If Bradman played in today's era?

[PhoenixFire]

If you look at the stats, no other sportsman has dominated a mainstream sport the way Bradman has, he was the very best out of any sportsman there ever has been IMO.

[Isura]

Kind of off topic, but does anyone know where to get Bradman film footage? I have a picture in my mind of how him batting would look. Something of a mix of Brendan McCullum and Sachin.

[Athlai]

I reckon Parkinson's recent interview really emphasises the point that the standard of cricket has raised since Bradman's time, the fitness levels have went up by so much that the game has changed completely. The change can be creditted to two men, WG Grace and Bradman, they are what created the modern game, pioneers, yet that does not stand to reason that if a time machine were created they would dominate it. They would be very good players but in this day and age, sport is your profession you train every day of the week, and the skill level is always rising.

Though if you were to feel if Bradman was born in this age of cricketers with all the skill and talent he possessed then, perhaps he would still dominate over todays higher standards, yet that fact alone is debatable as he created those standards and everyone else has emulated them. There may never be another Bradman and even though he may not be the best if he played today, he is the greatest batsman ever to play the game because of what he did then, in his own time, whatever has happened since is inconsequential, without him batting would never be the same as it is today.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by funnygirl

He would have been averaged around 150.

Hi Funnygirl

Here is the dampener for all Bradman 'devotees'

The world batting averages haven't changed much since Bradman's era. If anything they are marginally lower. The lowest being during Richard's era at 30.21 as compared to 31.856 during Bradman's times. Thus Bradman's average during the times of these other greats - extrapolated on the basis of the world averages and Bradman's 'multiplier' works out as -

• Hammond's Era : 97.93
• Richard's Era : 94.97
• Gavaskar's Era : 95.50
• Lara's Era : 95.85

He played in the best era of them all. So the only chance Bradman had for keeping his three figure average intact was if he hadn't played that last test

.... or maybe he should have toured South Africa in 1935-36 and played those five test matches

Bradman really had it easy dodn't he, everyone in the world was scoring more runs - right?

Or do you think it is because all the world's truly great batsmen were his contemporaries?

Lets start fighting over that

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Edit?

Thanks my dear.

Oh shucks - its too late.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Isura

Kind of off topic, but does anyone know where to get Bradman film footage? I have a picture in my mind of how him batting would look. Something of a mix of Brendan McCullum and Sachin.

Quite a bit of stuff up online.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Athlai

I reckon Parkinson's recent interview really emphasises the point that the standard of cricket has raised since Bradman's time, the fitness levels have went up by so much that the game has changed completely. The change can be creditted to two men, WG Grace and Bradman, they are what created the modern game, pioneers, yet that does not stand to reason that if a time machine were created they would dominate it. They would be very good players but in this day and age, sport is your profession you train every day of the week, and the skill level is always rising.

Though if you were to feel if Bradman was born in this age of cricketers with all the skill and talent he possessed then, perhaps he would still dominate over todays higher standards, yet that fact alone is debatable as he created those standards and everyone else has emulated them. There may never be another Bradman and even though he may not be the best if he played today, he is the greatest batsman ever to play the game because of what he did then, in his own time, whatever has happened since is inconsequential, without him batting would never be the same as it is today.

The things that made Bradman special have yet to be emulated.

Yes, Bradman was ahead of his time in some ways, but that wasn't the main reason for him being so good.

[GotSpin]

Originally Posted by Richard

Quite a bit of stuff up online.

It's obviously been said before but wow does he hit that ball cleanly

[Michaelf7777777]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

If you look at the stats, no other sportsman has dominated a mainstream sport the way Bradman has, he was the very best out of any sportsman there ever has been IMO.

The Belgian cyclist Eddy Merckx is the only sportsperson to match Bradman in my opinion.

[SJS]

A quick look at Grace's stats.....continued

So how did WG Grace fare against his contemporaries in the English first class seasons over the 20 year period of 1868-1887

• WG averaged 45.17 during this period.
• The average of all others who played in the first class game in those years put together is 16.00.
• This gives WG a multiplier of 2.82 over his contemporaries in these two decades.
• The average in the English season in the 21st centuries (2000-2007) has been 31.55
• Thus if there was someone who dominated English first class cricket today as WG did for those 20, he would have had to average 89.06 !!

An average of 89.06 for a period of 20 years !!

Not too different from Bradman's career first class average of 95.14 .

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GoT_SpIn

It's obviously been said before but wow does he hit that ball cleanly

Yep. And that too with bats far, far lighter than those which most people have used for the past 20 or 30 years.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by SJS

A quick look at Grace's stats.....continued

So how did WG Grace fare against his contemporaries in the English first class seasons over the 20 year period of 1868-1887

• WG averaged 45.17 during this period.
• The average of all others who played in the first class game in those years put together is 16.00.
• This gives WG a multiplier of 2.82 over his contemporaries in these two decades.
• The average in the English season in the 21st centuries (2000-2007) has been 31.55
• Thus if there was someone who dominated English first class cricket today as WG did for those 20, he would have had to average 89.06 !!

An average of 89.06 for a period of 20 years !!

Not too different from Bradman's career first class average of 95.14 .

WoWee. I knew he was dominant, but not to that extent.

Is this average of 16 that for those of front-line batsmen or all players?

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Richard

WoWee. I knew he was dominant, but not to that extent.

Is this average of 16 that for those of front-line batsmen or all players?

Of all players.

This is almost exactly half of the average of all first class batsmen in 2000-2007. That gives a very good idea of how different batting was at that time.

The stats dont differ at least from the time of the late 1920's. I will do the analysis for the periods before that one of these days to see when exactly the batting averages started moving up and at what speed.

[SJS]

Its even more amazing that in that 20 year period, every 7th first class century scored in England was scored by WG !!

[Somerset]

Originally Posted by Isura

Kind of off topic, but does anyone know where to get Bradman film footage? I have a picture in my mind of how him batting would look. Something of a mix of Brendan McCullum and Sachin.

I can understand the Sachin part of the mix but McCullum?? Bradman was notorious for hitting the ball along the ground and finding the gaps, McCullum just goes out there and smashes the daylights out of it!