If Bradman played in today's era?

[SJS]

Given your earlier post arguing that it is futile to compare players from different eras, I assume this is merely an attempt to illustrate Grace's dominance over his peers, rather than a genuine attempt to realistically estimate the great man's output should we find a time machine and transport him into the 2000s. Indeed, the game has changed to such an extent over the intervening 130 year period as to render any extrapolation meaningless.
.

Absolutely correct and my standpoint always. Rest is just to show people how wrong they are to underplay the deeds of these giants of earlier eras.

 

[neville cardus]

I actually accidentally chose that option, it was meant to be 'still be the best ever'

Ditto.

 

[neville cardus]

Edited: Misread it.

You or (as is more likely the case) me?

 

[neville cardus]

^^For those reasons, I've always been happy to say only that Grace was a master of cricket as it was played at his time. It's fairly safe to say he'd be damn good, very possibly one of England's better batsmen in history, had he played in the 19th-century.

He did.

 

[Migara]

You or (as is more likely the case) me?

My self.

 

[Richard]

He did.

For some reason, meaning "played in the 20th", I mixed it up with "played after the 19th" and ended-up with "played in the 19th".

Post now edited to reflect what I actually meant.

 

[neville cardus]

Don't mind my pedantry. Being subjected to it week after week at uni makes me loth to pass up the opportunity to reciprocate.

 

[a massive zebra]

Thats very correct.

If you take away Bradman's average from that era, it would be fair to take away the other great's average from his era also. Which would make the comparison as under.

The Rest of the world average in the era's of the five greats and Don's extrapolated average

[B]Player/Era  	ROW avg	Don's avg[/B]
Richards	29.94	97.86
Gavaskar	30.08	98.34
Brian Lara	30.30	99.04
Wally Hammond	30.21	98.73
Don Bradman	30.58	99.94

I am afraid the final conclusion remains the same even though the figures are slightly different - Bradman's era was the best of the lot for batting ........ or had the best batsmen take your pick

I don't think anyone would quibble over a couple of runs. The Bradman and Richards eras showed a significant variance of 5% in your previous extrapolation, which could easily be interpreted as material.

 

[Jack1]

Just read the story

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...o/news-story/ec6ca16c397b7a324116ce2ed3bcf9d7

I was thinking he'd average 150+ now minimum. In fact he'd post a 500 not out score I think on some of the flat wickets with the new bats, helmets etc if he had the chance to win the toss and bat. Imagine Bradman on a feather-bed against a minnow with all the modern equipment..

Pietersen is a decent benchmark in my mind, I feel like Bradman would have averaged at least double Pietersen putting him at 94.56 minimum. But to be brutally honest I think he'd average more than twice, if not three times, Smith too all things considered if he played now.

The outfields are so pristine now too. It would have been easier for him to hit 6s and 4s..average of 200 perhaps a possibility all things considered. I suspect in ODIs he'd be averaging 130ish with a strike rate over 100

I've thought about it for a while, and it doesn't seem ridiculous. But all things considered I believe above to be a fair enough prediction. One things for sure is that he'd definitely average more in my opinion and score faster, the question is how much and by how much. More sixes more fours as mentioned.

 

[ankitj]

Average runs per wicket in 3 decades when Bradman played: ~33
Average runs per wicket in last 2 years: ~28

Doesn't add up.

 

[Jack1]

Average runs per wicket in 3 decades when Bradman played: ~33
Average runs per wicket in last 2 years: ~28

Doesn't add up.

For a gun batsman this is the best era to bat in in my opinion. The weaker batsmen have struggled to apply themselves properly since the introduction of ODIs and T20Is , some teams are collapsing in a session when there are no demons in the wicket. There are more minnow teams now also dragging that down I'd imagine.

The best players (or the best i.e Bradman) would not have had that problem in any era - they are mentally superior to the rest.

 

[the big bambino]

3 decades v 2 years. And that’s the bloke who lectures about sample sizes.

 

[Flem274*]

For a gun batsman this is the best era to bat in in my opinion. The weaker batsmen have struggled to apply themselves properly since the introduction of ODIs and T20Is , some teams are collapsing in a session when there are no demons in the wicket. There are more minnow teams now also dragging that down I'd imagine.

The best players (or the best i.e Bradman) would not have had that problem in any era - they are mentally superior to the rest.

cricket fans gonna cricket fan

this is a tough era to bat. not the worst, but a far cry from the best. even india have learned how to bowl overseas.

 

[Red]

Average runs per wicket in 3 decades when Bradman played: ~33
Average runs per wicket in last 2 years: ~28

Doesn't add up.

It does if you factor in the fact that Bradman played in his own era...

 

[Jack1]

cricket fans gonna cricket fan

this is a tough era to bat. not the worst, but a far cry from the best. even india have learned how to bowl overseas.

If you discount opening the batting and consider most teams bat their best player at 4. I'd imagine Bradman would carry an enormous average at number 4 in this era for example I'd wager on it being near 200 at 4 if he cared enough to apply himself game upon game (which clearly he did if he averaged 100 in the era he did play in). Opening has looked harder, but mostly the shed is completely bare. Openers don't apply themselves, don't have the same skill, same heart, same fight, same technique as they used to. They don't have the same spirit to do it. Openers used to be worth their salt based on how long they batted, wearing the opposition down, ageing the ball etc and protecting the players to come. The cupboard is very bare for application all the way down the order right now even for some of the top sides like England and Australia barring Smith and Root - teams ranked 4 and 5. Partly due to limited overs. But the best players - ones like Smith and Kohli who are ATG cricketers, do not care about anyone else. They focus on themselves and Bradman would have thrived in the modern environment rather than suffer in my opinion.

Of course Bradman did average 201.5 vs SA from 5 tests (5 inns) and 178.75 vs India in 5 tests (6 inns). He would have pulverised minnows now with a helmet, gloves (and more glove changes), modern bat etc. This isn't just an average player we are talking about, this is the best player ever with better equipment and faster outfields.

It does if you factor in the fact that Bradman played in his own era...

I do hope he discounted Bradman from those stats lol. He also compared 3 decades to 2 years as mentioned and discounted any other variables. The focus is purely on Bradman anyway.

 

[Burgey]

Wouldn’t he just be the same sort of outlier he was in his own era, which wasn’t exactly short of great players either?

 

[Red]

Wouldn’t he just be the same sort of outlier he was in his own era, which wasn’t exactly short of great players either?

Batting averages haven't changed much since Bradman's era. 50 is now, as it was then, a very good average. Someone needed to be pretty exceptional to average much more than 50. I think you can assume Bradman in the modern era playing only test cricket would average something similar to what he did back then. Maybe more with new bats and better equipment and better pitches.

Bradman was a masterful batsman, and had immense fitness and powers of concentration, but he was also a very introverted, conservative and introspective man. If he had to face the modern demands of social media and the playing schedule of tests, T20s and ODIs, I'm sure his test average would suffer a little bit. He was someone who was happy to play the game and then get away from everyone sooner rather than later.

 

[Burgey]

So he’s basically Steve Smith squared I suppose

 

[the big bambino]

I mean you just had Smith tear it up in a tough Ashes and in this tough era. Kohli's doing exceptionally well as is Williamson. Hard - which is why its exceptional - but not impossible. Btw there are other reasons that distort decadal averages to a higher mean, particularly the earlier ones when the weaker teams didn't play as often as they do now.

 

[Coronis]

Burgey summed it up pretty well. He’d be a freak in any era.