The 'real' Steven Smith question...

[Nikhil99.94]

This is exactly what I was pointing out. These are the quality responses you get when discussion Bradman here. Who said that cricket magically changed in 10 years? I didn't. Who is reacting with a "mixture of bewilderment and amusement"? Don't think anyone outside CW reacts like this when you discuss these topics.

I don't disrespect the cricketers of the past by saying that cricket was club standard in that time. There were other challenges in those times, cricketing gear was not as advanced, travelling was tough, pitches were uncovered, no helmets, etc. And I can't say for sure if a lot of batsmen from the current era would have done well in that era or not.

My argument was clear, how do you compare one player to another who belongs to a completely different era? How do you know Bradman would have averaged more than Smith if he was batting alongside him in the current era? The top 3-4 batsmen that we have currently are just freakishly good, how do you see anyone topping that? Similarly, there are a lot of cricketers currently who have been saved by helmets and other cricketing gear, not sure how far they would have got in a different time. We need to assume a lot of things to come to any sort of conclusion.

Again, feel free to believe in what you want, I have stated my opinion clearly in this post. If the majority of the posters here believe that Bradman would have averaged 80+ in the current era and the game was the same then and now, more power to you.

The problem as per your earlier statement is if you can’t say bradman was miles better batsman than sobers,G.Chappell,richards,then how can you say sobers,richards,G.Chappell were better batsman than O’reilly?you can’t compare era right?

 

[karan_fromthestands]

The problem as per your earlier statement is if you can’t say bradman was miles better batsman than sobers,G.Chappell,richards,then how can you say sobers,richards,G.Chappell were better batsman than O’reilly?you can’t compare era right?

When did I say that?

 

[karan_fromthestands]

To be blunt, the only people that I ever read downgrading Bradmans achievements are SRT fanatics.

Find one post by me praising SRT ! Also, I have always rated Bradman very highly, I am just saying that modern cricketers(and cricketers from all eras) should get their due instead of saying they are great but they are second to X or Y player.

 

[kyear2]

Bradman is certainly in a category just above everyone else. I don't believe he would average 100 now, and especially not in the 80's or 90's but no doubt he's still better than that next tier of Sobers, Tendulkar, Smith, Lara, Richards.

 

[Slifer]

Find one post by me praising SRT ! Also, I have always rated Bradman very highly, I am just saying that modern cricketers(and cricketers from all eras) should get their due instead of saying they are great but they are second to X or Y player.

Not you per set but you look at any youtube video and you'll see them. So annoying...

 

[Slifer]

Find one post by me praising SRT ! Also, I have always rated Bradman very highly, I am just saying that modern cricketers(and cricketers from all eras) should get their due instead of saying they are great but they are second to X or Y player.

Search the comments, won't take you long to see what I mean....

 

[ankitj]

If the majority of the posters here believe that Bradman would have averaged 80+ in the current era and the game was the same then and now, more power to you.

I don't necessarily believe that*. But I do believe no one from any other era if transported to Bradman's era even with all the benefits of superior training will average 100. Bradman was bloody good at not getting out. With all the superior stroke play learned in another era, they can't match Bradman at not getting out IMO.

* which is not same as believing the opposite to be clear (don't believe God exists vs. believe God doesn't exist: same difference)

 

[TheJediBrah]

Bradman was very quick scoring IIRC, even by modern standards. Could be wrong but i usually see his strike rate somewhere between 70 and 80. Sure he wasn't playing scoops and reverse sweeps but I wouldn't say modern players have "superior stroke play"

 

[Spark]

The bloke scored 300 in a day. Clearly he could bat quickly when the time arose.

 

[Gnske]

No modern defensive field settings, so not that impressive. Defensive fields weren't invented until 2004

 

[honestbharani]

Personally, I dont think it was ever a hypothetical argument. Bradman was ahead of his peers as a batsman by a margin which is greater than half by which anyone else has ever been, perhaps more than half. Batting average of 50 has almost always indicated greatness (except perhaps the 2005-2015 CEO pitches) and this guy averaged double that.

I dont see it as Bradman would have averaged 80 if he played today nonsense, coz the hypotheticals are just assumptions and usually based on bias anyways. Its just that he was so much better than the next best of his era and no one has ever been that much better than their next best in any era. That makes him unquestionably the best batsman ever. And there is no shame in being in the next tier anyways.

 

[Spark]

Personally, I dont think it was ever a hypothetical argument. Bradman was ahead of his peers as a batsman by a margin which is greater than half by which anyone else has ever been, perhaps more than half. Batting average of 50 has almost always indicated greatness (except perhaps the 2005-2015 CEO pitches) and this guy averaged double that.

I dont see it as Bradman would have averaged 80 if he played today nonsense, coz the hypotheticals are just assumptions and usually based on bias anyways. Its just that he was so much better than the next best of his era and no one has ever been that much better than their next best in any era. That makes him unquestionably the best batsman ever. And there is no shame in being in the next tier anyways.

Didn't the era immediately after Bradman retired (1950s and early 60s) become notorious for having some of the roadiest roads to ever road? Or was that a bit later?

 

[honestbharani]

Didn't the era immediately after Bradman retired (1950s and early 60s) become notorious for having some of the roadiest roads to ever road? Or was that a bit later?

I think it was, a bit like 2000s or at least that is what I have read. But I just went by what I have actually seen when the averages were definitely bloated between 2005 and 2015.

 

[ankitj]

Bradman was very quick scoring IIRC, even by modern standards. Could be wrong but i usually see his strike rate somewhere between 70 and 80. Sure he wasn't playing scoops and reverse sweeps but I wouldn't say modern players have "superior stroke play"

It's only for games against WI and SA that we don't know his SR. Against other 2 opposition his SR was 58 and 62. Which is still better than someone like Tendulkar. But he was not exactly Sehwag.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[Nikhil99.94]

Bradman was miles better than his contemporaries (headley,Hutton,Hammond ,Nourse,Compton, Mccabe).
Bradman towered some of greatest batsman of all time.Averaging 40+ more than the 3H and almost 50 more than the other three.That is good enough for him to be greatest by a miles,no hypothesis is required

 

[Coronis]

Bradman would average about 60 and those other scrubs from his era would average mid 30’s nowadays.

 

[Daemon]

Bradman was good but not sure how he would fare on a flat deck against Wagner’s 125kph bouncers.

 

[Coronis]

It's only for games against WI and IND that we don't know his SR. Against other 2 opposition his SR was 58 and 62. Which is still better than someone like Tendulkar. But he was not exactly Sehwag.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Well apart from Gilchrist, nobody was exactly Sehwag. The main difference for Bradman is that he, would also have extremely long innings (by balls faced) comparable with the longest in history.

For example, Kallis faced 120 deliveries a dismissal, whilst striking at 46. Bradman faced ~164 deliveries a dismissal whilst striking at ~61. Other players between them in terms of balls faced struck at or below 45 for their career. So basically he would score as fast as Lara, but face 14 more overs than him each innings.

 

[kyear2]

Bradman was miles better than his contemporaries (headley,Hutton,Hammond ,Nourse,Compton, Mccabe).
Bradman towered some of greatest batsman of all time.Averaging 40+ more than the 3H and almost 50 more than the other three.That is good enough for him to be greatest by a miles,no hypothesis is required

Because of the limited amount of quality opposition this isn't exactly true, but there is no doubt he was better than everyone else.

 

[Gnske]

Bradman was good but not sure how he would fare on a flat deck against Wagner’s 125kph bouncers.

Couldn't even face an attack of unconditioned fast bowlers bowling head-high bouncers. Imagine Bradman facing a modern and conditioned bowler.

Someone like Morne Morkel and Kyle Jamieson would have troubled Bradman with his bat-down shtick greatly.