equipment

- Better fielders
- Fitter, stronger bowlers

SO by that calculation, his test average would be about 99 these days...

 

[bennyr]

84.7 IMO. And that is not just a random stab in the dark, but a calculated figure taking into account the differing conditions of the times.

Very close to his 84.5 Standardised average from Charles Davis's "The Best of the Best".

But given the plethora of batsmen we have these days with averages over 50, I reckon it might be a lot higher. When I was a boy, an average over fifty was a sign of a truly great batsman. These days, it's the sign of a very good batsman. So I'd say things have moved so much in favour of batsmen that Bradman would average over 100.

I can't find the quote, so it may be slightly wrong, but I remember reading that in th late 60's Bradman was asked what he thought he would average if he was playing today. He said around mid fifties. When the guy who asked him said "So low?" he responded "Well, I am in my sixties."

 

[Slow Love™]

Ah, he was a card, that Bradman.

Had a weakness against the short ball though - so I'd guess that he'd average around the mid to late 50's or so.

Maybe 56.6.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Very close to his 84.5 Standardised average from Charles Davis's "The Best of the Best".

But given the plethora of batsmen we have these days with averages over 50, I reckon it might be a lot higher. When I was a boy, an average over fifty was a sign of a truly great batsman. These days, it's the sign of a very good batsman. So I'd say things have moved so much in favour of batsmen that Bradman would average over 100.

I can't find the quote, so it may be slightly wrong, but I remember reading that in th late 60's Bradman was asked what he thought he would average if he was playing today. He said around mid fifties. When the guy who asked him said "So low?" he responded "Well, I am in my sixties."

Batting averages have gone up since the 70s and 80s, but they fell between the pre-war years and 80s, as the era of the Timeless Test ended.

 

[bennyr]

Batting averages have gone up since the 70s and 80s, but they fell between the pre-war years and 80s, as the era of the Timeless Test ended.

Here are some figures lifted from "The Best of the Best":

Test batting averages, all teams:
1930s: 32.4
1940s: 35.6
1970-74: 34.3
1975-79: 31.7
1980-84: 32.2
1985-89: 33.2
1990-94: 32.2
1995-99: 31.1

And there it unfortunately ends. I would love to know the figure for 2000-04, but lack the time and/or knowledge to extract it. If anyone else does I'd love to know it.

Since Bradman played most of his cricket in the 30's I'd say the conditions Bradman played in mostly match the "when I was a boy" era (the 80's). Remember that by his own presence in test cricket at the time he would have lifted the average slightly.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I would say that the presence of the young India, New Zealand and the West Indies lowered that more than slightly, however.

Raw stats can be so incredibly misleading, can't they?

 

[bennyr]

I would say that the presence of the young India, New Zealand and the West Indies lowered that more than slightly, however.

Raw stats can be so incredibly misleading, can't they?

Yes, these sides were good for raising averages.

But in the 30s and 40s Australia played one five test series against West Indies (1930-31), one five test series against India (1947-48) and one test against NZ (1946).

This isn't much compared to the regular series played against England and South Africa.

 

[a massive zebra]

Had a weakness against the short ball though - so I'd guess that he'd average around the mid to late 50's or so.

Maybe 56.6.

Your joking, right?

He was never seriously troubled by any fast bowler and the only bowler to ever cause him trouble was Hedley Verity. England tested him out with short balls in the bodyline series and he was still by far the most successful batsman on either side despite the now illegal legside field.

 

[SJS]

And it is about......

Well Its about quite a few things basically on how the game, its public, its culture, the reporting...everything has changed. But I am using Sachin and his status of a demi-God in India as a kind of refernce point for this. Its going to be called..."The Pedestal Is A Lonely Place"

 

[SJS]

Ah, he was a card, that Bradman.

Had a weakness against the short ball though - so I'd guess that he'd average around the mid to late 50's or so.

Maybe 56.6.

Are you kidding or unwell ?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I think this was what he was getting at:

England in Australia 1932-33 (Bodyline series) - Test Averages

AUSTRALIA

Batting              M   I  NO   HS     R    AVGE     CT/ST
D.G.Bradman          4   8   1  103*  396   56.57      3

 

[a massive zebra]

But you cannot bowl with that type of field anymore and he was still by far the most successful batsman on either side.

 

[SJS]

I think this was what he was getting at:

England in Australia 1932-33 (Bodyline series) - Test Averages

AUSTRALIA

Batting              M   I  NO   HS     R    AVGE     CT/ST
D.G.Bradman          4   8   1  103*  396   56.57      3

I am aware of those figures. This was not about short pitched bowling it was about about persistent bowling on the batsman's body of ver very accurate short pitched balls with five fielders around the bat on the leg side and another two on the fence.

No modern day batsman has ever faced that since such field placing has been outlawed.

Instead of asking how Bradman would have fared today and then giving these useless statistics, ask any of the modern day greats, how they think they will perform against such bowling and such fields.

Ask Sunil Gavaskar what would happen if such bowling with such fields was directed at him by the West Indian fast bowlers he scored so heavily against and he will tell you it would have been impossible to stay.

Body line bowling was not just any short pitched bowling that you see today.

Bradman faced short pitched bowling al;l his life and was one of the best players of short pitched bowling the game has ever seen. Those who think otherwise need to brush up their knowledge of the game's history.

Today we have helmets, we limit the number of bouncers but most important of all we do not allow more than two players behind square on the leg side. So if you hook you can be caght only if there are fielders in the deep however this means there can be no fielders close on the leg side. So you can at least fend off the bouncers, which I repeat are limited and therefore prdictable to an extent.

Imagine six bouncers an over by a the worlds fastest bowler who is fats like Shoaib and accurate like McGrath. Then imagine that you are playing him with no helmet. Then imagine that there is a fielder at long leg and another behind square leg. Then imagine that there is a forward short leg. a backward short leg one or stwo leg slips and a sillly mid on.

Now try and think what you would do to those persistent near hundred mile per hour bouncers, each of which could kill if not avoided or played away, or what Tendulkar or Lara or Hayden would do ?

Tell me thay would average 56 against this bowling, this field and in baggy caps !!

 

[Slow Love™]

But you cannot bowl with that type of field anymore and he was still by far the most successful batsman on either side.

It was just a quip - not intended to be the height of humor, but to be honest, I didn't really expect anybody to take me to task over it. Anyhow, in my absence, it looks like Neil explained it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Disclaimers come in handy here... a few people take pretty much everything literally...

 

[Langeveldt]

I am aware of those figures. This was not about short pitched bowling it was about about persistent bowling on the batsman's body of ver very accurate short pitched balls with five fielders around the bat on the leg side and another two on the fence.

No modern day batsman has ever faced that since such field placing has been outlawed.

Instead of asking how Bradman would have fared today and then giving these useless statistics, ask any of the modern day greats, how they think they will perform against such bowling and such fields.

Ask Sunil Gavaskar what would happen if such bowling with such fields was directed at him by the West Indian fast bowlers he scored so heavily against and he will tell you it would have been impossible to stay.

Body line bowling was not just any short pitched bowling that you see today.

Bradman faced short pitched bowling al;l his life and was one of the best players of short pitched bowling the game has ever seen. Those who think otherwise need to brush up their knowledge of the game's history.

Today we have helmets, we limit the number of bouncers but most important of all we do not allow more than two players behind square on the leg side. So if you hook you can be caght only if there are fielders in the deep however this means there can be no fielders close on the leg side. So you can at least fend off the bouncers, which I repeat are limited and therefore prdictable to an extent.

Imagine six bouncers an over by a the worlds fastest bowler who is fats like Shoaib and accurate like McGrath. Then imagine that you are playing him with no helmet. Then imagine that there is a fielder at long leg and another behind square leg. Then imagine that there is a forward short leg. a backward short leg one or stwo leg slips and a sillly mid on.

Now try and think what you would do to those persistent near hundred mile per hour bouncers, each of which could kill if not avoided or played away, or what Tendulkar or Lara or Hayden would do ?

Tell me thay would average 56 against this bowling, this field and in baggy caps !!

Interesting point well made...

However whenever I watch footage from Bodyline, the quick bowlers (okay they must have been lethal) but they never seem to have anything quite so pacey as the likes of Shoaib and Lee... They dont look much above modern medium pace to me.. Maybe it is the different style of footage playing tricks with me? And there were no speed guns of course...