Let's say we get a new Bradman...what happens?

[viriya]

He was definitely classier than Sachin, Viv et al.

I don't think you should even mention those peasant names tbh.

Can't believe you got to watch him play.. which year was this if you don't mind mentioning?

 

[harsh.ag]

Is that Pele figure his international record (really should be to compare it to The Don's international feats), or does it include the many meaningless uncompetitive game he played to fill his boots? I'm thinking the latter, which shows really how great Bradman was.

They are no Johan Cruyff.

Yeah the bell curve is ****ed.

Yeah, WG ****ed it for Bradman to ease into later.

I reckon Williamson will end up causing people to ask a few questions by the time he's 30.

Yessss.

They weren't amateurs but it's fair to say that the best bowlers of his time were playing for his side.

 

[harsh.ag]

How is Bedser a relevant example of a bowler Bradman faced? Bedser was not the Bedser he became till 1950.

Tbf, nobody is the somebody they become till 1950.

 

[cnerd123]

Tbf, nobody is the somebody they become till 1950.

 

[viriya]

Tbf, nobody is the somebody they become till 1950.

Do you have a zoomed in link of that Bradman thumbnail? Looks interesting.

 

[harsh.ag]

 

[JBMAC]

I don't think you should even mention those peasant names tbh.

Can't believe you got to watch him play.. which year was this if you don't mind mentioning?

The first time I saw him play was in 1946 First Test against the poms just after the war at The Gabba . I was 10 then. I had seen him play Sheffield Shield games that year as well. The last time I saw him play was in 1954 at The Exhibition Ground in Brisbane (6 years after he officially retired) In the Lindsay Hassett Testimonial match and I believe the 81 he scored in the 2nd innings showed he had not lost much in those 6 years.My late Dad never missed a test or shield game if possible from the Bodyline series on and naturally I always went with him.


Footnote: Testimonial matches were played to grant some decent income to players deemed to have served their country well. No big wages for them then and all cricketers had full time jobs.

 

[Flem274*]

This thread isn't about what a New Bradman would average if there was one.

This OP basically says "If a new player dominated as much as Bradman did, what would be the repercussions?" -- speculating over what Bradman would've averaged in 2015 or 1976 or 3052 is something we've done in a thousand threads before; no need to turn this one into that as well.

thank you

 

[Swingpanzee]

Warner is the next Bradman. IIRC JBMAC said something similar in one the threads on here.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The first time I saw him play was in 1946 First Test against the poms just after the war at The Gabba . I was 10 then. I had seen him play Sheffield Shield games that year as well. The last time I saw him play was in 1954 at The Exhibition Ground in Brisbane (6 years after he officially retired) In the Lindsay Hassett Testimonial match and I believe the 81 he scored in the 2nd innings showed he had not lost much in those 6 years.My late Dad never missed a test or shield game if possible from the Bodyline series on and naturally I always went with him.


Footnote: Testimonial matches were played to grant some decent income to players deemed to have served their country well. No big wages for them then and all cricketers had full time jobs.

Wow, good stuff.

 

[harsh.ag]

The question is not how the world will handle The New Bradman, but how The New Bradman will handle Tendulkar saying "I saw him playing on television and was struck by his technique, so I asked my wife to come look at him, and she looked at him on Television and said yes, there is a similarity between the two...his compactness, technique, stroke production... it all seemed to gel!"

 

[OverratedSanity]

Would be amazing if we did get a New Bradman, but even better than that would be the rise of the very first Bradman of bowling. Imagine a pacer who bowled at 155+kph, swung the ball both ways at will like a banana, got 1000 wickets in 100 matches @ 9.94.

 

[Antihippy]

Tough ask for a bowler to bowl 155+ for 100 tests.

Seems more possible for spinners. Murali was probably the closest to it.

 

[viriya]

Tough ask for a bowler to 155+ for a 100 tests.

Seems more possible for spinners. Murali was probably the closest to it.

Murali was Bradmanesque during the 2000s decade in terms of wicket-taking. Incidentally this was your 800th post. It's a sign.

 

[Adders]

Would be amazing if we did get a New Bradman, but even better than that would be the rise of the very first Bradman of bowling. Imagine a pacer who bowled at 155+kph, swung the ball both ways at will like a banana, got 1000 wickets in 100 matches @ 9.94.

That was actually my first thought when I saw this thread.........a few candidates and lots of opinion over who was the best bowler of all time. Maybe we haven't seen our Don of bowling yet?

 

[duffer]

Will people be able to believe it or handle it?

Depends on what nationality he is.

 

[viriya]

That was actually my first thought when I saw this thread.........a few candidates and lots of opinion over who was the best bowler of all time. Maybe we haven't seen our Don of bowling yet?

If 84 tests in a decade can count as a career, you could argue that Murali did that:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval2=span;template=results;type=bowling

His wkts/match of 6.73 is almost exactly 4 standard deviations above the mean wkts/match of the bowlers of that list (3.54 + 4 x 0.81 = 6.78). Not to mention 20 10 wicket hauls and 49 5 wkt/innings at a 21 avg and 50 SR.

 

[cnerd123]

Wickets per Match is not the bowling equivalent of Batting Average. Bowling Average is. Murali's wkts/match is so high because he bowled the most overs of any Sri Lankan bowler by a huge distance in that same time frame. A bowling average of 21 isn't as incredible as a batting average of 99.94

 

[viriya]

Wickets per Match is not the bowling equivalent of Batting Average. Bowling Average is. Murali's wkts/match is so high because he bowled the most overs of any Sri Lankan bowler by a huge distance in that same time frame. A bowling average of 21 isn't as incredible as a batting average of 99.94

The equivalent to batting average is not bowling average. It's a combination of bowling average + wkts/match. A bowler impacts the game with wickets, so a better measure would be (wkts/match)/(bowling average).

Even going by that, Murali's 0.34 ratio is 3-4 standard deviations above the mean because of his ridiculously high wkts/match. The argument that he bowled a lot is credible, but his SR was better than McGrath's so it's not the only reason.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

If 84 tests in a decade can count as a career, you could argue that Murali did that:
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

His wkts/match of 6.73 is almost exactly 4 standard deviations above the mean wkts/match of the bowlers of that list (3.54 + 4 x 0.81 = 6.78). Not to mention 20 10 wicket hauls and 49 5 wkt/innings at a 21 avg and 50 SR.

Murali doesn't even have a batter average than McGrath in that list. Hard to claim that's a Bradmanesque distinction.