If Bradman played in today's era?

[mr_mister]

Exact reason why he would score lesser now. Better fielding, more technology to find out where he scores least, and allowing one and bowling at the other batsman can happen. There are attacking bowlers, who will try to take wickets, and there will be defensive ones who will keep the runs down. Occasionally there will be McGraths and Pollocks, who will do both.

But bigger bats.

 

[Migara]

When it comes to athletic improvement it's debatable it is getting better for fast bowling, at least any noticeable amount. Thomson, Roberts, Lillee etc were measured bowling at the same speeds as modern top end bowlers in 1975 and '76, and it's been sixteen years since Akhtar passed 100 mph and only one bowler who wasn't already playing in 2003 (Starc) has passed 160 km/h. In contrast quite a few athletics records have been improved on multiple times in that time, some significantly. Cricket managed an improvement of only 0.85 km/h between 1975 and 2003, why would there necessarily be an improvement of much greater than that between 1947 and 1975?

You are missing the point. When Akthar was bowling his thunderbolts, Wasim and Waqar were just lively fast medium bowlers. When Srinath was bowling for India, Kumble was allegedly faster than other pacemen. Aussies of 90s relied on Jason Gillespie's pace, but Rieffel, McDermott and McGrath were no speed merchents.

Now come back to 2010s.

Aussies field Starc, Pattinson, Hazelwood and Siddle. All above lively fast medium. India field Bumrah, Shami, Yadav and Sharma. All hitting 140s. England has many 140+ bowlers. Only Kumar is on the slower side, but that is his modus operandi. Even take Sri Lanka. Lahiru Kumara is express, and all support bowlers keep it in upper 130s.

It is not the quickest that has got quick. It is the rest.

 

[Migara]

But bigger bats.

Edges fly better to the slips, unless you are a big hitter.

 

[Spikey]

Exact reason why he would score lesser now. Better fielding, more technology to find out where he scores least, and allowing one and bowling at the other batsman can happen. There are attacking bowlers, who will try to take wickets, and there will be defensive ones who will keep the runs down. Occasionally there will be McGraths and Pollocks, who will do both.

then why do the great batsmen of the 30s to 50s average just the same as the great batsmen of the last 30 years? It's remarkably stable.

 

[Migara]

then why do the great batsmen of the 30s to 50s average just the same as the great batsmen of the last 30 years? It's remarkably stable.

Probably because last 30 years had more than their fair share of great bowlers.

 

[Spikey]

must be it

 

[Migara]

must be it

Nah, unless you say.

 

[Jack1]

Exact reason why he would score lesser now. Better fielding, more technology to find out where he scores least, and allowing one and bowling at the other batsman can happen. There are attacking bowlers, who will try to take wickets, and there will be defensive ones who will keep the runs down. Occasionally there will be McGraths and Pollocks, who will do both.

Bigger bat, better wickets to bat on, faster outfield, better gloves, helmet, better gloves, lighter pads, physios to help recovery, better hydration and diet...the list is far more endless as to why a gun player like Bradman would pile more runs on than anything. Not to be too blunt, but McGrath was a nightmare for your average player as he probed in the corridor of uncertainty with great accuracy. Bradman wouldn't have cared about that. There's a reason they had to resort to body line with current illegal field settings to keep Bradman's series average to a "mere" 56.57 (396 runs in 8 inns 1 NO - TS 103*) - any if we factor illegal field settings like that into Bradman's average then he did average comfortably over 100 anyway. Larwood was lightning fast bowling around the wicket with illegal field settings to Bradman with a worse bat, worse gloves, no helmet and he still averages 56.57 in the series. You are severely underestimating Bradman I think. He was way better than you think he was.

Personally I'd much rather bat in test cricket in this era than Bradman's. I would happily face Archer with a helmet and other protection on. No way I'd ever want to face Larwood or anyone near that pace without one. That's without bringing into the equation uncovered pitches and slower outfields etc. It's definitely easier to bat now for all the players in my view. The fact they don't have the application for various reasons in test cricket (apart from Smith, who is clearly not close to as talented as Bradman was yet carries a 65 average) isn't my problem, Bradman would have had the same application in all eras with the attitude he played with regardless of money and endorsements etc in my view. I'd wager his average 150 minimum in this era, I'll leave it at that. Just chipping in rather than causing an argument.

Your comment about fielders being better isn't provable nor relevant for Bradman. The greatest player ever is going to be the best at picking gaps and making more out of a better wickets to bat on and faster outfields than anyone else could. You need to realise Bradman is far superior to any batsman that ever played the game and that McGrath would have been medium pace for him for almost all his career - he wouldn't have been facing McGrath anyway he's an Aussie obviously but just an example you mentioned. In terms of where a great player scores, it solves zilch. This was just show with Smith in the current ashes, the bowlers don't have a clue how to dismiss him despite all the technology in the world and Smith isn't Bradman. You are underestimating him I'm afraid.

If you think how difficult Smith is to create a plan to then imagine Bradman with a helmet..

 

[Starfighter]

Any idea where? From my limited knowledge Lillee was recorded at 139kph in that UWA study. Holding was 148kph and Roberts 150kph. Thommo sent one down at 160 though.

But when they used those cameras again in that fastest bowler competition they were all recorded at very average speeds that just didn't seem right.

So I've got no idea whether those numbers can be relied on at all.

Lillee was also recorded at 148 by the UWA the same year. There are also other numbers I've heard that are higher, their reliability is a little bit suspect but I've seen them in more than one decent source so I'm inclined to believe them, they had Lillee at 154. It seems from what I can see of the WSC pace competition that the balls weren't bowled consecutively, which may be a contributing factor. Their numbers seem to be anomalously low rather than the others being high, unless you genuinely believe that the WI bowlers bowled high 120's-early 130s most of the time, which would surprise a few era-crossing batsmen like Steve Waugh. High speed cameras should be more accurate with proper calibration than radar guns, but you've still got to get it and the maths right.

 

[Migara]

Bigger bat, better wickets to bat on, faster outfield, better gloves, helmet, better gloves, lighter pads, physios to help recovery, better hydration and diet...the list is far more endless as to why a gun player like Bradman would pile more runs on than anything. Not to be too blunt, but McGrath was a nightmare for your average player as he probed in the corridor of uncertainty with great accuracy. Bradman wouldn't have cared about that. There's a reason they had to resort to body line with current illegal field settings to keep Bradman's series average to a "mere" 56.57 (396 runs in 8 inns 1 NO - TS 103*) - any if we factor illegal field settings like that into Bradman's average then he did average comfortably over 100 anyway. Larwood was lightning fast bowling around the wicket with illegal field settings to Bradman with a worse bat, worse gloves, no helmet and he still averages 56.57 in the series. You are severely underestimating Bradman I think. He was way better than you think he was.

It comes down to the point "Is Bradman twice good as Lara / Tendulkar / Ponting / Smith?"

The answer will explain each person's stance.

 

[Migara]

Personally I'd much rather bat in test cricket in this era than Bradman's. I would happily face Archer with a helmet and other protection on. No way I'd ever want to face Larwood or anyone near that pace without one.

I'd rather face Larwood without a helmet rather than three taller, similar paced West Indians with or without a helmet. I just have to get to the other end. With great bowling lineups, there is no breathing space.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

It's more like how every athletics record gets broken every so often, or how they have to keep making Augusta harder to stop someone hitting a 60 at the Masters.

If you can measure it against a constant, it's getting better.

In cricket we only ever measure what is being done against other people, so it's staying the same.

When it comes to athletics, conditions have changed over the years and in a specific direction, and timing has also improved. It is also not possible to remove the drugs thing from the more pure athletic endeavours. I found this interesting too.

Basically, nothing can be divorced from conditions. Give a Masters player a set of hickory-shafted clubs, and then see if they'll break 60 or whatever.


Also thinking of that paper I don't remeber the name of that said that there is no optimal technique for fast-bowling (with respect to being able to do everything), I think cricket is somewhat more complex than 'pure' athletic events. For example, it is clear modern high-jump techniques are better and more efficient than those used in the 1930s, but the same probably does not apply to batting or bowling (fielding on the other hand).

 

[Jack1]

Lillee was also recorded at 148 by the UWA the same year. There are also other numbers I've heard that are higher, their reliability is a little bit suspect but I've seen them in more than one decent source so I'm inclined to believe them, they had Lillee at 154. It seems from what I can see of the WSC pace competition that the balls weren't bowled consecutively, which may be a contributing factor. Their numbers seem to be anomalously low rather than the others being high, unless you genuinely believe that the WI bowlers bowled high 120's-early 130s most of the time, which would surprise a few era-crossing batsmen like Steve Waugh. High speed cameras should be more accurate with proper calibration than radar guns, but you've still got to get it and the maths right.

Speed is complex. Some days Archer gets above 95mph, other days he struggles to hit 85mph. Putting a bowler on the spot to bowl fast is unfair. It would have been nicer to have speed guns for the careers of all bowlers. But I suspect that 90mph+ bowlers - they are just naturally fast. They exist in all eras, including a couple back in the day that hit 100mph I'd imagine. I can believe Thomson got over 100mph.

 

[Starfighter]

You are missing the point. When Akthar was bowling his thunderbolts, Wasim and Waqar were just lively fast medium bowlers. When Srinath was bowling for India, Kumble was allegedly faster than other pacemen. Aussies of 90s relied on Jason Gillespie's pace, but Rieffel, McDermott and McGrath were no speed merchents.

Now come back to 2010s.

Aussies field Starc, Pattinson, Hazelwood and Siddle. All above lively fast medium. India field Bumrah, Shami, Yadav and Sharma. All hitting 140s. England has many 140+ bowlers. Only Kumar is on the slower side, but that is his modus operandi. Even take Sri Lanka. Lahiru Kumara is express, and all support bowlers keep it in upper 130s.

It is not the quickest that has got quick. It is the rest.

Wasim and Waqar were both significantly faster at the start of their careers and were a lot more durable than Akhtar, McDermott was a lot faster near the start of his too, England doesn't have 'many' 140 bowlers in internationals, Wood only managed it consistently after fixing his run, Stone is never fit and Archer learned his stuff on non-English pitches, so their system can't claim credit for him, their attack in 05 was faster than their attack in 13/14 (remember that series?), India has only recently been effectively incentivising people to bowl fast and finding talent - they're an outlier, Kumar isn't express though he has potential if he can get on the park, those support bowlers weren't that fast in Australia. These things come in swings and roundabouts, Australia's attack was faster in the fifties than the sixties, McDermott and Hughes around 1990 were faster than Reiffel and McGrath in 1995, England had Jones, Harmison on rhythm for once and Flintoff in 2005 compared to only a couple of similarly fast spells from Broad in 2013/14, etc. etc.

If you're talking low levels then maybe but you'd have a hard time convincing me that the average Sheffield Shield bowler now is faster than in the nineties. Heck, South Australia had a very quick attack in Gillespie, George and Harrity but the latter two just weren't very good. Pace isn't everything when it comes to test selection.

 

[Jack1]

It's more like how every athletics record gets broken every so often, or how they have to keep making Augusta harder to stop someone hitting a 60 at the Masters.

If you can measure it against a constant, it's getting better.

In cricket we only ever measure what is being done against other people, so it's staying the same.

Athletics is different now. You should look into the difference in track technology, shoe technology, hydration, diet and potential for performance enhancing drugs (you may already know) - the same in swimming the pool , the depth, water flow etc it makes a difference and what they wear. Same in cycling the bike technology is insane now (and drugs use)

In golf, the ball makes a massive difference let alone the club head shape, grooves, club head weight, shaft weight, shaft stiffness, grip thickness and feel, tees, caddy. Then there's the course and the lay out of it. I could go on.

If we want to compare cricket to these sports without a doubt it would be far easier to bat now for someone like Bradman. Take Tiger Woods back eras in golf it gets harder for him to play - everything is against him in terms of ball and club technology - not to mention the fact he would have less to play for financially and fame wise, less fans. The further back you take Smith the harder logically it gets for him - uncovered pitches, worse bat, worse gloves etc, worse umpires even. The further you bring an ATG player the easier it should get for him with the bat in my view, always. The further back you take a bowler the easier it should get. Just my thoughts logically. Sutcliffe I'd wager to average 70+ now despite the struggles currently, he was an ATG - this isn't a David Warner, Rory Burns or whoever - it's an ATG cricketer - he would be brutal to bowl to even on a green seamer in England considering he held a 60 plus average his entire career. It gets even harder if you look at Bradman (in my opinion)

The only factor with Bradman was whether or not the umpires were scared to give him out - he often he nicked off / plumb and wasn't given out could be brought into the equation here - and if he benefitted from very favourable umpiring I would be happy to massively adjust the estimated average for him. If he didn't well then..all just speculation , but my opinion anyway.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Exact reason why he would score lesser now. Better fielding, more technology to find out where he scores least, and allowing one and bowling at the other batsman can happen. There are attacking bowlers, who will try to take wickets, and there will be defensive ones who will keep the runs down. Occasionally there will be McGraths and Pollocks, who will do both.

In terms of seeing where he scores, if one is thinking of shot placement, the means to do so have been around for a long time:

(It's Hobbs, but look at the date)

And if it is in terms of those beehive diagrams and the like, they don't seem to have given people clear and consistant ideas on how to go about bowling to Smith, for example, and I am sceptical the information gained from them is more useful than simply watching the batsman play, although it may be more compact.

Attacking and defensive bowlers aren't exactly news either, nor the ability to go from one to the other. Indeed, bowlers back then could go all the way to leg-theory. As discussed earlier, partnerships in bowling is also something not new.

Furthermore, Bradman was renowned for his precise shot placement IIRC,—unlike Australian batsmen nowadays* who seem to have no ability in this at all— and combined with shorter boundaries, it may be enough to overcome the improvement in fielding.



* Although it was funny to see Paine beat three English fielders during the 4th test.

 

[MrPrez]

I do find it a funny argument to say that statistical anomalies are harder to come across today than in the past. Larger sample sizes means more anomalies.

And we have Smith today who is batting in a fashion as close to Bradman as we're likely to see.

Anomaly is admittedly probably not the right term. In fact, what I'm suggesting is probably the complete opposite of the traditional understanding of anomaly.

It's a lot easier to be dominant in an underdeveloped sports infrastructure than it is in a hyper-professionalised one. Think, NBA vs a South African basketball league. There is just much more scope for a fantastic talent to dominate the latter than the former, and to a greater degree, too.

This is also what makes Steve Smith so astonishing - he's head and shoulders above everyone else statistically in this generation - even in the Tendulkar/Ponting/Lara/Kallis/Dravid etc era, the stats were markedly less varied than the current Smith vs Kohli vs Kane vs Root vs Pujara situation.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

The only factor with Bradman was whether or not the umpires were scared to give him out - he often he nicked off / plumb and wasn't given out could be brought into the equation here - and if he benefitted from very favourable umpiring I would be happy to massively adjust the estimated average for him. If he didn't well then..all just speculation , but my opinion anyway.

Somebody ask Doug Wright.

And Bill Voce. (Odd to think he toured Australia 13 years after he first toured.)

 

[Starfighter]

Exact reason why he would score lesser now. Better fielding, more technology to find out where he scores least, and allowing one and bowling at the other batsman can happen. There are attacking bowlers, who will try to take wickets, and there will be defensive ones who will keep the runs down. Occasionally there will be McGraths and Pollocks, who will do both.

None of these factors have reduced scoring generally, why would they reduce a specific batsman's average? I think bats with a sweet spot five times larger are just as important, not to mention shorter boundaries. Take five metres off a 70 metre boundary. That's 7% less distance to hit the ball (easier boundaries) and 13% less area of the field, which is 13% less area to be caught in. That'll make a difference.

 

[Farkspark]

Bradman would be probably averaging 99.95