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

[GirthQuake]

Top thread

 

[shortpitched713]

His weakness on wet wickets is pretty well known. He was basically the greatest FTB of all time, and since most pitches in test cricket are pretty flat, he's going to obviously be the most valuable batsmen.

I think the real answer to OP's question is also the most frustrating, which is "we can't know". Bowlers' approach and attempts to trouble batsmen were vastly different then compared to now, even before we look at the effect of "good" and "bad" pitches. General consensus seems to be that pitches were particularly "good" for batsmen in Bradman years, even accounting for the odd sticky, which we wouldn't possibly get to see in today's cricket. But that in no way explains Bradman's astronomical output. It must be some combination of pitch factor, poor bowling deliveries (just objectively measuring something like a speed gun pace / revs standpoint, not in comparison to it's own time), and an incredible ability and psychotic (in a good way) temperament of the man. There's no way to possibly pinpoint which of these components were most to explain for it, although putting more stock in the former two reasons unfortunately forces us to downgrade many of the achievements of all the players from earlier years as being in a context of inferior quality. And putting more stock in the latter forces us to believe in the existence of a literal demigod that walked the earth.

For me, I know which side of the spectrum I find more realistic and is generally easier for me to lean toward.