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

[JBMAC]

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

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

And I have seen it in person and some posters here are just waffling about rubbish

 

[_00_deathscar]

So? Plenty of players have averaged around 60 at that point in their careers. And he had multiple contemporaries averaging 50.

Lets see Bradman was averaging 100 and his contemporaries 60…. slight difference

This was his argument:
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.

Ponting, Smith and quite a few others as you mentioned at some point with enough tests played

 

[_00_deathscar]

More than 40 tests back.

Has it been that long already?

 

[sayon basak]

Has it been that long already?

It was 4/5 years ago iirc. Smith probably still was averaging 60 in the match both him and Labuschagne hit double tons.

 

[Daemon]

And I have seen it in person and some posters here are just waffling about rubbish

I played against him.

 

[Shri]

And I have seen it in person and some posters here are just waffling about rubbish

wow jbmac is a bjp supporter

 

[ankitj]

Absolutely agree. Bradman would still be four standard deviations above the rest. Just look at the footage, the bowling that he dominated was top class. I see no reason to believe he wouldn't have absolutely dominated Holding, Marshall, Garner, Roberts, Walsh, Ambrose, Akhtar, Wasim, Waqar, Younis, Steyn, Morkel, Donald, Pollock, Bumrah, Archer, Rabada, Broad, Anderson, Murali, Warne, Kumble, Ashwin, and anyone else naive enough to bowl to him.

Being 4 standard deviations away from mean has same probability in every era. That's why it's called "standard". If it's shocking that anyone can be 4 SD away from mean in this era, it's equally shocking that anyone was hundred years ago.

 

[Coronis]

This was his argument:
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.

Ponting, Smith and quite a few others as you mentioned at some point with enough tests played

The whole point is its not comparable to averaging 100 when the next best player averages 60

 

[honestbharani]

I played against him.

Nah you gotta offer proof.


Bradman says Tendulkar played a lot like him.

Tendulkar played with and against Krish Srikkanth.

Krish Srikkanth would have played against his son Aditya at home.

I have played against his son Aditya.


Therefore, I have played against Bradman.

 

[shortpitched713]

Smith was at 62 or 63 or something about 20 tests back

Imagine him with like 5 more runs per wicket, and didn't fall off like that, and add 30+ more Tests of consistent performance.

 

[karan_fromthestands]

Being 4 standard deviations away from mean has same probability in every era. That's why it's called "standard". If it's shocking that anyone can be 4 SD away from mean in this era, it's equally shocking that anyone was hundred years ago.

Being four standard deviations above the mean just highlights you're rare within your dataset.

Standard deviation isn't a time machine, it's local to the context. Same Z-score, totally different mountain.

However, I'd argue Bradman would still be four standard deviations above in any era because his greatness isn't bound by math.

 

[shortpitched713]

Being four standard deviations above the mean just highlights you're rare within your dataset.

Standard deviation isn't a time machine, it's local to the context. Same Z-score, totally different mountain.

However, I'd argue Bradman would still be four standard deviations above in any era because his greatness isn't bound by math.

 

[Randomfan]

Being 4 standard deviations away from mean has same probability in every era. That's why it's called "standard". If it's shocking that anyone can be 4 SD away from mean in this era, it's equally shocking that anyone was hundred years ago.

Both can carry a different meaning.

Standard deviation with sample size of 5 is different from standard deviation with sample size of 500.

2nd case is simply far more impressive than the first case.

 

[howszatt]

Don would average more than 100 in modern cricket, right?

 

[Victor Ian]

Being four standard deviations above the mean just highlights you're rare within your dataset.

Standard deviation isn't a time machine, it's local to the context. Same Z-score, totally different mountain.

However, I'd argue Bradman would still be four standard deviations above in any era because his greatness isn't bound by math.

Yeah. So what is the number for four standard deviations today?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Don would average more than 100 in modern cricket, right?

Somewhere between 90 and 110, too many factors either way to make a more accurate judgement

 

[the big bambino]

Absolutely agree. Bradman would still be four standard deviations above the rest. Just look at the footage, the bowling that he dominated was top class. I see no reason to believe he wouldn't have absolutely dominated Holding, Marshall, Garner, Roberts, Walsh, Ambrose, Akhtar, Wasim, Waqar, Younis, Steyn, Morkel, Donald, Pollock, Bumrah, Archer, Rabada, Broad, Anderson, Murali, Warne, Kumble, Ashwin, and anyone else naive enough to bowl to him.

That was a part time bowler who hadn't bowled on tour and put on as a gesture for the occasion. But I'm sure you weren't being selective. Until I saw your list of bowlers and unfortunately have to conclude you are. They range over a period of 55 years, (how would SRT go against them and as a 75yo?) and represent a meagre fraction of the bowlers who played in their respective eras.

 

[the big bambino]

In the 2000's when batting was easy in Australia and the opposition bowling was crap, Ponting cashed in. So did Hayden. So did Clarke. So did Hussey. They all did.

Why are there not a bevy of Australian batsmen averaging 70+ in Bradman's time? I mean, they only had to play a single opponent and things were just too easy. Bradman did both things in batting that either one of tends to make you great, but appear to be mutually exclusive for everyone else... bat long - and bat quick.

Fielding may be better now, but boundaries are shorter and bats are thicker.

Bowlers still get tired. If the idea that they bowled a spell then became rubbish held any weight, there would be many batsman with Bradman-like averages at the time. Truth is, the balance between bat and ball was still there. The reason why Bradman excelled was because he stayed in and kept scoring runs quickly. Imagine Pujara and Brook's love child.

The only reason Bradman in today's world would not be a phenom is because he may have spent time **** posting on X rather than honing his hand eye coordination.

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.

 

[Arachnödouche2.0]

Daemon's talking much smack and backing it up with a sub-50. You love to see it, oi.

 

[ankitj]

Both can carry a different meaning.

Standard deviation with sample size of 5 is different from standard deviation with sample size of 500.

2nd case is simply far more impressive than the first case.

Standard deviation already takes care of sample size difference. Small sample size → bigger standard deviation.

Anyway this is not a stats thread.