-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
I'm sure this has been done before but anyway..........
- Thread starter sqwerty
- Start date
Robertinho
Cricketer Of The Year
He's talking about going through the various levels of cricket with the sort of intense training and professionalism that we have now. Look at how much money there is in cricket - he would have access to a vast array of coaching and the like.
Realistically, there's no way you can tell. But, look at his strengths, and his weaknesses, and see how those aspects of cricket have changed today. In my opinion... he still would have done just as well. We have pretty flat pitches these days, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they have uncovered pitches for at least a portion of his career?
Realistically, there's no way you can tell. But, look at his strengths, and his weaknesses, and see how those aspects of cricket have changed today. In my opinion... he still would have done just as well. We have pretty flat pitches these days, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they have uncovered pitches for at least a portion of his career?
BoyBrumby
Englishman
It's obviously impossible to know for sure &, of course, cricket has made the kind of advances one would expect an increasingly professional sport to make in the near 60 years since Sir Donald retired. My guess is that he'd still average something close to the hallowed 99.94 even now tho.
If one looks at the best of Bradman's contemporaries & near contemporaries there are a handful (Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Headley) who average something broadly similar to the cream of today's crop (high 50s- low 60s). No-one has come even remotely close to sustaining a Bradman-esque figure over 50+ tests before or since. That suggests to me that Bradman is (it's an overused word in sport, but certainly applies here) unique.
If one looks at the best of Bradman's contemporaries & near contemporaries there are a handful (Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton, Headley) who average something broadly similar to the cream of today's crop (high 50s- low 60s). No-one has come even remotely close to sustaining a Bradman-esque figure over 50+ tests before or since. That suggests to me that Bradman is (it's an overused word in sport, but certainly applies here) unique.
howardj
International Coach
I can't believe the arrogance of some people. I mean, with this question, I always come back to the basic proposition that one should judge a player against his contemporaries - if it was so easy back then, why didn't everyone average 99? Fact is, very few managed to average even half of that. In terms of results, he was at least twice as good as most others, and with the benefit of covered pitches etc, Ive yet to ever hear a decent argument as to why he wouldn't stand out just as much in the modern game.
howardj
International Coach
And discovering that weakness would result in his average (two times better than other 'greats' of the game) plummeting? If you're a great player, responding to bowlers who have found a chink in your batting armour, is all part of the challenge. Im sure Bradman would have countered whatever modern technology threw at him.Deja moo said:
EDIT: Also, technology works both ways. Im sure, if he had access to videos of himself batting, it would have made him a better player.
Last edited:
Almost everything is different today compared to when he played. some things would have worked against him others to his advantage and its easy to just put too much emphasis on what would have counted against him simply because its hard to imagine anyone so far ahead of anyone else.
But its probably not fair.
He should really only be compared only to his contemporaries as he would of course have adjusted to the differences today.
Its interesting that he himself considered others of his time as better batters than himself, but not with the same powers of concentration as Bradman
But its probably not fair.
He should really only be compared only to his contemporaries as he would of course have adjusted to the differences today.
Its interesting that he himself considered others of his time as better batters than himself, but not with the same powers of concentration as Bradman
Last edited:
BoyBrumby
Englishman
I had to check, but The Don's % of NOs seem about the same as some of today's champion batters. He had 10 in 80 innings (12.5% of his innings) which roughly corresponds with Dravid's 18 in 158 (11.4%) & Ponting's 22 in 161 (13.7%). Tendulkar does the worst, with only 21 asterisks next to his 201 innings (10.4%), but Kallis (confirming a few suspicions many have about him being as selfish player) has 27 NOs from only 157 innings (17.2%).swede said:
Bradman NOs also seem broadly akin to some of the greats of his own era too: Sutcliffe had 9 in 84 innings (10.7%), Headley 4 in 40 (10%), Hammond 16 in 140 (11.4%) & Hutton 15 in 138 (10.9%). However Hobbs seems the most selfless of the greats with only 7 NOs in 102 innings (6.9%).
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
I once answered this question (obviously at the time less knowledgeable of the great game) with "his average definitely would have dropped" because the sheer thought that all the greats that I have witnessed in my time have never been able to average more than 60 (Lara, Sachin, S Waugh, Border Dravid, Kallis, Ponting, Inzy, Gilchrist etc etc.) made me believe at the time that whilst Bradman was undoubtedly a better batsman then all of them, how could he be (theoretically in terms of average) almost twice the player of the best I've ever seen?
But when you look (as Brumby said himself) at his nearest contemporaries (before and after he debuted) and what the best of them averaged (Hobbs, Hutton, Headley lucky to break the 60 barrier at the end of their career), it all turns to the one simple point. Bradman was simply that much better than everyone else. And there is no reason why, if the question is posed right whereby he wasn't just transported from his era to ours, but he started in this era with all the opportunities available to all batsman, that he'd be just as good as he was.
Its not that inconceveiable that if Hayden can have an average almost 55 and score 1000 runs every year for the past 5 years (This is no rag on Hayden as I feel he sometimes gets too much criticism on this board, but he is miles away from an all-time great and is lightyears away from Headley, Hobbs, Hammond etc. let alone Bradman) that Bradman could average 99.94, and possibly even more.
Logically, yes his weaknesses could be found out with technology, but that hasn't exactly stopped current players from not scoring prolifically has it? Hayden, Sehwag, Gilchrist and Ponting are all far from picture perfect players and do have obvious technical flaws or deficiencies. They haven't necessarily been ironed out, but they've played around it. Bradman would logically be able to do that, and most likely iron them out. Natural talent and individual ability IMO outweighs what can be coached anyway. Bradman obviously had talent that no other cricketer had.
But when you look (as Brumby said himself) at his nearest contemporaries (before and after he debuted) and what the best of them averaged (Hobbs, Hutton, Headley lucky to break the 60 barrier at the end of their career), it all turns to the one simple point. Bradman was simply that much better than everyone else. And there is no reason why, if the question is posed right whereby he wasn't just transported from his era to ours, but he started in this era with all the opportunities available to all batsman, that he'd be just as good as he was.
Its not that inconceveiable that if Hayden can have an average almost 55 and score 1000 runs every year for the past 5 years (This is no rag on Hayden as I feel he sometimes gets too much criticism on this board, but he is miles away from an all-time great and is lightyears away from Headley, Hobbs, Hammond etc. let alone Bradman) that Bradman could average 99.94, and possibly even more.
Logically, yes his weaknesses could be found out with technology, but that hasn't exactly stopped current players from not scoring prolifically has it? Hayden, Sehwag, Gilchrist and Ponting are all far from picture perfect players and do have obvious technical flaws or deficiencies. They haven't necessarily been ironed out, but they've played around it. Bradman would logically be able to do that, and most likely iron them out. Natural talent and individual ability IMO outweighs what can be coached anyway. Bradman obviously had talent that no other cricketer had.
open365
International Vice-Captain
I'm really suprised that everyone has said he would average higher,i thought it would be the other way around.
Its all conjecture,but my veiw is that in the olden days,there were more quirks in the game and Bradman was the one to take most advantage of them.
The game has changed beyond recognition and i just don't think he would be able to maintain such an average if he played now.
Its all conjecture,but my veiw is that in the olden days,there were more quirks in the game and Bradman was the one to take most advantage of them.
The game has changed beyond recognition and i just don't think he would be able to maintain such an average if he played now.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
LOL! Any chance to take a pot shot at Jaques eh?BoyBrumby said:
Whilst I see your point, whereby not outs could concieveably correspond with how selfish a player was, it may actually tell more a tale on the player's style as well. Attacking batsman are often out much more often (obviously) than a batsman who puts more value on their wicket. Kallis clearly puts a crap load of value on his wicket, along with Dravid (who I thought would have a higher not out% to be honest, seeing as from 2003 to present his average has jumped from around 53 to 57.11, the highest of current players who have played 20 innings).
Kallis probably is a more selfish player than other batsman (he's still one of my favourite players though, for his sheer concentration which is amazing) but not outs don't confirm it IMO.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Think Jacques & you should compare notes....Jono said:Yeah Lara has very few not outs, but he has a 400* which IMO covers like 10 not outs, seeing as how when I end up on a 7* I'm over the moon at the benefit my average receives.
I'm not denying he's a great player, it's just sometimes the value he obviously sets by his wicket is to the detriment of his team. The example I always think of is the 5th test of our 04/05 series. SA needed quick runs on the board to give themselves any chance, but he was content to potter along with the smell of the red ink in his nostrils.
What irks me even more is that he can score quickly when he's minded to; witness his record-breaking 50 versus the Zimbas.
