It does amuse me the way this subject polarises opinion,and particularly the way that folk who I assume are essentially intelligent human beings come out with such mindless drivel.
I'll admit to being in the "Bradman" camp, but not because I particularly like him, but because of his dominance over 20 years - yes that's 20 years - and he lost seven good years to the war - - his stats are so far ahead of his peers that it defies logic to compare his dominance with guys whose stats are very similar to at least half a dozen of their contemporaries.
If he played today I think the biggest problem Bradman would have would be with the quality of fielding. Piercing the gaps in the field was one of his great talents, and he'd find that harder, but then he'd have a much better bat, so perhaps that wouldn't matter.
He'd also have had to face more genuinely quick bowlers, and its said he didn't like real pace. But that's a silly argument really, 'cos what he didn't like to do was risk injury. The speed of his reactions and his hand/eye co-ordination were always superlative, so with all the modern protective equipment I reckon he'd have come off best against the quicks, like he did against Larwood in 1930.
And the change he'd have liked most would be covered wickets. His weakness on sticky wickets is overstated, if only because they cut everyone down to size, but it was undoubtedly the major flaw in his CV - he was no Sutcliffe - but he'd never encounter one now, so his biggest problem would be gone.
And don't forget Bradman was adaptable too - the biggest law change in his time was in the lbw law - a whole new aspect of the game opened up once bowlers no longer had to pitch the ball in line to get a decision. Bradman played just about exactly half his career under the old law and half under the new - he was out lbw 16 times pre 1935, and 11 times after, so he sorted that one out without any trouble - the suggestion that he wouldn't have adapted his technique to other changes is just ludicrous.
