Cricketdude
Chairman of Selectors
What do you guys think Bradman's average would be like if he batted in this day in age?
If Donald Bradman batted now?
- Thread starter Cricketdude
- Start date
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
I'm thinking it would be lower.
Bowlers have gotten better. He would still be a dominant force though.
I'm thinking his average would be 80ish.
Bowlers have gotten better. He would still be a dominant force though.
I'm thinking his average would be 80ish.
Pak_cricketer
Chairman of Selectors
First of all, you can't compare. The mind set in cricket was different back then. With teams having 4-5 slips all the times so if you touched it nicely it was 4. But then there was no or extremely little safety gear and it was hard to touch the ball. Minding that the bowlers were relatively quick (75mph+).
Cricketdude
Chairman of Selectors
Id thought hes average would be about 60
afridi118
International Coach
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2004
44.66 something like that as if you see in old days arent we used to get a break in test like after third day next day was off?? nad batsmen that ere were way more defensive than now and use to score 50 in 150 or more balls and dont get easily out and you have lots off time to rest now teams mainly have busy schedule.
Hooper
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2006
- Location
- West Australia
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
How do you know bowlers have gotten better
Where you there 50+ years ago, watched them bowl and now watch modern Cricket and make the comparison? Hmmm....
True, you can't compare, he played a long time ago, on way different pitches, different types of bowlers, way different bats and safety equipment.
cameron thomas
School Cricketer
i think around 50
smssia0112
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
Aboslutely no way to tell. No reason to say lower because if he batted today he would have the extra power and fitness that cricketers have these days, as well as the better bats.
Bowlers haven't improved without batsmen, don't forget that batsmen are also getting better and scores are higher today than back then!
Bowlers haven't improved without batsmen, don't forget that batsmen are also getting better and scores are higher today than back then!
He would have averaged about 50 or 60. I believe that he would not have had an average of 99.94!
For one, his style was perfected on uncovered pitches. You do not get them anymore. It is possible that on a flat deck, he would not know how to dominate the bowling and get bogged down at the sight of a Hayden dominating at the other end.
There is also a possibility that all the bowlers 'back then' were only 70-75mph trundlers who relied on pitch movement. He may have never faced anyone even close to the pace of Shoaib Akhtar and may have only been an expert against slow and fast spinners.
In the days of modern analytical technology, it is possible that a weakness could have been worked out for Bradman or even fields to quell his scoring. Maybe it would be the 90mph bouncer which, as mentioned earlier, I believe he never faced.
Bradman often said that Tendulkar was his modern incarnation. Interesting considering that Bradman averaged twice Tendulkar. Maybe this is a freudian slip admitting that some of the greats these days would have dominated early in the last century. Rest assured, I do not think the comparison was just due to the shoulder not pointing to mid off which allowed versatile drives.
As Dean says, there is no way to tell but my educated guess is that he would certaintly have not been as dominant as he was in his day.
For one, his style was perfected on uncovered pitches. You do not get them anymore. It is possible that on a flat deck, he would not know how to dominate the bowling and get bogged down at the sight of a Hayden dominating at the other end.
There is also a possibility that all the bowlers 'back then' were only 70-75mph trundlers who relied on pitch movement. He may have never faced anyone even close to the pace of Shoaib Akhtar and may have only been an expert against slow and fast spinners.
In the days of modern analytical technology, it is possible that a weakness could have been worked out for Bradman or even fields to quell his scoring. Maybe it would be the 90mph bouncer which, as mentioned earlier, I believe he never faced.
Bradman often said that Tendulkar was his modern incarnation. Interesting considering that Bradman averaged twice Tendulkar. Maybe this is a freudian slip admitting that some of the greats these days would have dominated early in the last century. Rest assured, I do not think the comparison was just due to the shoulder not pointing to mid off which allowed versatile drives.
As Dean says, there is no way to tell but my educated guess is that he would certaintly have not been as dominant as he was in his day.
Spin King07
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
bradmans average would be around 85 because he would feel much safer wearing a helmet. so hed play more shots with out being afaird it was going to hit his head
mattfb
Chairman of Selectors
He would be about 45 because he will play way more then 23 tests!
King Cricket
International Coach
His average may be anything.
I included Bradman in the Australian Squad of my BLIC 05 Game and his average is just 25 in tests and 30 in the ODIs.
68 is his highest score in tests, and 51 is his highest score in the ODI's
I included Bradman in the Australian Squad of my BLIC 05 Game and his average is just 25 in tests and 30 in the ODIs.
68 is his highest score in tests, and 51 is his highest score in the ODI's
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Manee, your best point is about Shoaib. Bradman himself said of the aboriginal Queensland fast bowler Eddie Gilbert:
The keeper took the ball over his head, and I reckon it was halfway to the boundary, he said, and that the balls from Gilbert were unhesitatingly faster than anything seen from Larwood or anyone else.
Gilbert's pace actually knocked the bat from Bradman's hands (bats in those days were toothpicks compared to now) before dismissing him for a duck. It is arguable that sheer pace was able to unsettle him more than anything, although one must emphasise the importance of rarity to a surprise attack.
Still, the lightweight and arguably dead bats (intended to last much longer than current professional bats), combined with any notion of slower bowling could only have made it more difficult to score at the rate that he did (determined to be around 60 runs per 100 balls by Wisden statisticians).
I think the strongest argument that Bradman would have prevailed in a modern game is his contemporaries. One would think, if conditions were brilliant for batsmen, then there would be more with averages over 60 or over 80. Of course, there aren't. There were definitely great batsmen, though. England's Wally Hammond was an undoubtable dominator. Hammond is to this day the third best scorer of double hundreds and yet his career average was a mere 58.
Of course, there is no way to judge how these players would have worked in a professional era. Still, the ridiculous difference between Bradman and his contemporaries and the continuing ability of some rare batsmen to average close to or over 60 suggests to me that sheer ability could count for an awful lot, whatever the conditions.
The keeper took the ball over his head, and I reckon it was halfway to the boundary, he said, and that the balls from Gilbert were unhesitatingly faster than anything seen from Larwood or anyone else.
Gilbert's pace actually knocked the bat from Bradman's hands (bats in those days were toothpicks compared to now) before dismissing him for a duck. It is arguable that sheer pace was able to unsettle him more than anything, although one must emphasise the importance of rarity to a surprise attack.
Still, the lightweight and arguably dead bats (intended to last much longer than current professional bats), combined with any notion of slower bowling could only have made it more difficult to score at the rate that he did (determined to be around 60 runs per 100 balls by Wisden statisticians).
I think the strongest argument that Bradman would have prevailed in a modern game is his contemporaries. One would think, if conditions were brilliant for batsmen, then there would be more with averages over 60 or over 80. Of course, there aren't. There were definitely great batsmen, though. England's Wally Hammond was an undoubtable dominator. Hammond is to this day the third best scorer of double hundreds and yet his career average was a mere 58.
Of course, there is no way to judge how these players would have worked in a professional era. Still, the ridiculous difference between Bradman and his contemporaries and the continuing ability of some rare batsmen to average close to or over 60 suggests to me that sheer ability could count for an awful lot, whatever the conditions.
