I see your point but I think what others are trying to point out, is that even if you agree that he was just too much of a freak at a time when most others were just human, there is nothing to suggest that the freak won't do just as well even now. Coz averaging 60 for any length of time seems such a huge achievement even today, even FC averages do not hit those that consistently. Like the definition of a good batting average has not changed across so many decades, why do you think the outlier will change ?
At the very least, you can surely see there is as much chance of him dominating exactly how he did as there isn't, if he were to be born in this era and be a professional round about now.
Of course, there is that possibility - I'm not denying that. It's possible he would have done the same and averaged 90+.
It's just my opinion that what is more likely is that Bradman probably would have averaged somewhere between 60-75 (maybe 60 is too low - let's go 65-80 then) and that's because of how increasingly difficult it is to average anywhere close to that these days (especially over a whole career - we'll have to see how Smith does...). You don't see it anymore in the test arena, whereas there are plenty of instances of players hitting high 50s and even touching 60 in the past.
And a lot of that is essentially the consequence of the talent pool available. You only have to look at the level of cricket of someone like India even into the 90s - half those players were barely 'athletes'. They may have been good at cricket, but they weren't particularly great athletes. That is what has changed massively, even more so from back in Bradman's era. And the actual level of the cricket player probably hasn't changed much, probably not for the worse (talking about the average player here).
It's not very representative, but as a silly example - OF COURSE Bradman would still find those gaps in the field, naturally he would - he was the best ever. But maybe some of the shots that used to go for a boundary are now cut out by ridiculous dives. Maybe that slog over long off for six is now caught at the boundary (think of the number of insane catches in the last ~10-20 years - it was a lot more rare back in the day) and he doesn't get a chance to motor on to 254 but is caught out at 86 instead.
Naturally, Bradman would adapt - but that adaption would be him averaging 60-75 or 65-80 or whatever it is, I just think a 90+ average is more unlikely than it is likely.
Using a football example to show what I kind of mean...
en.wikipedia.org
Look at Cristiano and Messi - considered among the greatest goalscorers ever. But compared to even Puskas and Muller and Pele, nevermind Bican, their 'goal per game' average is well...average.
Similarly, looking through that list, the top 20 ratios are basically made up of players who played more than 20 years ago with the exception of Messi, Cristiano and at the bottom of the ~20 or so, Ibrahimovic (and Romario but most of his goals were in the 90s anyway).
And no one is suggesting that in today's game, Puskas and Muller would still be scoring (across their careers) at 1 goal a game. It is more likely that, like Messi and Cristiano, they'd probably average a goal a game for ~5-10 years, and their overall career average would probably drop to somewhere in the 0.7-0.8 goals per game at best.
I hope that kind of helps explain what I'm trying to get at?
