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

[andyc]

personally i think this kind of discussion is pretty futile. the fact remains that don bradman was THE greatest batsman ever. this wouldn't matter what period he played in, whether it was 1880, or 1980. in fact i think his average would be even higher today, with the greater technology in bats, less cumbersome batting apparel (have you seen the pads from back then?).
as cricket and technology has progressed, batting has flourished. take a look at how well the australians have done recently- averaging at around 4 an over. the record for the highest test score has been broken three times in about the past ten years (not sure when lara did it the first time). surely if bradman were batting today he'd have a higher average, or at least the same.

 

[SJS]

personally i think this kind of discussion is pretty futile. the fact remains that don bradman was THE greatest batsman ever. this wouldn't matter what period he played in, whether it was 1880, or 1980. in fact i think his average would be even higher today, with the greater technology in bats, less cumbersome batting apparel (have you seen the pads from back then?).
as cricket and technology has progressed, batting has flourished. take a look at how well the australians have done recently- averaging at around 4 an over. the record for the highest test score has been broken three times in about the past ten years (not sure when lara did it the first time). surely if bradman were batting today he'd have a higher average, or at least the same.

I totally concur

 

[Langeveldt]

I think he would have averaged about 55..

I fail to see how the game was played with the same intensity, speed and athleticism as it was today.. Not to mention the constant analysis of players strengths and weeknesses, at the touch of a button available now.. Anyway, who knows?

 

[marc71178]

My feeling is that the UK cricketer, particularly the spinner, is less inclined to put in the long hours in the nets that mastering this form of bowling requires. I could be wrong but its the feeling I get. It may have to do with the work-reward ratio which deters them at an early age but it is so.

I think it's to do with conditions in the country, and the fact that they won't get many chances to take shedloads of wickets.

By growing up in the sub-continent, those bowlers get the chance ot pick up loads, and then can experiment more.

 

[Adamc]

I think he would have averaged about 55..

I fail to see how the game was played with the same intensity, speed and athleticism as it was today.. Not to mention the constant analysis of players strengths and weeknesses, at the touch of a button available now.. Anyway, who knows?

Obviously hard to say for sure but I think on reading accounts and watching footage of Bradman's career he would have been a player of at least average fitness if he were playing today. Consider also that he was a squash champion and would likely have been a champion tennis player had he not chosen cricket instead. Both these sports even in the 30's demanded a high level of physical fitness. As for the constant analysis of players' strengths and weaknesses - this sword cuts both ways. Batsmen can just as easily analyse a bowler's weaknesses, so the usefulness of this basically cancels out, as evidenced by the high averages of batsmen today. If anything, it would increase his average.

 

[biased indian]

This is from cricinfo profile of Bradman!!!

If there really is a blemish on his amazing record it is, I suppose, the absence of a significant innings on one of those "sticky dogs" of old, when the ball was hissing and cavorting under a hot sun following heavy rain. This is not to say he couldn’t have played one, but that on the big occasion, when the chance arose, he never did.


i think he would have have scored runs at say 80-85.

one more think to be noticed here is that in the present there are more teams meaning more travel and more games are played.Bradman played for 20 years and played 69 test (he might have missed some games to WW) but still some one like ponting who is just completeting his 10th year in international cricket has already played 82 test and add to that the ODI that he has played thats a lot of games and with more game the chanes of maintaining a higher level of play will be difficult thats y i feel he will score @ some where around 80-85 still well ahead of any one who has played the game upto know

 

[J.Coney]

I remember bradman being asked this question in an interview around the late 80's, the reporter asked him what would you average if you played now, he said he believed he would have avreaged around the mid 80's, the reporter asked him to explain why his average would drop, he said mate i'm good but i'm an old man now.

 

[C_C]

i think Bradman would've struggled to average 70....65-70 zone if he played in the post 70s era.
Sports is rife with examples of 'supermen' players in their embryonic stages - Babe Ruth, Don Bradman, Bill Tillden, Rod Laver, Greg Norman etc....
primarily because the field was subpar and a few oddball players managed to reach 'peak efficiency' .

And Bradman played Test cricket ONLY in ENG and AUS.
Nowehere else.
I concur that he would've been the greatest regardless, but one cannot forget the fact that players are a lot more professional today than they were in the past, thus the gap between the best and the second best wouldnt be that huge.

Not to forget that as with science and human societerial interactions, sports evolve.
This means that players usually (but not always) play on a higher plane than they did in the past.

 

[Richard]

I think he would have averaged about 55..

I fail to see how the game was played with the same intensity, speed and athleticism as it was today.. Not to mention the constant analysis of players strengths and weeknesses, at the touch of a button available now.. Anyway, who knows?

One of the greatest things about Tendulkar is his ability to stay a step ahead of his would-be workers-out.
If someone's spotted a fault in his game and has devised a plan to exploit it, the chances are he's already spotted it and ironed it out before they can put the plan to work.
I can't help feeling Bradman would be the same if he had the opportunity.

 

[Richard]

I remember bradman being asked this question in an interview around the late 80's, the reporter asked him what would you average if you played now, he said he believed he would have avreaged around the mid 80's, the reporter asked him to explain why his average would drop, he said mate i'm good but i'm an old man now.

A wonderful piece of wisecrack, that, and what's more I feel the gist of what he said is quite right.

 

[Pratters]

i think Bradman would've struggled to average 70....65-70 zone if he played in the post 70s era.
Sports is rife with examples of 'supermen' players in their embryonic stages - Babe Ruth, Don Bradman, Bill Tillden, Rod Laver, Greg Norman etc....
primarily because the field was subpar and a few oddball players managed to reach 'peak efficiency' .

I suppose Tiger Woods, Schumacher, Sampras and now Roger Federer dont exist.

 

[Richard]

And Bradman played Test cricket ONLY in ENG and AUS.
Nowehere else.

Already done that - in his day you didn't need to play in lots of different countries to incur lots of different conditions.

I concur that he would've been the greatest regardless, but one cannot forget the fact that players are a lot more professional today than they were in the past, thus the gap between the best and the second best wouldnt be that huge.

Just about done this one, too.
If the game is more professional, anyone who comes into it is so too.
If Bradman has the same skill, he has the same professionalism of everyone, so there is no real effect on anything.

 

[Pratters]

One of the greatest things about Tendulkar is his ability to stay a step ahead of his would-be workers-out.
If someone's spotted a fault in his game and has devised a plan to exploit it, the chances are he's already spotted it and ironed it out before they can put the plan to work.
I can't help feeling Bradman would be the same if he had the opportunity.

He played much above the rest in his era and adopted to the circumstances and faced the challenges. There is no reason to believe that in the modern age, he wouldnt have adopted as well.

 

[Pratters]

And Bradman played Test cricket ONLY in ENG and AUS.
Nowehere else.

Ya he played in only twelve venues. A modern batsman will play in much more. We are talking of an era 50 years ago. There are differences in some aspects but the game remains a challenge between the bat and the ball.

A sceptic can say he would not score much. But some one can also say he could score much more. There are easy runs to be had against the likes of Bangladesh, or some arguement or the other.

Too much has changedin 50 years. Some in favour of batsmen some against it. How would it have worked in the case of Bradman?

No it can never be ascertained.

 

[Richard]

It is something on a mystery why England (adverse conditions notwithstanding) in the better part of 130 years of test cricket hasn’t produced one really world-class leg spinner. Law of averages wise, that’s pretty amazing when one considers it! I still have hopes that a second or third generation Asian Englishman may break the mode, having been coached in the art by a wily father or grandfather! Nasser was a promising leggy in his youth, but famously lost the ability to land the ball after his pubescent growth spurt.

Here's hoping!

It's not really that surprising.
England's greatest wristspinner was Doug Wright, of course - and he fitted the mould of the typical wristspinner perfectly - always posed a threat, but with a run-up as chaotic (that's no real exaggeration - it really is quite something - for those who haven't, getting some footage of him is worth doing) as his would inevitably give more chance to score than is ideal.
He was perhaps of Stuart MacGill standard - and for me MacGill epitomises the quandry of wristspin, in that it's almost impossible to control to the neccessary standard. Most who've tried have found themselves not Test-class.
The only real Test-class wristspinners have all been all-time greats: Barnes, Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud, Murali, Warne. Abdul Qadir and Mushtaq might have been, but both had their downers - Mushtaq tailed-off horribly from about 1997 onwards, and Abdul's away form was quite terrible, and from all I've seen and heard of him, totally inexplicable and down far more to temperament than technique.
In that Barnes was an Englishman, of course, it's not totally fair to say that England have never produced a World-class wristspinner, but of course he was not purely a wristspinner - he was a Sir Garfield but about twice as good (possibly had something to do with not concentrating mainly on batting).
So most of the best wristspinners have been Australian - four, in fact. New Zealand and West Indies have not produced any either. Nor, perhaps a little surprisingly, have India.
But certainly in England up to 1970 there was totally no need for wristspinners - fingerspin, far easier to control, was just as likely to be dangerous. Wristspin was almost actively discouraged if you read many correspondants of the time.
In 30 years, not producing a wristspinner of class is not incredibly surprising, given how difficult it is to do, and how small a proportion of the population will actually try.

 

[Richard]

Dan Vettori looks like now that he is back on track that he will give it a good crack

Vettori is one of the best fingerspinners of today but he's got some task just to end with his average in the 27-30 bracket - let alone below 27.
I have little doubt that had Vettori played in the '50s he'd have averaged in the mid-20s at the highest.

 

[Richard]

Yes, of course, wrist spin is more difficult to master compared to finger spin but I think Murali and Harbhajan and Saqlain before them are doing more than just taking advantage of sub-continental conditions. They have really taken finger spin to a newer plane with more variations and made it as potent as the rarer (in the hands of a master) wrist spin used to be.

Murali is doing more than just taking advantage of sub-continental conditions, certainly. But I'm amazed you'd class him a fingerspinner (and as such he can't really take fingerspin to a newer plane).
IMO Saqlain and Harbhajan - while taking fingerspin to a new plane in developing the Doosra - are simply making a fingerspinner more deadly still in typical subcontinental conditions.
Generally, in Test-match cricket, when the pitch has not been helping fingerspin, neither of them have really done that well. With Saqlain it's a bit more pronounced of late.

My feeling is that the UK cricketer, particularly the spinner, is less inclined to put in the long hours in the nets that mastering this form of bowling requires. I could be wrong but its the feeling I get. It may have to do with the work-reward ratio which deters them at an early age but it is so. Saqlain and Murali have been very effective in the English domestic circuit also which shows that given the requisite skills, finger spin is still a potent weapon in UK too.

Saqlain's success hasn't actually been quite so pronounced in his more recent seasons, but that's actually been more down to the unsettled nature of the club than anything else by the sounds of what I've heard.
The reason Saqlain tended to be so phenominally successful in England in such years as 1998, 1999 and 2000 was because Surrey more often than not prepared pitches that helped him and Ian Salisbury as much as possible.
WRT the English-spin attitude - as marc points-out, I don't think it's entirely due to the lack-of-work-ethic thing (though there's no doubt a typical young Indian\Sri Lankan\Pakistani is far more committed to his cricket than a typical young Englishman) but partly down to the general lack of fingerspin-friendly wickets (most good clubs, even, now provide pitch-covering).

 

[Tom Halsey]

I think he would average around the same.

The pitches are significantly better nowadays, but to counter that, so is the opposition.

Regarding wristspin and fingerspin, I think wristspinners are worth their weight in gold, but they have to be able to control it.

 

[C_C]

Schumachers, Sampras, Tiger Woods etc dont clash with what i said....
What i said is in a LOT of sports, you see a champion player in the ebryonic stages of the sport.
That is because while the rest of the crew is still in a modest position skills-wise ( when compared with players 50-60 years later), a few manage to get to a far higher professional level.
Its akin to a very professional minded state level player playing in a school match....he will be unstoppable. I think he is the best ever batsman but his 99+ average is slightly bloated.

Richard- i dont see any validity in the claim that Bradman batting at 12 venues faced more varied conditions than someone like Viv, Gavaskar, Border, Lara,Tendulkar etc.........You'll be hardpressed to prove that. I've read Neville Cardus and CLR James's stuff...all rate bradman very highly but he did enjoy some previlidged conditions.

For two, fast bowlers proliferated from 1970 onwards and it is well known that if the Don had any chinks in his armour, it was extreme pace.
Larwood gave him some trouble with Bodyline and Larwood was not the stratospheric pace merchant in the mould of Holding,Roberts,Imran Khan,Marshall,Waqar,Wasim etc.
While i dont think Bradman would've failed against the vaunted WI pace battery or the PAK/RSA attack in the 90s, he definately would've struggled to average 60-65 against them.

Bradman apart,i dont rate any pre-war player very highly ( that includes Hammond, Hobbs, Trumper,Ranjitsinhji etc)......
They were not professionals and playing in the pressures of international cricket seen sans 1970s was a totally different ballgame than playing with the sunday-picnic mentality.
One series which depicted the ruthless 'exploit any chinks' attitude of modern day cricket was Bodyline and we all saw how the 'mighty' of that era got quickly cut down to size.
Bradman still managed 55+ average,which is why i think he would average 65-70 in modern day cricket.
But the likes of Hammond,Hobbs, Hutton,Woodfull, Woodruff, McCabe etc. would all struggle to average a good 10 runs under what they averaged.

Same goes for the bowlers.
Bowlers like Clarie Grimmett, Sid Barnes etc. could be in the McGrath-Pollock-Warne-Kumble bracket or close to it but a 6+ wicket/match ratio with average in the late teens is definately outta the cards.

For the critical difference between that era and this is that your opposition is a lot more evenly spread and close to you.
The gap between the top player and the 40th ranked player is not much. Thats what professionalism brings- it makes the field a lot closely clustered instead of having a very uneven distribution ( ie, some test players from ENG-AUS-IND-RSA in the pre-war period would struggle to get into the A teams currently, let alone the first XI).

Back then they were much more geared towards making cricket a 'gentleman's game' and all 'fair -n-sporting' .
Now its win by hook-or-crook philosophy.

Cricket today and 70 years ago is akin to Test cricket and FC cricket.....the intensity and all that is on a totally different level.
Bradman IMO had the intensity and gumption.....but a player's record is not just how good a player is, it is a combination of how good the player is and how good the opposition is.
While Bradman was worldclass, his contemporaries and competition was 'decent' at best.....in modern day times he would still be worldclass but he would face worldclass contemporaries....ie, reduction in average.

Its similar in almost every sport.
Juan Manuel Fangio would struggle to get 5 Driver's title if pitted against Schumacher or Senna, Big Bill Tillden and Rod Laver would struggle to match their records if they played in the the post 60s-70s era, Babe Ruth and DiMaggio would struggle to match the likes of McGuire,Bonds,Sosa, Ichiro etc.., Jack Nicklaus would struggle to match his records if he played in the 90s era, etc etc.

For simply speaking, their contemporaries were not a patch on the average skill level of the field today.


Oh and another thing Richard- while Bradman played on sticky wickets, his record wasnt very impressive on that....and in Bradman's days, getting out Lbw was a heck of a lot harder than today...as today the ball can pitch outside offstump for you to be lbw but back then the ball had to pitch in line with both off stump and middle stump...so he gained a few advantaged and had a few disadvantages......playing rules and conditions wise, it evens out.

 

[Tom Halsey]

For two, fast bowlers proliferated from 1970 onwards and it is well known that if the Don had any chinks in his armour, it was extreme pace.
Larwood gave him some trouble with Bodyline

Clearly, averaging in the 50's for the series in question is struggling very badly.