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

[cpr]

Is that Pele figure his international record (really should be to compare it to The Don's international feats), or does it include the many meaningless uncompetitive game he played to fill his boots? I'm thinking the latter, which shows really how great Bradman was.

 

[Goughy]

If we assume a 'modern Bradman' would have the longevity and production of the original and the frequency of games of a Cook then we would be looking at a player who could in theory score 27,000 Test runs in 200 Tests!

I would love to see that player before I pass.

 

[Goughy]

Is that Pele figure his international record (really should be to compare it to The Don's international feats), or does it include the many meaningless uncompetitive game he played to fill his boots? I'm thinking the latter, which shows really how great Bradman was.

The Pele figure is a bull**** PR creation. And if using goals per game as the measure why not use a player like Josef Bican who was far more prolific than Pele as a comparison?

 

[viriya]

Is that Pele figure his international record (really should be to compare it to The Don's international feats), or does it include the many meaningless uncompetitive game he played to fill his boots? I'm thinking the latter, which shows really how great Bradman was.

Yea it's not really that comparable - just goes to show how ridiculous the difference is. Also something to keep in mind is that the difference of ~1 std between Bradman and the rest is massive - it's not the same as the difference between 1 std and 2 std when it's 3 vs 4.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah the bell curve is ****ed.

 

[Victor Ian]

I can't see why another Bradman can not happen in this time. By statistics, Bradman was nearly twice as good as his contemporaries. Twice as good with the limited analysis of the day. Twice as good with the limited equipment. He was more likely twice as good because he had a better eye and sense of timing than because people couldn't figure out how to take his wicket. They did figure out a way, however it also reduced the output of all the other batsmen. He was still twice as good.*

So when the new Bradman inevitably does arrive, he will be twice as good in all the formats of cricket. Whether he burns out or not, he will be twice as good while he is playing.

Sachin was never the new Bradman... He was never twice as good. He had contemporaries who had better than or equal records.

*Actually, I can not confirm this. As bodyline was so brief, perhaps he was not twice as good as the next best Aussie bat.

 

[Cabinet96]

We would get used to it in the end. Rather like football has got used to Messi and Ronaldo, it just becomes normal after a while. I know Bradman is even more stupid than those two but it would go the same way I imagine.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with this. I mean, someone like Messi can be better than everyone else for extended periods, and still have people claim he's been disappointing, which is kind of like Bradman with bodyline. He and Ronaldo don't quite dominate to the same extent as the Don, but it's still a significant level above anyone of this generation and I'd argue in Messi's case better than anyone ever.

Of course you'll get cynics arguing that it's shown bowling has gone to the pits or whatever, but you get people who try to put down any elite sportsman and we'd just learn to filter them out after a while.

As to whether it can ever realistically happen again, I'd be hugely sceptical for the many reasons already mentioned above.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

I reckon Bradman would have averaged about 75-80 in the modern game. You have to account for the fact that he was playing cricket in a time when everyone else was basically an amateur compared to today - he wouldn't make faced any Dale Steyns or Wasim Akrams, or fielders who have spent ten thousand hours practicing close-in catches.

Someone like Sangakkara over the last decade, therefore, is about as close to another Bradman as we could hope to see imo. I reckon Williamson will end up causing people to ask a few questions by the time he's 30.

 

[hendrix]

They weren't really amateurs. Particularly the English, his main opponents.

 

[viriya]

They weren't really amateurs. Particularly the English, his main opponents.

They weren't amateurs but it's fair to say that the best bowlers of his time were playing for his side.

 

[hendrix]

They weren't amateurs but it's fair to say that the best bowlers of his time were playing for his side.

yeah, true.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Not amateurs, but compared with today's coaching, sports psychology, video analysis, training, nutrition etc. I don't think it's unfair to say that Bradman would have had more grief with modern bowlers than those of his own day.

 

[Prince EWS]

*sigh*

 

[OverratedSanity]

Maybe Bradman would've used today's coaching, sports psychology, video analysis, training, nutrition etc. to his advantage against modern bowlers.

I have no idea why this argument comes up repeatedly that things like video analysis can only be used against batsmen.

 

[OverratedSanity]

*sigh*

Indeed

 

[Red]

Anyone know anything about Bradman's diet?

 

[Prince EWS]

This thread isn't about what a New Bradman would average if there was one.

This OP basically says "If a new player dominated as much as Bradman did, what would be the repercussions?" -- speculating over what Bradman would've averaged in 2015 or 1976 or 3052 is something we've done in a thousand threads before; no need to turn this one into that as well.

 

[Dan]

They weren't amateurs but it's fair to say that the best bowlers of his time were playing for his side.

yeah, true.

Nah, calling bs on this.

Best spinners, certainly -- Grimmett & O'Reilly (and to a lesser extent Ironmonger) were absolute guns, but Hedley Verity really wasn't too far behind them (especially considering his stats got nerfed by, y'know, bowling to Bradman whereas Grimmett/O'Reilly never had to do that at Test level).

But FMD Australia played some absolutely rubbish pace bowlers during Bradman's time. Pre-war, Tim Wall was the only Australian quick to hit 50 Test wickets during Bradman's career. The next highest wicket taker during that period appears to have been Stan McCabe (tied with Ernie McCormick). Now Australia wasn't the easiest place to bowl pace in that era, but in that very same era you had the following English fast bowlers running around:

Voce, Allen, Tate, Bedser, Bowes, Farnes, and some bloke named Larwood who was, in my opinion at least, the GOAT until Lillee and Marshall came along to challenge him. Not a bad pace bowling unit.

And they were ably supported by a spin attack of Verity, Robbins, Peebles, Jack White and latter-day Tich Freeman, as well as very early Jim Laker (who didn't do too well) and I suspect in any other era Doug Wright would've had stats that looked significantly better than the numbers that ended up next to his name. Only Verity was good enough to challenge the levels of O'Reilly/Grimmett, but that support is pretty solid.

Meanwhile Australia's depth bowlers on the 1930 Ashes tour were Alan Fairfax (who opened the bowling and batted top 7), Percy Hornibrook (who, by the sounds of things, was more a spinner than a quick) and Ted a'Beckett. Bit of a drop-off from the 1921 tour where Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald were ripping up.

Then the West Indies had Manny Martindale and Learie Constantine along with Herman Griffith. Even India had two passable seamers FFS, in Mohammad Nissar and Amar Singh! And then NZ put out Jack Cowie.

On pure stats taken out of context, Australia was literally the worst fast bowling unit on the face of the planet between about 1930-38. Certain English counties put out stronger pace attacks!

So yeah, two bowlers who played for Australia in that period were undoubtedly the best in the world. But the rest sucked in comparison to the attacks England was putting out. Bradman being so good devalued his own achievement, because he completely wrecked the reputations (statistical and otherwise) of the very, very, very good bowlers he came up against.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Also, Bradman pwned O'Reilly multiple times in Sheffield Shield anyway.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I guess if we do get a Bradman in this age, lots of people would initially call him overrated and say "Oh, he'll fall back to the mean, just you watch", only to see him demolish every attack in sight. To see one player dominate the game to that extent I think most people won't be able to even process what they're watching.