What would Bradman average if he played in a typical (i.e. neither batsman or bowler favored) period of the modern era (1970 - current)?

[_00_deathscar]

Shardul vs Bradman. Imagine the punishment.

Shardul would have to be reigned back from the fury of a flurry of unsuspecting dangerous bouncers at 130 kmh he would throw at Bradman’s head. He would be called out for dangerous play by the umpires.
Bradman, in a fit or rage of believing the Lord is beneath him, would sky one to square leg from another unsuspecting bouncer, but this one only coming chest high and at an even slower 120 kmh.
And so he perishes for a measly 8…yet another victim of the Lord’s play.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Ok you can think that if you want to but the West Indies bowlers of the 80s didn't actually bowl anything resembling Bodyline tactics.

Look at this image and tell me what actually sticks out more, the fact that the ball was bowled short or the field placing? Modern batsmen didn't even have to face this.

View attachment 37129

Shreyas Iyer would become the world’s first batsman to average negative.

 

[The Sean]

When you have only 2 good teams, but only one great attack, and that's on your team, you aren't playing on an even playing field. Even Bradman vs someone like Hammond were almost playing different sports.

Again, this simply isn't true and stating it as fact continues to just scream pushing an agenda. Australia had a great attack after the war, right at the end of Bradman's career. And that team was unbeatable.

Before that and for most of Bradman's career, it could be argued that England's all round attack was clearly superior. Australia had the two best bowlers of the 1930s in O'Reilly and Grimmett, but they actually played just two full series together and only one of those was against England, in 1934 (Grimmett was dropped during Bodyline). Ironmonger did well particularly against West Indies and South Africa in the early 1930s but he wasn't around for long and played just a handful of Tests against England. England's pace attacks in that period were way beyond Australia's and they also had a spinner of the class of Hedley Verity to augment, supported a host of county demi-Gods who drifted in and out of the Test side as needed.

If Australia had bowling through the pre-war years so far above England's that "they weren't playing on an even field" and also had Bradman as a batting cheat code, then they would have won virtually every Test. The fact that they didn't was because while Australia's top couple of individuals were better than their English equivalents, England's overall strength and depth - particularly with regards to their bowling attack - was far greater.

 

[Slifer]

He has difficulty with Grimmett to begin the tour but improved and was improving as the tour went on. Wasn't this also his first overseas tour? Could be mistaken, but none the less he never got another shot against them.
The continued argument with some stating that he didn't face a full strength England in the Caribbean, speaks more to the times that it does to Headley.
It just simply wasn't the same game back then, don't understand how that part is in question.

Agreed. And I've already shown that he faced full strength English attacks in 2 series in England and did well. Nevermind the fact that unlike Bradman and Hammond, Headley never faced any of the minnow teams in his prime. Imagine what Headley’s record would look like if he had a shot at RSA and India (like Bradman) or NZ like Hammond.

 

[The Sean]

Agreed. And I've already shown that he faced full strength English attacks in 2 series in England and did well. Nevermind the fact that unlike Bradman and Hammond, Headley never faced any of the minnow teams in his prime. Imagine what Headley’s record would look like if he had a shot at RSA and India (like Bradman) or NZ like Hammond.

It was only one Test, so samplesizelol and all that, but Headley was exactly same age when he played India as Bradman was.

 

[Spikey]

it strikes me that whenever this topic comes out, the actual thing that needs to be discussed never is, and that is: would Bradman be able to repeat in the modern era his absolutely insane conversion rate. like, that's really needs to be discussed. you can talk about conditions, team strength and all that nonsense but the reality is: Bradman averaged 99 because once he got in, he did not get out. we (mostly) all understand that with the great batters, once they get in, they make you pay. Bradman just basically did that at a level no-one can compete with. he failed (scored under 20 runs in an innings) at ratios not really any different to any of the other great batters while at the same time keeping an insane conversion rate.

17 players have 4000 runs and a 50/100 conversion rate above 50% (to say nothing of double tons.) the only one close to him is Headley, who over a much longer FC career reverted back to below 50% (Bradman's stays well above 50% for his FC career) so I think it's probably fair to assume Headley's rate would have regressed a bit in a 52 test career (although I haven't checked to see if Headley's FC conversion rate tanked at the end of his career, like ricky ponting's conversion rate at the end of his test career. maybe he kept it at 65% for a long time).

and honestly, you look at those 17 players and only a couple of them are actually in the discussions for ATG line-ups. many of them I think are respected for what they could do to you, but are a step behind the actual greats of their era (Walcott being the obvious exception). bradman has the consistency of avoiding failing at the crease like the other greats (Sobers, Tendulkar, etc) while having a conversion rate that no-one can get close to.

and I don't really think there's any reason to believe his conversion rate would tank if placed in this era. so yeah I'd expect him to stay in that 90 to 100 neighbourhood.

HowSTAT! Test Cricket - Highest 50/100 Conversion Rate

Test Cricket - Batsmen with highest 50 to 100 conversion rate

howstat.com

 

[Coronis]

it strikes me that whenever this topic comes out, the actual thing that needs to be discussed never is, and that is: would Bradman be able to repeat in the modern era his absolutely insane conversion rate. like, that's really needs to be discussed. you can talk about conditions, team strength and all that nonsense but the reality is: Bradman averaged 99 because once he got in, he did not get out. we (mostly) all understand that with the great batters, once they get in, they make you pay. Bradman just basically did that at a level no-one can compete with. he failed (scored under 20 runs in an innings) at ratios not really any different to any of the other great batters while at the same time keeping an insane conversion rate.

17 players have 4000 runs and a 50/100 conversion rate above 50% (to say nothing of double tons.) the only one close to him is Headley, who over a much longer FC career reverted back to below 50% (Bradman's stays well above 50% for his FC career) so I think it's probably fair to assume Headley's rate would have regressed a bit in a 52 test career (although I haven't checked to see if Headley's FC conversion rate tanked at the end of his career, like ricky ponting's conversion rate at the end of his test career. maybe he kept it at 65% for a long time).

and honestly, you look at those 17 players and only a couple of them are actually in the discussions for ATG line-ups. many of them I think are respected for what they could do to you, but are a step behind the actual greats of their era (Walcott being the obvious exception). bradman has the consistency of avoiding failing at the crease like the other greats (Sobers, Tendulkar, etc) while having a conversion rate that no-one can get close to.

and I don't really think there's any reason to believe his conversion rate would tank if placed in this era. so yeah I'd expect him to stay in that 90 to 100 neighbourhood.

HowSTAT! Test Cricket - Highest 50/100 Conversion Rate

Test Cricket - Batsmen with highest 50 to 100 conversion rate

howstat.com

View attachment 37131

At first class level Headley’s conversion rate was never that crazy.

Even say - limiting it to pre war Headley he had 32 tons and 34 fifties (ended up at 33/44 so did tank a bit post war). Obviously still very impressive but yeah.

(snuck behind the paywall)




Also lol wtf 46-47 in the West Indies - 3 innings, a double century and 2 fifties all not out. Crazy ****.

Bradman was just that unique guy, once he got his eye in he was always going to punish you - and he got his eye in far more often than anyone else.

 

[Slifer]

It was only one Test, so samplesizelol and all that, but Headley was exactly same age when he played India as Bradman was.

One test?? http://howstat.com/cricket/statisti...essBat.asp?PlayerId=0225&Series=0079&Team=ALL

Fwiw, and let me be clear, in no way shape or form am I saying Headley is remotely comparable to the Don. He isnt. But certain posters keep making it seem that Headley only cashed in because he faced 2nd or 3rd English attacks in the Caribbean, conveniently forgetting that 1 he never faced any minnows 2 he faced full strength English teams in England and did well and 3 he faced a full strength Aussie attack. And he played extensive fc cricket in both countries as well.

 

[The Sean]

One test?? http://howstat.com/cricket/statisti...essBat.asp?PlayerId=0225&Series=0079&Team=ALL

You've misread and/or misunderstood my post.

You said Headley didn't get to cash in against India in his prime like Bradman did. I pointed out that Headley did play India, and while it was only one Test, he was the same age as Bradman when he did.

 

[shortpitched713]

In the modern era he'd probably average somewhere between 90 and 110. If you want to argue he'd average 60 odd, that's fine as well, but just make sure to be fair you knock 40% off everyone else's averages from his era as well, so Hammond and Hobbs would average about 35 in today's era, and Headley about 37 which makes them about as good as [checks notes] Shaun Marsh or Mike Gatting.

I've got Hobbs at a roughly Shakib al Hasan level of batting, so yeah that sounds about right.

 

[Slifer]

You've misread and/or misunderstood my post.

You said Headley didn't get to cash in against India in his prime like Bradman did. I pointed out that Headley did play India, and while it was only one Test, he was the same age as Bradman when he did.

Yeah my mistake. Still think if he'd faced any of nz or rsa in his prime he'd have cashed in like Hammond and Bradman did respectively.

 

[subshakerz]

Can't see why not. Regardless he doesn't have to average 99 against the best team of the time to average 99 overall.

As someone said earlier, Bradman getting to play against 2000s Bangladesh & Zimbabwe, or the WI even, would have shot his average up even further.

What is Bradman going to average against the minnows? 200? 300? You just need a couple of bogey teams for Bradman to get his average back in the 70/80 zone.

 

[Coronis]

What is Bradman going to average against the minnows? 200? 300? You just need a couple of bogey teams for Bradman to get his average back in the 70/80 zone.

Honestly might not even have an average.

 

[honestbharani]

TJB implying that black-and-white cricket was equivalent in quality to modern cricket

@Coronis attacked...

 

[a massive zebra]

What is Bradman going to average against the minnows? 200? 300? You just need a couple of bogey teams for Bradman to get his average back in the 70/80 zone.

He literally did average over 200 against South Africa who beat England in England less than five years later.

 

[The Sean]

Another consideration when judging Bradman in a modern context is that the one thing which was considered by some to be his kryptonite - the only thing which ever really brought him back to mortal levels - was sticky wickets brought about by uncovered pitches.

And they don't exist any more.

 

[kyear2]

I don't want this to turn into an Imran situation, because I have nothing against either player, but some things doesn't compute to me.

Between Peterhrt's post with regards to averages of players before and after 1950, play the fact that the quality of fast bowling improved thereafter as averages plunged and pitches were given renewed life, why do we believe he could produce a hundred average.
Bradman never faced a great fast bowler of the likes of Lillee, Thompson, Roberts, Trueman, Lindwall, Holding, Ambrose, Hadlee Marshall, McGrath, Donald Steyn, Imran, Wasim, Waqar. Never faced any number of Indian spinners, from the quartet to Ashwin, at home, what would give us any indication that he would average the same against these guys that he did vs the assorted of bowlers he plundered his hundreds from.

 

[ataraxia]

It's customary in these discussions to apply scaling, ie. assuming the older players had the benefit of modern technology, time to train, professionalism etc.

The thing is cricket is just a whole lot better. Even assuming that older players suddenly were always modern players, or something like that (a limited version of scaling), the general quality of the game is way higher. What this means is that for a batter "a tier above" results in a significantly lower average than when the cricket was worse. I'm not sure if I sit at 60–70 or 70–80, but anything else I cannot compute.

 

[a massive zebra]

Bradman never faced a great fast bowler of the likes of Lillee, Thompson, Roberts, Trueman, Lindwall, Holding, Ambrose, Hadlee Marshall, McGrath, Donald Steyn, Imran, Wasim, Waqar.

Some would argue he did face a fast bowler of that calibre, Harold Larwood. Sure, Larwood's Test stats are nowhere near as good as these guys, but that is arguably/at least partly because many of Larwood's Tests were actually against Bradman.

He did face Lindwall in post WWII state cricket and was successful against him despite being relatively old at the time.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The thing is cricket is just a whole lot better. Even assuming that older players suddenly were always modern players, or something like that (a limited version of scaling), the general quality of the game is way higher. What this means is that for a batter "a tier above" results in a significantly lower average than when the cricket was worse. I'm not sure if I sit at 60–70 or 70–80, but anything else I cannot compute.

Definitely agree with the first part, and I understand the logic that an outlier like Bradman could be less likely to occur in a more professional/higher quality game. I can't imagine that Bradman would be averaging as low as 60 or 70 though. There are too many factors pushing things the other way, eg. more minnows, less dodgy pitches and a few others that have been mentioned, eg. Spikey re. conversion rate.

If Bradman played the same games and opposition that Sangakkara did he'd be averaging 150