If Donald Bradman batted now?

[manee]

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.

Good point, but I am suggesting that he had a special ability against the bowlers of the time on the pitches of the time and that such special ability would be moot in today's game.

 

[Skater]

I doubt his average would be above 0.00 if he batted now considering that Sir Donald Bradman died 6 years ago.

Seriously though, there have been lots of pointless discussions like this one. Nobody can compare across eras.

 

[evertonfan]

If he batted now he'd be really, really old and really, really wrinkly. In fact, he'd probably have trouble lifting the bat let alone spanking a cover drive.

In other words, unless any of you were alive to see Bradman in the flesh then there really isn't much substance to this.

 

[manee]

If he batted now he'd be really, really old and really, really wrinkly. In fact, he'd probably have trouble lifting the bat let alone spanking a cover drive.

In other words, unless any of you were alive to see Bradman in the flesh then there really isn't much substance to this.

I did a talk on Bradman in year 7 and although my public speaking was not nearly up to the cosmic levels it is now, I did a lot of research and believe I know a fair bit about Bradman.

You are correct that watching him is the best way to gauge his talent but there has been a damn lot written about him.

 

[ivanvdm15]

You can't compare him to now cricket has changed way too much.

 

[Almost_Austwick]

Talent is talent no matter the era. What would Bradman average nowadays, well I'd guess somewhere in the 70's - I feel that he would still be head and shoulders above the rest but not quite at the elevated levels of averaging in the late 90's.

You may question why I say that and it's quite easy really, if we keep his upbringing the (roughly) same and assume that he would have put the same level of commitment into training and practice but just transpose it to the modern day then he is still going to have the same amount of skill. He would have benefited from modern elements, such as better coaching, fitness and equipment.

On the downside we don't know how his form would have been affected by ODI or the sheer amount of cricket played. Imagining that he was brought up and was laying in the current era means that we can ignore things like the increased quality in fielding as he would be used to it.

On the other hand if we were to take a 27 year old (just a random age, not sure if it corresponds to one of his bouts of illness so don't shoot me down), transport him through time and chuck him into a modern test team then he'd no doubt struggle. However, I'd still back him to be able to score in the high 40's despite the obvious disadvantages he would face (although the fact that he honed his skills on uncovered pitches may actually be to his advantage as he would be at home in playing the seaming ball, possibly more so than his modern day compatriots).

Though some of you have mentioned low(ish) figures the guy was good enough to vastly out perform all peers, if he was really that good then his class would show through, no matter what the era.

 

[aussie1st]

Right now cricket is a batsmen game. The pitches are in their favour, rules are in their favour and of course there are not many World Class bowlers around these days compared with 10-20 years ago. So Bradman may well have improved his average. But there are just too many variables to say what he would have averaged in this era.

On the faster bowling point, if he was in this era then he would have played alot more against them in domestic and internationals so he would be just as comfortable as any batter in the world are right now against them.

 

[King Cricket]

I doubt his average would be above 0.00 if he batted now considering that Sir Donald Bradman died 6 years ago.

Seriously though, there have been lots of pointless discussions like this one. Nobody can compare across eras.

Absolutely. This topic is kinda pointless as because his average may be anything :. The modern day techniques and conditions may suit him or may not suit him. Who knows? His average may be 150+, his average may be 0. No one knows

 

[Gilly Fan]

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.

I think Larwood bowled upwards towards 90MPH/145kph.

The lowest I think he'd average is 55. I think he'd average about 75-80.

 

[manee]

I think Larwood bowled upwards towards 90MPH/145kph.

Don't get me started on that. Larwood was not 90mph. Tyson and Gilbert were perhaps up to 95mph but not Larwood. But, since there is no proof either way, I guess we'll leave it at there.

The lowest I think he'd average is 55. I think he'd average about 75-80.

I think your probably right there.

 

[baburao]

He would have averaged about 50 or 60. I believe that he would not have had an average of 99.94!

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.

This is the answer.

 

[smssia0112]

On the faster bowling point, if he was in this era then he would have played alot more against them in domestic and internationals so he would be just as comfortable as any batter in the world are right now against them.

That's what I was going to say. If you took Bradman through a time machine to bring him here today in his 20's, maybe he would average less, but if he was born in the 80's and was batting today, he would have grown up experiencing faster bowling and would likely have adjusted to it.

Like I said before, it's all relative. You can say that pitches and bowlers are tougher today, but so are batsmen.

A rare talent and gem like Bradman would no doubt be very different today but he would have the same benefit of today's batsmen such as better bats, better education and nutrition but he would still have his talent and that is the thing!

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.

I think that that is something that simply can not be assumed or interpeted beyond its literal meaning. That Tendulkar was the dominant batsman at the time is the best conclusion we can draw from that.

Don't twist a dead man's word is all I can say.

 

[manee]

A rare talent and gem like Bradman would no doubt be very different today but he would have the same benefit of today's batsmen such as better bats, better education and nutrition but he would still have his talent and that is the thing!

But that is the issue. His specific talents may have included playing the bowlers of the time who (as I mentioned earlier), I consider to be very different to today. AA is right, the superb hand-eye coordination which he is almost assured to of had, means that he would have been the standout of this era too.

I think that that is something that simply can not be assumed or interpeted beyond its literal meaning. That Tendulkar was the dominant batsman at the time is the best conclusion we can draw from that.

Don't twist a dead man's word is all I can say.

He called him his modern incarnation which I think stretches more than a complement to Tendulkar's dominance, I feel it is more of a comparison on the Don's behalf.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Bradman seemed to be one of those players who had the inability to make huge, huge scores much more consistantly then anyone else that the game has ever seen and often when the counted; had a strike-rate of around 85-90.

I think he'd average around about 75. Interestingly Bradman averages 72.57 in 5 day Test Matches.

 

[CortezTheKiller]

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.

I agree absolutely with this. If one looks at his contemporaries the best of the rest (Hammond is one, and there's also Sutcliffe & Hobbs) all average something broadly similar (55-60) to the blokes at the top of today's game (your Kallises & your Pontings). As you point out there's no-one even vaguely approaching Sir Donald's mark.

Obviously it's impossible to know for sure what he'd average today, but I would imagine it'd be something in excess of 75+. Genuine quicks might make him hop about a bit (as Larwood did), but such is the margin of Bradman's dominance I've no doubt he'd adapt. It's also worth remembering that today's protective equipment is far superior to anything dreamt of in the 30s. That was an era when keepers put raw steak in their gloves to deaden the impact of the cherry. Batsman were in real mortal danger from short-pitched stuff.