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

[Coronis]

I’m also laughing at the use of math instead of maths.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

I’m also laughing at the use of math instead of maths.

You'd be surprised.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

This is the point. Australia's batting in the 30s was strong and the best, excluding Bradman, were Woodfull, Ponsford, McCabe, Fingleton and Brown. These being the men with most tests and therefore a good sample size. About as many as you'd get in a good era: about as strong as Australia's batting in the 70s. They all averaged in the 40s. Without Bradman's runs we're losing every Ashes from 28 to 38. The contrast is clear and can't be explained away by inferior bowling or easy wickets. It can only be explained by that individual's genius.

Yet Bradman's career also provides a counter example. In the 1940s Morris, Hassett, Barnes and Harvey averaged between 58 and 89! Even ARs like Miller and McCool averaged in the 40s. All were good to great players and in the best batting form of their careers. This cluster of form by several players is due to good wickets and inferior bowling. Interestingly Bradman, though at the end of his career, still dominated these great players in the prime of theirs and averaged 105.

 

[the big bambino]

Hit the like button and increase my score.

 

[Coronis]

Hit the like button and increase my score.

Just spam like Burgey and you’ll be rising up the list.

 

[Victor Ian]

So Gemini says the standard deviation for Australia in the last 10 years is 12.5 with an average of 33.7 so Bradman would be 83.7 if he was 4 standard deviations better. There was a study done and I vaguely remember he was near 5 times better.

While the sample size of the test players was low compared with today, he was almost as dominant in first class with a much larger sample size. So go figure on those who think he might only average 60odd today.

 

[AndrewB]

This is the point. Australia's batting in the 30s was strong and the best, excluding Bradman, were Woodfull, Ponsford, McCabe, Fingleton and Brown. These being the men with most tests and therefore a good sample size. About as many as you'd get in a good era: about as strong as Australia's batting in the 70s. They all averaged in the 40s. Without Bradman's runs we're losing every Ashes from 28 to 38.

Not sure that you'd lose in 1934 - unless we assume that without Bradman, there's no bodyline, and then go with Fingleton's argument that with Larwood, England would have won in 34 and 36-7.

 

[the big bambino]

I think they'd have won in 34 with Larwood and then without him.

 

[Coronis]

Interesting in 1934… Australia would still win the first and England the second. 3rd test still a draw. Both the final tests would depend on how much losing Bradman as a partner would affect Ponsford’s scores in the first innings, as well as the loss of his runs.

4th test Ponsford would run out of partners before completing his innings - the teams would be close to par and who knows what might have transpired with the extra 5-6 hours saved. Do England bowl out Australia cheaply? Can Australia chase down the target? Or do we get a draw anyway?

5th test is timeless so easier to predict… Ponsford has enough time with the other batsmen to reproduce his score…. would depend on how much of a difference the scoreboard pressure made in this one.

So yeah not the biggest certainty. Certainly helped guarantee the win though.

 

[Migara]

What of the reverse? If they could travel back in time to meet him would his opponents degrade exponentially to sub standard hacks?

Probably yes. At least one in ten of players would have succumbed to diptheria, measles, polio or pox, and would be replaced by a lesser player.

 

[the big bambino]

Probably yes. At least one in ten of players would have succumbed to diptheria, measles, polio or pox, and would be replaced by a lesser player.

I know one who would've succumbed to the proper application of the throwing laws and been replaced by a bowler.

 

[ataraxia]

I know one who would've succumbed to the proper application of the throwing laws and been replaced by a bowler.

Kuhnemann, Green, or Gannon?

 

[the big bambino]

Who?

 

[Coronis]

Probably yes. At least one in ten of players would have succumbed to diptheria, measles, polio or pox, and would be replaced by a lesser player.

Surely tuberculosis is the first one to come to mind. They’d all be having bouts of lumbago too.

 

[Migara]

I know one who would've succumbed to the proper application of the throwing laws and been replaced by a bowler.

Or may be one of many due to blatant racism even.

 

[the big bambino]

Or may be one of many due to blatant racism even.

Not now that apartheid in SA is finished and the SL civil unrest has been resolved.