Would a batsmen be considered greater then Bradman if?

[GotSpin]

Yes, would very possibly have been the first to get to 10,000 runs(or atleast improved that damned average to hundred ) His godly FC record provides an indication that he would still have scored at an insane rate in an era with a lot more matches.

An ever sadder case is that of Vijay Merchant, who many considered to be second best after Bradman, He lost most of his career due to the war and averaged 72 in FC games, played only ten games and averaged 48 in them(All against very good sides, and outscored only by Hammond if I remember well)

Indeed. While there weren't as many Test Matches they played a lot more FC games. On the 1948 Invincibles tour there was 112 days of play scheduled in 144 days

Hadn't heard of Merchant before but just looked him up, impressive stuff. Archie Jackson was another one to have a career cut short

 

[GotSpin]

Arguably not, given his self-avowed health problems through much of the war, which saw him invalided out of the army..

It's not to suggest that he would have scored at an even greater rate had he had those years, but that he managed to remain a prolific scorer after the war following his illnesses and older age.

It's more of a hypothetical suggestion that we perhaps missed the best years of Bradman.

 

[The Sean]

The most amazing thing about his career is that he lost six of his best years to WWII

Arguably not, given his self-avowed health problems through much of the war, which saw him invalided out of the army..

Agreed, for a long time it was said almost without thinking that Bradman lost all those peak years to the war, but his health problems during that time meant that had he continued to play full-time during that period then he may well have retired by the early 1940s. The war, and the subsequent break from cricket and recovery period after his discharge from the military, arguably extended his career by several years.

 

[GotSpin]

Agreed, for a long time it was said almost without thinking that Bradman lost all those peak years to the war, but his health problems during that time meant that had he continued to play full-time during that period then he may well have retired by the early 1940s. The war, and the subsequent break from cricket and recovery period after his discharge from the military, arguably extended his career by several years.

But it is also remarkable in that he was able to recover, and although reaching an age today regarded as old in the cricketing world, was still able to plunder runs in his latter years. I made a mistake in suggesting he lost his best years to the war, which is of course possible too, when rather it was too poor health. But that in itself is testimony to his god like abilities. We may well have missed the best of what Bradman had to offer.

 

[Ikki]

Thanks Burgey and The Sean, I didn't know that about Bradman. What was wrong with him during war-time/peak?

 

[GotSpin]

Thanks Burgey and The Sean, I didn't know that about Bradman. What was wrong with him during war-time/peak?

Fibrositis. Some muscular pain thing.

 

[fredfertang]

The war is an interesting point - Len Hutton and Denis Compton without doubt lost the peak of their careers as did George Headley - had Hutton and Compton had those years, had Headley had the same opportunities and had Bradman had to endure the daily grind of an English pro perhaps they'd all have comparable records.

But Bradman's record is there for all to see - although of course his Test average and conversion rate is by some distance inferior to that of Andy Ganteaume

 

[The Sean]

But it is also remarkable in that he was able to recover, and although reaching an age today regarded as old in the cricketing world, was still able to plunder runs in his latter years. I made a mistake in suggesting he lost his best years to the war, which is of course possible too, when rather it was too poor health. But that in itself is testimony to his god like abilities. We may well have missed the best of what Bradman had to offer.

Yeah, I wrote my comment before I saw your clarification - I don't disagree with the point you make there.

 

[Debris]

No. Twenty tests is not a large enough sample. Michael Hussey's average after his first 20 tests was 84.80 and it is now 52.16 after 50 tests. Mark Taylor and Adam Gilchrist were the same with inflated averages after 20 tests. This is why I find it difficult to rate Graeme Pollock for one.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Of course, if we excluded the games not on seaming, spinning, uncovered and sticky decks against a hypothetical battery of Ambrose, McGrath, Murali and Syd Barnes, not using a Murray Mints-covered ball, not without a helmet or box, not in India, not during the Indian summer, not with Stevie Wonder and Helen Keller umpiring from each end, not during Ramadan so he'd be unbelievably hungry, and the standard deviation of his first-chance average across each innings wasn't more than 5 to prove his consistency in such conditions.

What, he only averaged 49? Get thee to the back of Wisden.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Thanks Burgey and The Sean, I didn't know that about Bradman. What was wrong with him during war-time/peak?

Problem with his backbone, tbh. Or lack thereof.

Allegedly.

 

[pasag]

For me, number of matches aren't important, it's the time that is. Bradman was, well Bradmanesque, at 20 and he was at 40, two decades later as well. If Hussey retired with an average of 80 after 2-3 years it wouldn't do much for me because it was in same patch of form and you could write it off as just being at the right place at the right time, although that's not to take anything away from his awesomeness either.

 

[NUFAN]

^ because he lost one of his balls during batting

So what was his higher, his test strike rate or his testi strike rate of 50?

 

[Sanz]

^ because he lost one of his balls during batting

Well in that case NO.

 

[Jono]

The answer depends on what nationality the player is of course.

 

[Athlai]

What did he average in FC cricket? I hope he lost the testicle in an O'Brien feat of heroics.

 

[Jono]

His Cricinfo profile suggests it was when he jumped over the stumps when completing a run.

 

[silentstriker]

Longetivity matters. 20 test streak can be a fluke, but playing for 20 years in most of your countries Tests plus 200+ FC matches and averaging 90+ in both FC and Tests is not a fluke.

 

[Cevno]

I would say a average of 70+ in the current scenario in 75+ tests has a claim to be atleast on par .

20 tests is a bit short period.

 

[Himannv]

Whoever it is, he will be considered overrated beacuse we are all idiots.