• 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.

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

Modern average needed to overtake Bradman?

  • Total voters
    21
Thala_0710

Thala_0710

International Regular
How much would Sachin or Smith need to average to beat Bradman? Assume they play the exact same games, just score more runs per innings?
Reckon in the 70s for Tendulkar?
 
the big bambino

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
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.
Click to expand...
What mix in 70s, 80s and 90s? Greg Chappell averaged between 46 and 73 against his opponents without any "bogy teams". Ponting between 44 and 66 against his opponents, excluding BD and Zim. Once again no bogy teams. You really over estimate this so called bogy team business and a great player's ability to score against all comers. Its not an argument. It's just schtick. Notably both players really pounded minnow teams and would've increased their averages if they played against them more often.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
the big bambino said:
What mix in 70s, 80s and 90s? Greg Chappell averaged between 46 and 73 against his opponents without any "bogy teams". Ponting between 44 and 66 against his opponents, excluding BD and Zim. Once again no bogy teams. You really over estimate this so called bogy team business and a great player's ability to score against all comers. Its not an argument. It's just schtick. Notably both players really pounded minnow teams and would've increased their averages if they played against them more often.
Click to expand...
Bogey team is not a necessity but it happens often enough for it to be a possible factor, like Sobers and NZ. The more teams you play, the odds of randomly lesser scoring against one increase.
 
the big bambino

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
subshakerz said:
Bogey team is not a necessity but it happens often enough for it to be a possible factor, like Sobers and NZ. The more teams you play, the odds of randomly lesser scoring against one increase.
Click to expand...
Not enough to effect anything really. Ponting struggled against bogy Harby but still did well v India.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz said:
Why not 100?


Doubt it.
Click to expand...
Because I don't only rate off of average. SRT played longer and across more variety and I undershoted Smith. It is more likely high 80s for Tendulkar and mid 90s for Smith, to be comparable everything being the same.
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
You could argue that Bradman had his bogey team and it was West Indies. He only played one series against them - same as South Africa and India - and there's no obvious reason for him to have underperformed given the bowling attack he faced.

Griffith - very late career by then - did OK (14 wickets at 28), Constantine (8 wickets at 50) was a non-entity in that series, Martindale wasn't even there at all, and two of Bradman's six dismissals came at the hands of Frank Martin, an SLA bowler whose Test record reads 8 wickets at 77.

There's nothing to suggest Bradman should or would struggle with that collection of bowlers - he simply had a below par series, averaging just under 75. I'm sure he'd have loved the chance to redress that "failure" with more matches against them.
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Coronis said:
I think it was said somewhere that Bradman averaged something like 20’s on wet/sticky wickets. Imagine removing that.
Click to expand...
I've always said this is a key point in this particular discussion. Stickies were the one thing said to be Bradman's kryptonite, the one thing that brought him back to mortal levels.

And they don't exist any more.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The Sean said:
You could argue that Bradman had his bogey team and it was West Indies. He only played one series against them - same as South Africa and India - and there's no obvious reason for him to have underperformed given the bowling attack he faced.

Griffith - very late career by then - did OK (14 wickets at 28), Constantine (8 wickets at 50) was a non-entity in that series, Martindale wasn't even there at all, and two of Bradman's six dismissals came at the hands of Frank Martin, an SLA bowler whose Test record reads 8 wickets at 77.

There's nothing to suggest Bradman should or would struggle with that collection of bowlers - he simply had a below par series, averaging just under 75. I'm sure he'd have loved the chance to redress that "failure" with more matches against them.
Click to expand...
Well the point with bogey teams if that you can have underperformance for inexplicable reasons. And the likelihood of having increases if you play twice as many teams.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
capt_Luffy said:
Because I don't only rate off of average. SRT played longer and across more variety and I undershoted Smith. It is more likely high 80s for Tendulkar and mid 90s for Smith, to be comparable everything being the same.
Click to expand...
Ok but how can a modern cricketer like Smith be rated above Bradman by averaging less than him and playing less years? That contradicts your entire point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top