Don Bradman's average

[rasi]

Andrew, could you get this pinned please.

Just poll what you think would be Bradman's average if he is playing modern day cricket. And please as you poll, post your reasons.

 

[wackojacko]

i reckon 100's

cause bowlers back then bowled the same speed as they do now and Don Bradman could have got an average above 100 but he went out for a duck on his last match

 

[rasi]

Hey Wacko. It is not just speed. There are a lot of factors to be considered.
Back then, there was no technology available for the teams and, as a result, no proper planning was done in playing the matches. People couldn't analyse a players game. The first time some analysis was done was in the Bodyline series of 1933. You know what Bradman averaged in that series? He scored 396 runs in 8 innings with 1 n.o. His highest score was 103* and he averaged 56.57

But consider today. Every school-going kid knows that Ganguly is not comfortable against short-pitched deliveries.

Another point is that of LBW's. Until 1935, a batsman could be given out only if the ball pitches in line between the wickets. It was only in 1935, after Harold Larwood complained that the LBW rule was formad allowing umpires to give decisions if the ball pitches on the off side as well. The umpires were not willing to change their original rules and it took more than 15 years to get LBW decisions in the same way as today. Beleive me the LBW to wickets ration was 1 in 42 back then. But now, it is 1 in 5. Back then Cricket was a batsman's game.

I agree that Bradman was a great cricketer and he would have overcome many odds, if not all, but, I seriously doubt him having an average of above 60. So, I went for 50s

 

[rasi]

Or maybe 60s. But no way will he be averaging above that.

 

[rasi]

And if bodyline still exists? Well, I think that it still exits. Because, every series for Indians is a Bodyline series. : : :
Anyway, that's the truth. You will see it when India tour Australia.

 

[imported_graham]

hey u guys need to remmber dat don bradman did not only hav a high average he also had a high strike rate

 

[rasi]

What has strike rate got to do with average?

 

[andrew_nixon]

I think it would be in the 100s. One reason is that he'd be playing more games, and bowlers get tired quicker, cos they're playing more games.

My favorite story about the Don, is when he was being interviewed in the 80s

The conversation went like this:

Interviewer: What do you think you would average in todays cricket?
Bradman: I think I'd average about 65.
Interviewer: But you averaged nearly 100 in your career.
Bradman: Yes, but I'm in my 70s now.

 

[wackojacko]

hahah :

 

[temp]

During the coverage of NatWest Series, Ravi Shastri said that it would be in 60s.

 

[rasi]

Andrew, we just can't go by what he played then. He's got a few technical flaws as well. He wouldn't play short-pitched deliveries. He doesn't play spin very well. I firmly beleive not more than 60s.

 

[jc135022]

Bradman would have been up in the 100's.
He was in a class of his own. He nearly doubled everyone in his era. Why wouldn't he do it in this era? To do that you have to be a real freak. Nobody can do that today, or has done it since. As for the lbw law changes, we didn't see anyone else score like him as he did under thos laws.
He also played on terrible pitches, they weren't anywhere near the quality of pitches today. Many uncovered.
Bradman would rule in any era, and remember he was playing without a helmet and much of the protection we use these days. Try facing body line bowling without modern day equipment!

 

[Dimuthu]

I selected 70s out of utter confusion!

There are just too many factors to consider.
Someone said that the bowlers would get tired. Well maybe he'd get tired himself.

The other thing i need to know to select is what part of his career do u think he'd b in now?!
If he had played for 20 years and retired in 2003 World Cup i reckon he'd have averaged about 65/70.

He would have played from 1983, so he would have been through 6 world cups too! With all the one day matches, he'd be one tired puppy too!

He would have played against Very Strong West Indies sides of the that time, or JUST missed it. So would have been tricky against them.

He would have played against fluctuating New Zealand team. Up and coming teams like SL (at that time) ZIm and Bangladesh. and those England teams!

Strong Imran Khan/Wasim Akram Pakistan teams. Kapil Dev's/Ganguly's Indians. And would he open with Matty Hayden and Gilchrist doing so well?

It's just too hard to imagine. :wacko:

But love trying to! :


Peace
DT

 

[Bilal]

He is a very good bowler.kh ^_^

 

[andrew_nixon]

Originally posted by Bilal@Jun 2 2004, 07:09 PM
He is a very good bowler.kh ^_^

errrr....... no