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

[Richard Rash]

If Sir Donald Bradman was playing cricket these days do you think is average would be as high as it was? or do you think that he would struggle a little more than he did.

 

[Richard]

Personally I think he'd average at least 150 because many of the wickets he played on were far more difficult for batting than anyone playing these days could possibly imagine.
And I think his one-day average would be something like double that.

 

[Steulen]

I believe the opposite. I think he would be of Tendulkar/Lara class, but no better. Reasons?
1. More Test playing countries means a greater diversity of conditions, levelling the playing field.
2. far better average fitness, training, equipment and tactical preparations, making this kind of domination highly unlikely
3. greater demands on players, increasing the risk of injuries and bad physical/mental runs.

And yes, this means I disagree with the The Don = the best ever cult. Call me an infidel.

 

[Richard Rash]

Hmm it is a very interesting issue because i believe you could look at it the way Richard has, which is a very fair point or you could say that he only played against four teams and mostly against England which means he must have got used to playing there bowlers and today there is more competition with seven pretty decent teams so he might find it harder facing so many different types of bowlers from all over the world and the more amount of games they play these days might take their toll on him.. but i actually, for once, agree with richard

 

[Sehwag309]

How was he against quality spin? Any Statistics

 

[Camel56]

Ive heard the argument about players being fitter, more proffessional etc these days but you must remember, if Bradman were playing to today, he also would be fitter and more proffessional. While the general standard of cricket would be higher because of this, so too would the Don's batting ability. I think he would probably have averaged around the same in test cricket with a ODI average 20 or so runs better than the best we have seen.
Statements like Richards that he would have averaged 150 in tests and double that in one day matches are just fanciful. He was far ahead of his team mates and opponents back then and you would find that with all the inovations and improvements in the game, he would be ahead by a similar margin were he to play today.

 

[Richard]

How was he against quality spin? Any Statistics

His side once bowled someone out for something like 54 and 39 on a sticky, one left-arm spinner taking 13 for 30 or something like that.
Bradman ordered his bowler out onto the pitch and proceeded to play him - while bowling normally - with the edge of his bat.
That do you?
Added, of course, to the fact that spin-friendly conditions were occurred far more often in his day than they do now.

 

[Mister Wright]

If the Don was born in this era he wouldn't have the same hand-eye co-ordination he had when he played. For starters it is very unlikely he would have a water tank to hit that golf ball with a stick. Hence his absolutely shocking technique would mean he would be brought back to the field, IMO it is his hand-eye co-ordinaiton that made him such a good player along with his concerntration - not his technique.

He probably would have just been a regular batsman and probably would have taken up tennis.

That's to say if he was born in the 70s, he might not want to play cricket, who knows?

 

[Richard]

I believe the opposite. I think he would be of Tendulkar/Lara class, but no better. Reasons?
1. More Test playing countries means a greater diversity of conditions, levelling the playing field.

Yet the conditions of the day varied far more than they do now.
In the few different Test grounds Bradman played on in his day, he could quite conceivably have faced twice the number of variations in conditions we see today.
Add, of course, to the fact that he played at all sorts of different venues in England, South Africa, Australia and more in his First-Class career and came-out with an average still far in excess of what anyone else has achieved.

2. far better average fitness, training, equipment and tactical preparations, making this kind of domination highly unlikely

If so, the Don would have been part of it.
Someone spotted a weakness with TV? He'd spot the same thing - possibly before anyone else - and sort it out.
Everyone else was fit? He'd get fit.

3. greater demands on players, increasing the risk of injuries and bad physical/mental runs.

Greater physical demands, you say? Have you any idea what sort of injuries faced players who got batting wrong in Bradman's day were? Protective equipment these days is much more efficient than the substandard stuff in his day.
And if you really think the game is mentally tougher these days, you should talk to some players who played in the 20s and 30s (or more realistically read what they said, because there aren't many who can do any talking any more).

 

[Richard]

That's to say if he was born in the 70s, he might not want to play cricket, who knows?

And the game would never know what it had lost.
Well, all right, it might (because he'd surely still play at some level and dominate that about fifty times how others dominated it).

 

[Tony Blade]

hehe Butterfly Effect.

 

[a massive zebra]

How was he against quality spin? Any Statistics

Hedley Verity got him out far more than anyone else in Test Cricket.

 

[Richard]

And Bill O'Reilly more than anyone else in First-Class cricket.
Yet he still managed to score a double-century or three in games against them.

 

[Will Scarlet]

If the Don was born in this era he wouldn't have the same hand-eye co-ordination he had when he played. For starters it is very unlikely he would have a water tank to hit that golf ball with a stick. Hence his absolutely shocking technique would mean he would be brought back to the field, IMO it is his hand-eye co-ordinaiton that made him such a good player along with his concerntration - not his technique.

He probably would have just been a regular batsman and probably would have taken up tennis.

QUOTE]

Good call.

And let's not forget that marginal stumpings and runouts are now determined by the third umpire, where as previously were given in the batsmen's favour. Neutral umpires were also introduced for a reason (not implying any particular or intentional biases).

The statement that Bradman would be 'fitter and more professional' than his peers is ridiculous. The whole thing with professionalism is that players of any sport can concentrate on their sport and have no excuse for being unfit. Thus, most modern sportsmen are of the same level of fitness and professionalism as their peers. Except for US track athletes!

I still think he'd average 60-70 these days though. He was a brilliant batsmen in a different era.

 

[Richard]

And let's not forget that marginal stumpings and runouts are now determined by the third umpire, where as previously were given in the batsmen's favour. Neutral umpires were also introduced for a reason (not implying any particular or intentional biases).

IMO this hasn't really had too much of an effect on lowering averages - and if any effect were substantial, it'd be cancelled-out by other stuff.

 

[Pratters]

Bradman averaged what he did in an era where the other people didnt come close to that batting average. That to me is the definitive guide to his greatness.

Apart from that, there arent uncovered wickets in this era and batting mis much easier. The bowling standard too isnt great apart apart from Australia, England recently and Pakistan at times. But there are more bowling line ups to handle.

Also much more cricket over a year means you are more likely to fail more regularly and go through phases of form decline.

But Bradman managed in HIS era what nobody else managed. Every thing else is totally subjective and Bradman could have averaged 60-70 in the modern era or indeed could have averaged 120 (Even Bradman wouldnt be able to average 150 IMO)

But he would have definitely been able to compete in the modern era as good as the best (ie Tendlkar, Lara) if not better.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think Bradman's average would be broadly the same as how it ended up. Maybe higher cos v few go on to play @ 40 in tests nowadays.

True, there were fewer test playing nations back then & only England and SA were really on a par with the Aussies, but cricket was an awful lot more popular in England back then. Crowds of 20k for county games weren't overly uncommon. Pretty much every chap of sporting age would've played, so it was a large pool of talent to choose from still.

Bradman's real weakness was short pitched fast stuff (as discovered by the chap to my left!). This was due to his adversion (natural enough) to being hit. One really has to consider how poor the protective equipment was back then. With Larwood & Voce roaring in anyone would justifiably be worried for their very life!

Sure, nowdays Harmy or Flintoff might make him duck & dive a bit, but he wouldn't be in mortal danger.

The Don was a one-off. Not just in cricket, but arguably in any sport. His average stands alone. Nearly 40 more than his nearest rival in the AT list. To put that in perspective, look at Atherton's, Stewart's or Hussain's final averages!

 

[Richard]

Bradman's real weakness was short pitched fast stuff (as discovered by the chap to my left!). This was due to his adversion (natural enough) to being hit. One really has to consider how poor the protective equipment was back then. With Larwood & Voce roaring in anyone would justifiably be worried for their very life!

I think with them roaring in to a field such as they roared in to in 1932\33 would be more accurate.
Of course, most of us would be pretty happy to have a weakness that resulted in us averaging only 56.
I really think Bradman's weaknesses were exaggerated by that Bodyline series (plus the lack of proper protective equipment) - seriously, Bodyline is not regulation short-pitched, quick stuff. It's totally unlike anything else ever conceived, and the difficulties of facing it can, mercifully, be merely dreamt of today.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Bodyline is not regulation short-pitched, quick stuff. It's totally unlike anything else ever conceived, and the difficulties of facing it can, mercifully, be merely dreamt of today.

That simply isn't true. I would recommend you read "Douglas Jardine: Spartan Cricketer" by Christopher Douglas. Messers Jardine & Larwood are arguably two of the most traduced cricketers in test history.

Douglas quotes several examples of bowlers using "leg-theory" decades before 32/33. What made Larwood in particular different was his pace & accuracy.

"Bodyline" is an emotive term. If we accept Larwood was bowling bodyline we must also allow that the great Windies pace attack bowled "headline" for the better part of three decades. Holding's spell to the 45 year old B Close sticks in my mind, as does Walsh's 11 consecutive bouncers to Dev Malcolm, a ferret if ever there was one.

 

[Richard]

In both cases above it's someone using disgraceful tactics, first to a batsman well past having the eyesight to defend himself, and second to one of the most hopeless batsmen of all-time.
And as I've mentioned before, it's a bit different when you've got 4 or 5 bowlers doing the same thing hour after hour, session after session (ie West Indies of the '70s and so).
Using the same tactics with a single bowler (or 2) to a fully-fledged batsman at the top of his game isn't anywhere near the same.
Leg-theory, similarly, isn't the same. It's totally incomparable.
Yes, I know he (Jardine) didn't invent the thing - but no-one had ever used it in Australia before, nor with two bowlers like Larwood and Voce, nor on wickets such as the Adelaide one which caused most problems.
1932\33, while not an isolated incident, was, I remain convinced, incomparable to anything else in cricket history.