How much would a batsmen need to average to overtake Bradman?

[Johan]

before the war, Hammond averaged higher in Australian Ashes than the Don I think.

 

[Coronis]

before the war, Hammond averaged higher in Australian Ashes than the Don I think.

Correct.

 

[TheJediBrah]

His record is also only in Australia & England, might have had a harder time vs the minnows in their home countries.

Certain countries can present conditions that just don't favour you (but also sometimes you just get odd statistical anomalies because you only get 4 matches somewhere like Tendulkar averaging his worst in Zimbabwe of all places).

"might have" . . . Most likely not though

"Statistical anomalies" are that for a reason

 

[the big bambino]

Thats right. The rule being most players do better against inferior teams - which is not to be wondered at really.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Don averaged 270 vs SA and 171 vs India.... He knew how to bash minnows better than most really. He will be fine.

 

[Line and Length]

Who were the top class spinners that Bradman played against in Tests, other than Verity (whose left arm spin dismissed Bradman on 8 occasions in Tests)? How would he go against Warne or Murali?

Eric Hollies had predicted he would get the Don out second ball with his 'wrong-un' in that Test and it was recognised that he sometimes struggled against leggies at a domestic level.
In Sheffield Shield cricket, Clarrie Grimmett and Don Bradman were often opponents, with Grimmett taking Bradman's wicket on 10 occasions. While Bradman's overall average against Grimmett was still impressive (63.30), it was significantly lower than his overall average (95.14) and his average without Grimmett (98.35).

 

[subshakerz]

I don't know why folks think a bat needs to average over 100 for 100 tests to exceed Bradman. Even 80 by his 100th test would be enough longevity that few would put Bradman ahead.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't know

Clearly

 

[subshakerz]

Clearly

Wow so clever

 

[Blenkinsop]

99.95

This exactly. It's not hard.

A bit like asking how many wickets a bowler would have to take in a Test match to beat Laker's record.

 

[Johan]

I don't know why folks think a bat needs to average over 100 for 100 tests to exceed Bradman. Even 80 by his 100th test would be enough longevity that few would put Bradman ahead.

How? Bradman played 20 years, modern day players would hit 100 by the 10th year

 

[Coronis]

This exactly. It's not hard.

A bit like asking how many wickets a bowler would have to take in a Test match to beat Laker's record.

19/89

 

[subshakerz]

How? Bradman played 20 years, modern day players would hit 100 by the 10th year

I'm not sure if duration is the challenge in this case as much as size of sample

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm not sure

Clearly

 

[Burgey]

99.95

I mean, this is it isn’t it

 

[subshakerz]

Clearly

So clever

 

[capt_Luffy]

I'm not sure if duration is the challenge in this case as much as size of sample

You can't say with a straight face that 104 Tests over 13 years is a better sample than 52 over 20.

 

[subshakerz]

You can't say with a straight face that 104 Tests over 13 years is a better sample than 52 over 20.

Its debatable.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Its debatable.

No it isn't.

 

[subshakerz]

No it isn't.

If the question is whether twice as many tests across conditions and opponents or much longer career against fewer familiar opponents is likely to result in maintaining a 100 average, it's debatable.