• 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.

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

OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Adders said:
Yeah the Huss is probably the closest I can think of to maintain a ridiculous average over a decent sample size. Just checked and as you say after 20 tests he was averaging 84.8.........but by the time he got to 50 tests it was a far more realistic 52.16.

He's a good example of why I just don't think it would be possible to dominate today's game in the way Bradman did. Hussey played his first 50 tests in 4 and half years, The Don played his 52 tests over 20 years (7 year break during the war years) then factor in all the other cricket Hussey would have played in those 5 years and it would have been more than Bradman would have played in probably 4 or 5 careers.

The only way I could conceivably see it ever happening is for a late starter like Hussey to play tests only, totally dominate for 5 or 6 years and then retire.
Click to expand...
Players in the 30s and 40s had absolutely insane first class schedules though.
 
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
A similar question would be what would happen if the women's game produced a "Bradman" - would she be picked for men's Tests?
 
kiwiviktor81

kiwiviktor81

International Debutant
It wasn't as impressive as 99.94, but his strike rate was known to be very high. He didn't just last a lot of balls to compile his average - he also made the most out of every ball that didn't dismiss him.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
viriya said:
Shamelessly plagiarized from Wikipedia on how many standard deviations from the mean Bradman was - beyond any other sportsman in history.

AthleteSportStatisticStandard deviations
Don BradmanCricketBatting average4.4
PeléAssociation FootballGoals per game3.7
Ty CobbBaseballBatting average3.6
Michael JordanBasketballPoints per game3.4

"The statistics show that "no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket". In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game. The respective records are .366 and 30.1."
Click to expand...

In many ways it also kind of hides how good Bradman was. The standard deviations look impressive prima facie; but Jordan's average was basically equaled by Wilt; Pele's average goal record has basically been matched or bettered by a few others (even more have been close) and Ty Cobb while having definitively the best batting average isn't a world away from Hornsby or Jackson. But Bradman is a lightyear away from 2nd best in Cricket. It's just utterly ridiculous.

If Bradman existed now I think he'd be incredibly famous and rich, possibly powerful if he wanted it. Comfortably the most famous sportsman in the world. With the world how it is because of the Internet, even those that don't follow cricket would come to recognise how ridiculous he is. I daresay he'd have enough fame to get into any area of business and politics and win by sheer popularity.
 
flibbertyjibber

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If a new Bradman appeared he'd be ridiculed if he wasn't Indian by all the Tendulkar fanboys and loved by the rest of the world.

I hope and pray we see someone better/much better than SRT in my lifetime, can't imagine anyone will ever come close to replicating The Don though.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
GotSpin said:
I havent looked it up but the average Was in the 20s or 30s from recollection. Thats a significant difference.
Click to expand...
There's no way strike rates were that low. Strike rates throughout history have remained predominantly in the 40-50 range. The 1960s were notoriously slow, but even then I don't think a SR of 25 would be considered par.
 
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Quoting yourself is always the sign of a bit of a ****, but if the cap fits etc"Taking his career as a whole Jessop's runs came at a rate of 79 per hour, 83 looking at his centuries in isolation. In that currency some comparables are Len Hutton (36), Walter Hammond (43), Denis Compton (47), Ranji (50) and Vic Trumper (55)."
 
Victor Ian

Victor Ian

International Coach
fredfertang said:
Quoting yourself is always the sign of a bit of a ****, but if the cap fits etc"Taking his career as a whole Jessop's runs came at a rate of 79 per hour, 83 looking at his centuries in isolation. In that currency some comparables are Len Hutton (36), Walter Hammond (43), Denis Compton (47), Ranji (50) and Vic Trumper (55)."
Click to expand...
I know it's not an exact conversion, but is there a rough rule of thumb for how those hourly rates might convert to strike rates?
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Victor Ian said:
I know it's not an exact conversion, but is there a rough rule of thumb for how those hourly rates might convert to strike rates?
Click to expand...
Bradman scored his highest Test score (300+) at about the same rate as Gayle scored his highest score (also 300+) at SR 75.

As for guys like Jessop. It is hard to know his exact strike rate but in games where Jessop scored heavily opposition bowlers go for 3.5 - 4.5 an over for the whole innings when otherwise they would go for 1.5 - 2.5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top