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

[RossTaylorsBox]

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Imagine that Don Bradman didn't exist, but the rest of cricket history went on unchanged.

Then imagine that Don Bradman plays now, averages like 66 over a full career of like 150-160 Tests. The current number 2 ATG bat is Sachin, and some people say it's competitive with Bradman. But the alternative reality Bradman is so far ahead of Sachin. We've NEVER had a player in the modern era bat over 60 (well not until we see Kamindu Mendis) over a really large full career sample size, and here comes a player who is comfortably in the upper mid 60s, imagine how much we'd be sucking him off. Arguably I think there would be a stronger ferver to anoint that player as the batting GOAT than the actual Bradman.

Nah, there's no debate. Bradman would've averaged over 100 in every era with his skill and determination. Can't think of anyone coming close.

He did well in the toughest possible era from a skill standpoint, hard to imagine he'd do any less in the coming eras.

 

[the big bambino]

Best thing about Bradman is how he makes the haters cry.

 

[Ali TT]

Nah, there's no debate. Bradman would've averaged over 100 in every era with his skill and determination. Can't think of anyone coming close.

He did well in the toughest possible era from a skill standpoint, hard to imagine he'd do any less in the coming eras.

Except the era he actually played in

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Except the era he actually played in

r/technicallycorrect

 

[Spikey]

it strikes me that whenever this topic comes out, the actual thing that needs to be discussed never is, and that is: would Bradman be able to repeat in the modern era his absolutely insane conversion rate. like, that's really needs to be discussed. you can talk about conditions, team strength and all that nonsense but the reality is: Bradman averaged 99 because once he got in, he did not get out. we (mostly) all understand that with the great batters, once they get in, they make you pay. Bradman just basically did that at a level no-one can compete with. he failed (scored under 20 runs in an innings) at ratios not really any different to any of the other great batters while at the same time keeping an insane conversion rate.

17 players have 4000 runs and a 50/100 conversion rate above 50% (to say nothing of double tons.) the only one close to him is Headley, who over a much longer FC career reverted back to below 50% (Bradman's stays well above 50% for his FC career) so I think it's probably fair to assume Headley's rate would have regressed a bit in a 52 test career (although I haven't checked to see if Headley's FC conversion rate tanked at the end of his career, like ricky ponting's conversion rate at the end of his test career. maybe he kept it at 65% for a long time).

and honestly, you look at those 17 players and only a couple of them are actually in the discussions for ATG line-ups. many of them I think are respected for what they could do to you, but are a step behind the actual greats of their era (Walcott being the obvious exception). bradman has the consistency of avoiding failing at the crease like the other greats (Sobers, Tendulkar, etc) while having a conversion rate that no-one can get close to.

and I don't really think there's any reason to believe his conversion rate would tank if placed in this era. so yeah I'd expect him to stay in that 90 to 100 neighbourhood.

Test Cricket - Highest 50/100 Conversion Rate

Test Cricket - Batsmen with highest 50 to 100 conversion rate

howstat.com

View attachment 37131

don bradman's conversion rate is 69%

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Best thing about Bradman is how he makes the haters cry.

Yup, just like Murali!

 

[karan_fromthestands]

don bradman's conversion rate is 69%

That's ridiculous.

Missionaries walked continents for less.

 

[Migara]

Don't think so. My guess is that his average would be somewhere around the 110-120 mark in the modern era.

The sport has only gone down since Bradman's time. The quality of bowling, pitches, fielding standards, over-reliance on technology, etc.

Every sport has improved from 1940s. It is non-sensical to think only cricket has gone back wards. With addition of new countries, actually it's quality has greatly improved.

 

[the big bambino]

of course the real nonsense is that bradman wouldn't have improved too.

 

[Ali TT]

Nah, there's no debate. Bradman would've averaged over 100 in every era with his skill and determination. Can't think of anyone coming close.

He did well in the toughest possible era from a skill standpoint, hard to imagine he'd do any less in the coming eras.

Except the era he actually played in

r/technicallycorrect

Highlighting things objectively correct

 

[Migara]

of course the real nonsense is that bradman wouldn't have improved too.

Bradman would have improved too, I am certain of it.. But he cannot improve at the pace of his opponents, who showed an exponential growth in numbers. And those numbers improve with technology as Bradman would have done so.

 

[Coronis]

Bradman would have improved too, I am certain of it.. But he cannot improve at the pace of his opponents, who showed an exponential growth in numbers. And those numbers improve with technology as Bradman would have done so.

Unsure you know what expotential is

 

[Daemon]

it strikes me that whenever this topic comes out, the actual thing that needs to be discussed never is, and that is: would Bradman be able to repeat in the modern era his absolutely insane conversion rate. like, that's really needs to be discussed. you can talk about conditions, team strength and all that nonsense but the reality is: Bradman averaged 99 because once he got in, he did not get out. we (mostly) all understand that with the great batters, once they get in, they make you pay. Bradman just basically did that at a level no-one can compete with. he failed (scored under 20 runs in an innings) at ratios not really any different to any of the other great batters while at the same time keeping an insane conversion rate.

17 players have 4000 runs and a 50/100 conversion rate above 50% (to say nothing of double tons.) the only one close to him is Headley, who over a much longer FC career reverted back to below 50% (Bradman's stays well above 50% for his FC career) so I think it's probably fair to assume Headley's rate would have regressed a bit in a 52 test career (although I haven't checked to see if Headley's FC conversion rate tanked at the end of his career, like ricky ponting's conversion rate at the end of his test career. maybe he kept it at 65% for a long time).

and honestly, you look at those 17 players and only a couple of them are actually in the discussions for ATG line-ups. many of them I think are respected for what they could do to you, but are a step behind the actual greats of their era (Walcott being the obvious exception). bradman has the consistency of avoiding failing at the crease like the other greats (Sobers, Tendulkar, etc) while having a conversion rate that no-one can get close to.

and I don't really think there's any reason to believe his conversion rate would tank if placed in this era. so yeah I'd expect him to stay in that 90 to 100 neighbourhood.

Test Cricket - Highest 50/100 Conversion Rate

Test Cricket - Batsmen with highest 50 to 100 conversion rate

howstat.com

View attachment 37131

Excellent point, however it just goes to show how Bradman wouldn’t be able to replicate the same conversion rate today. Fitness standards were rubbish back then and therefore it was easier for Bradman to whack tired and unfit bowlers around after he got set, while the lazy fielders ******ed the ball to the boundary or let 1s become 3s.

 

[Coronis]

Excellent point, however it just goes to show how Bradman wouldn’t be able to replicate the same conversion rate today. Fitness standards were rubbish back then and therefore it was easier for Bradman to whack tired and unfit bowlers around after he got set, while the lazy fielders ******ed the ball to the boundary or let 1s become 3s.

So Bradman was just much fitter than anyone else and nobody noticed?

 

[Daemon]

So Bradman was just much fitter than anyone else and nobody noticed?

He was just the right combination of great batsman and fit.

Everybody else was terrible. I’ve seen the footage.

 

[Johan]

Considering Jomel Warrican and Rohit Sharma are Test Cricketers while looking like they eat five big burgers for breakfast, clearly batsmen are no fitter.

 

[Daemon]

Considering Jomel Warrican and Rohit Sharma are Test Cricketers while looking like they eat five big burgers for breakfast, clearly batsmen are no fitter.

Jomel Warrican world renowned test ATG

 

[Johan]

Jomel Warrican world renowned test ATG

73 Test Wickets @ 28 while being a spinner, clearly good bowler etc

 

[the big bambino]

Excellent point, however it just goes to show how Bradman wouldn’t be able to replicate the same conversion rate today. Fitness standards were rubbish back then and therefore it was easier for Bradman to whack tired and unfit bowlers around after he got set, while the lazy fielders ******ed the ball to the boundary or let 1s become 3s.

Interesting point when bowlers played and got through timeless tests and bowlers now break after an IPL stint. I agree about the fielding standards though and confirmed by India in the present series in England.