How successful would 'The Don' be if he was playing in the current era?

[vandemataram]

I don't think Bradman would have been so successful had he been playing cricket these days.He would have surely have averaged 40+ or somewhere in fifties.

Playiong cricket in modern era and facing bowlers like Harmison,Irfan Pathan, Muralitharan and Kumble would have been not very easy for him.

 

[Pratters]

Playiong cricket in modern era and facing bowlers like Harmison,Irfan Pathan, Muralitharan and Kumble would have been not very easy for him.

he obviously didnt play class bowlers in his era did he?

 

[Richard]

I don't think Bradman would have been so successful had he been playing cricket these days.He would have surely have averaged 40+ or somewhere in fifties.

Playiong cricket in modern era and facing bowlers like Harmison,Irfan Pathan, Muralitharan and Kumble would have been not very easy for him.

Pathan!
If Ponting and co. can deal with him as effectively as they have, sorry, I don't think Bradman would have had too many problems!
As for Murali, Kumble and Harmison, who's to say Larwood and Verity weren't far more challenging? From everything I can deduce, they were made by pitch conditions to be far more so.
This is a classic example, methinks, of prejudice towards what you know best.

 

[sportychic33]

Question (don't shoot me. . .cause i have no idea and i trust you guys will probably know) When Bradman was playing did the bowlers bowl under arm or over arm?

 

[Smudge]

Question (don't shoot me. . .cause i have no idea and i trust you guys will probably know) When Bradman was playing did the bowlers bowl under arm or over arm?

Overarm.

 

[nookie_lk]

I think Bradman would have been a Good but not a exellent batsman in this era. Sure bradman faced class bowlers in the English team...other than that he faced Average bowlers. Considering players like Walsh, Akram, Ambrose, Akthar and Donald i think these players are much better than Larwood back then.
Also take the spinners who played for the last ten or so years like Murali, Saqlain, Kumble . these guys cannot be even compared to the spinners back then.

Also take the standard of the fielding now and then ? So i think it will not be as simple for him if he played during the 90's.

 

[telsor]

The only quantifiable method of comparison is with his peers.

He averaged more than twice what the regular specialist batsman of his era did.

The regular specialist batsmen today average about the same as they did back then, so it is reasonable to assume that the changes in the game ( covered pitches, better training techniques, video analysis, etc etc etc ) have been roughly even in terms of favoring batsmen and bowlers.

It would be impossible to predict with any certainty how an individual might have been affected by these changes, but the most likely prediction would seem to be that the changes would have been 'even' for him as well, meaning he'd average pretty much the same. ( say +-10% ).

 

[telsor]

"Bodyline" is an emotive term. If we accept Larwood was bowling bodyline we must also allow that the great Windies pace attack bowled "headline" for the better part of three decades.

There was a major difference ( and this is how bodyline was banned...).

Leg theory (AKA bodyline ) involved bowling at the body of the batsman, while packing the leg side field ( usually 7 fielders, sometimes more if the bowler is particularly accurate ). As such, you are threatening the body *and* making it impossible to score.

After that series, the rules were changed to the current maximum of 5 on the leg side, taking away one of the prime benefits of the tactic.

Against the Windies, the hook/pull shot was always an option, against leg theory, it was pointless.

 

[telsor]

Messers Jardine & Larwood are arguably two of the most traduced cricketers in test history.

Nah, we forgave Larwood...Jardine is the only one we still hate from that episode.

Larwood moved to Australia ( just after WW2 I think ) and led a quite happy life, including being welcome at most cricketing functions/events.


It was Jardine who brought that woefully negative tactic.

 

[Eclipse]

If Bradman had a weaknes it was probably to something like the yorker.. I read some where that 33% of his dismisals where bowled.

 

[SJS]

Its amazing how we can question Bradman's credentials. It goes to show how little of the game's history is followed.

Then again its clearly unfair to compare players of different eras. To say that Bradman would not have fared well today is like saying that Jesse Owens would have failed to qualify for olympics given his timings in the thirties.

A great player in one era will be a great player in another. He will have all the benefits of improvement in equipment strategies, techniques if any, and would get used to all types of conditions since he would be a product of THAT era in which you are trying to transpose him.

Incidentally as someone has rightly said before, the only fair comparison is with your peers. Its amazing how Bradman fares. This has been done before I suppose but here are the figures of six great batsmen of six different eras.

Trumper (1899-1912)
Hobbs (1909-1930)
Bradman(1928-1948)
Sobers(1955-1974)
Viv Richards(1974-1991)
Lara(1990-2004)

Between them they cover the entire period of the game and they do stand out as the outstanding players of their eras, though Lara has some competition.

I have taken the batting averages of these greats and divide it by the averages of all the batsmen in their playing time(themselves excluded) to arrive at a factor of how much above their peers they stood. I am not at all surprised by the figures which are very revealing.

Bradman dwarfs everyone else with 3.2 times the batting average of his era.. The Master, Jack Hobbs(2.0) and Sobers(1.94) are next. Lara(1.75), Richards(1.67) and Trumper(1.61) follow in that order.

Another interesting factor is that the batting averages have settled at around 30 since the 1930's after the gradual rise in the first three decades as wickets improved.

I am putting them on this graph in order of their dominance.

 

[Steulen]

SJS,

One of my arguments was that the playing field has been levelled. This would not be reflected in the trend in mean batting average, but in the trend in the standard deviation of the batting average. As you seem to have the data available, could you tell how many sd's better than the mean of their era all these batsmen were?

 

[Swervy]

SJS,

One of my arguments was that the playing field has been levelled. This would not be reflected in the trend in mean batting average, but in the trend in the standard deviation of the batting average. As you seem to have the data available, could you tell how many sd's better than the mean of their era all these batsmen were?

I just dont see the relevance of standard deviation to this one at all???

 

[SJS]

SJS,

One of my arguments was that the playing field has been levelled. This would not be reflected in the trend in mean batting average, but in the trend in the standard deviation of the batting average. As you seem to have the data available, could you tell how many sd's better than the mean of their era all these batsmen were?

I honestly dont understand what the standard deviation will show but since I have the figures, here are the standard deviations for each era for whatever its worth

Bradman Era 19.58
Hobbs Era 15.51
Sobers Era 14.57
Lara Era 14.62
Richards Era 13.8
Trumper Era 12.11

I think it may be more interesting to see how the batsmen of the era were fairing since the averages include the bowlers also.

 

[Steulen]

I just dont see the relevance of standard deviation to this one at all???

My argument is this (and it is a guess, so I'm interested to see if it can be supported by data):

More Test playing countries means a greater variety of conditions. This means a bigger chance of encountering conditions that either favour you or work against you. Due to a phenomenon called regression to the mean, this would mean that the worst polayers get less bad, and the best players less good. Statistically, their batting averages would then be closer together, resulting in a smaller sd for batting averages.
Don't knoew if it's true, but worth the analysis, I'd say.

 

[Pratters]

SJS thank you for comparing and proving without a doubt why Bradman is the best. Of course a proof was not required for me but for these who are doubting Bradman which is totally shocking.

 

[Steulen]

To me, it still doesn't constitute proof. Sorry 'bout that.
Looking at the sd's, Bradman would have averaged in the 70's in the current era. But that's based on maybe not the correct pool of data. What these preliminary results show to me is that it is likely that Bradman's figures werre inflated, relative to greats of other era's, due to the context of his time.
He may very well be the best ever by far, but I would be a bad scientist if I took this at face value.

 

[Pratters]

To me, it still doesn't constitute proof. Sorry 'bout that.
Looking at the sd's, Bradman would have averaged in the 70's in the current era. But that's based on maybe not the correct pool of data. What these preliminary results show to me is that it is likely that Bradman's figures werre inflated, relative to greats of other era's, due to the context of his time.
He may very well be the best ever by far, but I would be a bad scientist if I took this at face value.

Who is to say he couldnt have averaged 120?

 

[Richard]

My argument is this (and it is a guess, so I'm interested to see if it can be supported by data):

More Test playing countries means a greater variety of conditions. This means a bigger chance of encountering conditions that either favour you or work against you.

Have you read my attempt to show why that's not the case?

 

[Swervy]

Who is to say he couldnt have averaged 120?

exactly..no one knows..we can only measure how well some one has done relative to their peers