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

[subshakerz]

It we can be sure of. Bradman faced WI and England most of his career and averages high 80s vs them. A nominal mix of weaker opponents and the glimpse of runs he scored against them, easily shoots it to mid 90s to mid 100s. His average is pretty bulletproof.

Again you are assuming he maintains the same mix of opponents if he played more which he won't, it will either be weaker or stronger. That is your assumption.

And 20 years in this regard is factually more impressive than someone maintaining a slightly better and more balanced record over 13 years.

Yeah right, if there was a bat today averaging 110 after 100 tests against stronger opposition and 13 years, I don't believe for a second you rate him less than Bradman.

 

[subshakerz]

A variance in his average based on his opponents is just as likely to bump him up to 110 as it is to lower it to 90. So how about we just average it out back to 100 then.

How about we don't average it? Since there is literally no chance he faces the same mix of quality if he played in the 70s, 80s, 90s or now. Either it will notably worse or likely better.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How about we don't average it? Since there is literally no chance he faces the same mix of quality if he played in the 70s, 80s, 90s or now.

Your assumption that a higher variety of bowling would reduce his average is not valid. It's just as likely to do the opposite. It's just not a good argument

 

[capt_Luffy]

Again you are assuming he maintains the same mix of opponents if he played more which he won't, it will either be weaker or stronger. That is your assumption.


Yeah right, if there was a bat today averaging 110 after 100 tests against stronger opposition and 13 years, I don't believe for a second you rate him less than Bradman.

I think that's only a fair assumption that his average won't vary too much.

I will at best as equals.

 

[subshakerz]

Your assumption that a higher variety of bowling would reduce his average is not valid. It's just as likely to do the opposite. It's just not a good argument

My assumption is that his average will either likely drop or possibly increase based on a higher variety of teams, not magically stay the same as you assume.

 

[capt_Luffy]

My assumption is that his average will either likely drop or possibly increase based on a higher variety of teams, not magically stay the same as you assume.

Don't you think it's kinda a wanker move to predict a change when you can't even predict the direction??

 

[subshakerz]

I think that's only a fair assumption that his average won't vary too much.

I will at best as equals.

It's an assumption based on convenience IMO and I argue less opponents helped Bradman to an extent we may not appreciate.

 

[subshakerz]

Don't you think it's kinda a wanker move to predict a change when you can't even predict the direction??

Can we agree that assuming magical average maintenance regardless of opposition is also a 'wanker move'?

 

[capt_Luffy]

It's an assumption based on convenience IMO and I argue less opponents helped Bradman to an extent we may not appreciate.

The assumption is too convenient and simply wrong imo. Maintaining a high level for a longer duration is always tougher than doing so in a cramped up period.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Can we agree that assuming magical average maintenance regardless of opposition is also a 'wanker move'?

No one is assuming a maintainance of average of Exactly 99.94. But there aren't any major reasons to predict a huge depletion or increment either, even a tilt in any direction, so it's completely pointless to assume anything different than what really happened.

 

[subshakerz]

The assumption is too convenient and simply wrong imo. Maintaining a high level for a longer duration is always tougher than doing so in a cramped up period.

Except you already agree his average drops even with the introduction of even one more quality opponent.

And again we can't assume Bradman will have no bogie teams or bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

No one is assuming a maintainance of average of Exactly 99.94. But there aren't any major reasons to predict a huge depletion or increment either, even a tilt in any direction, so it's completely pointless to assume anything different than what really happened.

What if he played in mid 90s Aus?

 

[Coronis]

I think it was said somewhere that Bradman averaged something like 20’s on wet/sticky wickets. Imagine removing that.

Also imagine if Australia got to play NZ too.

 

[TheJediBrah]

My assumption is that his average will either likely drop or possibly increase based on a higher variety of teams, not magically stay the same as you assume.

No one assumes that. But a change in average is not relevant when you can't even determine which direction it's going, let alone by how much

Like really how is "his average would probably change one way or the other with more opponents" relevant to thread

 

[subshakerz]

Like really how is "his average would probably change one way or the other with more opponents" relevant to thread

Because we are comparing him with a modern bat who will play twice as many more opponents.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Because we are comparing him with a modern bat who will play twice as many more opponents.

Well no one disagrees that his average would probably vary from exactly 99.94 one way or the other, so if that was the extent of your point . . . ok

 

[subshakerz]

Well no one disagrees that his average would probably vary from exactly 99.94 one way or the other, so if that was the extent of your point . . . ok

Variance mainly due to variety of opponents, yes.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Anything above 80 will make things arguable.

 

[subshakerz]

Anything above 80 will make things arguable.

Precisely.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Except you already agree his average drops even with the introduction of even one more quality opponent.

And again we can't assume Bradman will have no bogie teams or bowlers.

I also agreed that it increases with an additional weak team as well.

He actually had a bogie thing, stickies. Remove those he averaged 120. Now introduce a bogie team and I think it stays 100+.

Matter of fact, most top tier ATGs didn't had any bogie teams, except for Sobers. Tendulkar, Viv, Smith, Hutton, Gavaskar, all had very consistent records by opposition.