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.

 

[Johan]

Higher or the very same to be honest, Bradman averages 120 on true wickets, His average is brought down by stickies, modern cricketers don't want to risk their careers playing on a sticky so they don't exist anymore, Baseline would be he starts at 120.

Also, Bradman averages 14 points higher than Hobbs in low scoring games, who in turn averages 8 points over Hutton and Sutcliffe, who are in turn 10 or so above Tendulkar in low scoring games on difficult wickets, so clearly not pitch reliant, just a wet wicket is way different than a normal difficult track.

 

[Coronis]

Higher or the very same to be honest, Bradman averages 120 on true wickets, His average is brought down by stickies, modern cricketers don't want to risk their careers playing on a sticky so they don't exist anymore, Baseline would be he starts at 120.

Also, Bradman averages 14 points higher than Hobbs in low scoring games, who in turn averages 8 points over Hutton and Sutcliffe, who are in turn 10 or so above Tendulkar in low scoring games on difficult wickets, so clearly not pitch reliant, just a wet wicket is way different than a normal difficult track.

Don’t forget modern bats.

 

[Qlder]

Don’t forget modern bats.

And shorter boundaries with ropes...

 

[capt_Luffy]

Higher or the very same to be honest, Bradman averages 120 on true wickets, His average is brought down by stickies, modern cricketers don't want to risk their careers playing on a sticky so they don't exist anymore, Baseline would be he starts at 120.

Also, Bradman averages 14 points higher than Hobbs in low scoring games, who in turn averages 8 points over Hutton and Sutcliffe, who are in turn 10 or so above Tendulkar in low scoring games on difficult wickets, so clearly not pitch reliant, just a wet wicket is way different than a normal difficult track.

Bradman has so many Great innings. Think his 270 makes most people's Top 10, and 299 is on the periphery of 30. I believe in Wisden's 100 Greatest innings list he had 6, next best was 3. Was something similar in DoG's. I frankly find Don being termed a FTB a bit ludacrious. Yes, he had no equals against minnows and on flat tracks, but he hardly had any equals (i.e., None) in tough pitches which weren't stickies. You can't punish him for not facing ATGs in Tests while ignoring that the two things making his average somewhat less insane, i.e, Stickies and Bodyline, don't even exists any more. And that's before we get into bats and boundary lengths and travelling means et all.

 

[ankitj]

Was Bradman a fraud?

The Sticky Wicket: How rain used to influence cricket pitches

Although they have not been part of cricket for forty years, “sticky wickets” are still mentioned both in and out of a cricket context. What was a sticky wicket, how did it arise and wh…

oldebor.wordpress.com

I can't remember making this post. Can anyone help me understand what the hell I was on about?

 

[Johan]

I can't remember making this post. Can anyone help me understand what the hell I was on about?

Basically you're asking if Bradman was weaker on wet pitches, back in the day when rain fell wickets became extremely and exceptionally treacherous and players were rendered mortals, on those extremely tough wicket Bradman has surprisingly bad numbers compared to the English big four and Headley. So you're asking if Bradman was a fraud on extremely tough wickets

 

[sayon basak]

I can't remember making this post. Can anyone help me understand what the hell I was on

Ganja.

 

[the big bambino]

Bradman has so many Great innings. Think his 270 makes most people's Top 10, and 299 is on the periphery of 30. I believe in Wisden's 100 Greatest innings list he had 6, next best was 3. Was something similar in DoG's. I frankly find Don being termed a FTB a bit ludacrious. Yes, he had no equals against minnows and on flat tracks, but he hardly had any equals (i.e., None) in tough pitches which weren't stickies. You can't punish him for not facing ATGs in Tests while ignoring that the two things making his average somewhat less insane, i.e, Stickies and Bodyline, don't even exists any more. And that's before we get into bats and boundary lengths and travelling means et all.

This is only because of recency bias and modern test frequency. The argument being you can't rate anyone who hasn't played 50 tests at least. That is the condition Bradman (or anyone of that era) couldn't meet. When you rate them by bowling groups (thereby increasing the number of tests played) you'll find he faced bowling no different in statistical quality than any other era.

 

[Coronis]

This is only because of recency bias and modern test frequency. The argument being you can't rate anyone who hasn't played 50 tests at least. That is the condition Bradman (or anyone of that era) couldn't meet. When you rate them by bowling groups (thereby increasing the number of tests played) you'll find he faced bowling no different in statistical quality than any other era.

But Bradman did play 50 tests. (So did Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hammond - though tbf Bradman only got there after the war)

 

[the big bambino]

But Bradman did play 50 tests. (So did Hobbs, Sutcliffe and Hammond - though tbf Bradman only got there after the war)

I meant the bowlers.