How much do you think Don Bradman would average if he played in the 21st century?

[ahmed778]

How much do you think would Donald Bradman average if he played in the 21st century.
Taking into consideration the New Technology aiding the Batsman as well as the bowlers and the new ICC Rules that favor that Batsman considerably and also with the inventions of the Reverse Swing and the Doosra and the workload of all 3 Formats how much would Bradman average in Test Cricket if he played for Australia in the current day in all three formats.

 

[JustAnotherFan]

78,34

 

[saiyan0312]

over 400 .... the biggest thing right now is there are no more Fast bowlers that could hinder him..... rigth now fast bowlers are not that effective and he would have taken them down easily.

 

[zarak]

probably 18-20.

people tend to glorify the past, he was miles ahead of HIS generation, watching his videos one gets the sense that the ballers were so mediocre compared to the modern game ie: wasim, ambrose

 

[Robert]

The big difference is in the quality of fielding now. Sir Don never hit sixes so would not get caught out very often, but modern fielders would turn a lot of his fours into twos.

On the other hand, he would revel in the better bats, better armour, and much flatter and more homogenous pitches.

He thought that SRT was stylistically the most similar to him, and suggested that in the modern era he would average a mere 75.

 

[The Dark Corner]

You can't deny his talent. Still above 50 I'd reckon.

 

[leatherface58]

60 odd I would think in tests.
40 odd in odi.

T20 is anybody's guess.

 

[asif9138]

he would have 200+ against indian. lol

 

[ahmed778]

Not to mention the difficulty of batting at completely different pitches.
There are seaming heavens,Rank turners and Flat tracks.
In the days when Bradman played most cricket were played on well balanced pitches of Australia and England although the pitches being uncovered was a disadvantage for the Batsman.

 

[ali bubba]

I would say about 55 in tests. ODI'S likely the mid 40's to 50. 20/20 no idea

 

[murphyslaw79]

probably 18-20.

people tend to glorify the past, he was miles ahead of HIS generation, watching his videos one gets the sense that the ballers were so mediocre compared to the modern game ie: wasim, ambrose

Larwood was mediocre )

Hardly any decent protective equipment, uncovered pitches. U having a laugh.

 

[pakistanalltheway]

about 70 odd

 

[kingusama92]

Some tend to look down on the past stating modern innovations, whle others prop it up as something impossibly great.

I think Don Bradman's average would find a nice middle ground.

He would adapt and dominate above his peers in this generation. I would think he would average in the 60-70 range.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

55ish

 

[leatherface58]

One factor worth considering is the technological aspect. There is video evidence for everything. The coaches analyze every aspect of the opponent batsman's batting and any weakness if he has, they pounce on it.

 

[ads101]

Think he still would have averaged 90 or so.

There's a lot of disadvantages for batsmen in this era e.g. better bowlers, video analysis of batting, better fielding, but also advantages e.g. pitches are more predictable/generally easier to get big scores, more protection,video analysis of bowling.

 

[mithun_minhas]

We always overrate past players. Not saying they are not great. They are all great players like many of the modern greats.

Most posters on this board might have never watched Bradman. We only go by some video footage or some old commentators views. Had he played today, with all the media coverage and internet, he would have been considered as an English basher or selfish player or what not...

Similarly with players like Sobers or Kapildev, or Gavaskar or Imran Khan or Gooch or Richards.... most of us might not have watched them play. Had they played today, they would have been crucified by internet posters like what Tendu or Inzi or Ponting or Lara or Kallis have been.

Past is always painted as a rosy picture and present is always worse. That is the mentality of people.

 

[OmaIR1]

75ish...

 

[Kwremb]

65-70 imo

 

[speed]

90-100

 

[Bullet Drive]

A lot more than 99.94.

He played in times where the pitches were un-covered. Conditions were extremely tough for batting yet he mastered them. He played during a time where there was hardly any decent protective equipment and the bats were thin. The boundaries were also a lot larger than they are now. Also back then there wasn't footage which could be seen by batsman before the game like there is now.

With the bigger bats, flatter pitches, smaller boundaries & protective equipment there is now..Bradman would have averaged 150+

 

[zarak]

Larwood was mediocre )

Hardly any decent protective equipment, uncovered pitches. U having a laugh.

I have not seen him, just by looking at his statistics he was hardly killing it bowling average of 28.35 in tests.

The game has become a lot more professional now. I find it hard to believe that a player from the 1920's would be as good as a modern player.

 

[justarslan]

110 based on the thinking that averages of modern batsmen is inflated by at least 10 points.

 

[Pakprideuk]

He would still be a class above any batsmen today, so i reckon around 65-70 if you take into account neutral umpires, improved technology, various formats etc.

 

[W63L35]

130-150

 

[Zarrar]

At least 200...with batting tracks, no front foot noballs, no legside traps, covered pitches, midocre bowlers, no fast bowlers, protective gear, bigger lighter bats, minnow teams...

 

[Down2Earth]

probably about 100 in tests and 18 in ODI's

 

[Big Harvey]

I suspect his average would have been similar.

There are advantages and disadvantages to being a batsman today compared with Bradman's time. Yes, technology would enable his technique to be put under a microscope, but the same would apply to the bowlers he would be facing, for example.

We can debate the differences all we like, but stats hint that whatever the factors shifting things in either direction, the balance between bat and ball now is not that different to Bradman's day. If Bradman had a "weakness," anecdotal evidence suggests that he didn't enjoy facing real express pace bowling, e.g. Harold Larwood or Eddie Gilbert. However there really isn't much of that kind of bowling around nowadays, is there?

 

[Bilal7]

Around 60.

 

[FusedBulb]

probably 18-20.

people tend to glorify the past, he was miles ahead of HIS generation, watching his videos one gets the sense that the ballers were so mediocre compared to the modern game ie: wasim, ambrose

Tend to agree with you.

Scenario 1

If you pull out Don from the history as he was from that era and put him against today's bowlers then it would have been a different story ... Bowling has been revolutionized since then. The vicious in and out swing, the mastery of reverse swing, doosra, flipper, wrong-un, carom ball and a couple of other varieties are in the weaponry to surprise any batsman. "That Historical Don" in the black n white footage would have had a lower average if he had played in the 2 W's era or the "Kaali Aandhi's" era of West Indian dominance for sure. He would also had difficult time training his brain to bat while having so much of an extra padding. And yes, modern day fielders would have definitely reduced his run rate.

And then, In today's world where spin seems to be the driving force of future cricket bowling, Don would have perhaps scored low as well since it's hard to hit good spinners.

Scenario 2

If Don was a young kid who had learned how to play cricket in 1990 and started his cricket career as a youngster say in 2005 then he would have learned how to bat against today's bowling and fielding to gain skills and cope with modern day's advance bowling weaponry. In this case, he would have perhaps been equally potent to maintain the same stats as he had in his original black n white era. And this is based on the logic that he was ahead of the game in his era, so he would have perhaps been ahead of the game in this era too.

 

[hamzie]

If he did avg 99 because it was so easy to play back then, why werent the averages of other batsmen around that time period 90+ as well?

 

[PTI tsunami]

He wouldn't average more than 20 as cricket was crap then have u seen how he was holding his bat then

 

[FusedBulb]

He wouldn't average more than 20 as cricket was crap then have u seen how he was holding his bat then

And why didn't his fellow and counterpart batsmen who held the bat "correctly" score the same or even more amount of runs in the same "crap cricket"?

 

[trogger]

108.65

 

[James]

Would have been a 50+ average player you'd think, beyond that difficult to say.

 

[Madplayer]

Tend to agree with you.

Scenario 1

If you pull out Don from the history as he was from that era and put him against today's bowlers then it would have been a different story ... Bowling has been revolutionized since then. The vicious in and out swing, the mastery of reverse swing, doosra, flipper, wrong-un, carom ball and a couple of other varieties are in the weaponry to surprise any batsman. "That Historical Don" in the black n white footage would have had a lower average if he had played in the 2 W's era or the "Kaali Aandhi's" era of West Indian dominance for sure. He would also had difficult time training his brain to bat while having so much of an extra padding. And yes, modern day fielders would have definitely reduced his run rate.

And then, In today's world where spin seems to be the driving force of future cricket bowling, Don would have perhaps scored low as well since it's hard to hit good spinners.

Scenario 2

If Don was a young kid who had learned how to play cricket in 1990 and started his cricket career as a youngster say in 2005 then he would have learned how to bat against today's bowling and fielding to gain skills and cope with modern day's advance bowling weaponry. In this case, he would have perhaps been equally potent to maintain the same stats as he had in his original black n white era. And this is based on the logic that he was ahead of the game in his era, so he would have perhaps been ahead of the game in this era too.

Good post. Completely agree with this.

 

[Khaleefa]

Tend to agree with you.

Scenario 1

If you pull out Don from the history as he was from that era and put him against today's bowlers then it would have been a different story ... Bowling has been revolutionized since then. The vicious in and out swing, the mastery of reverse swing, doosra, flipper, wrong-un, carom ball and a couple of other varieties are in the weaponry to surprise any batsman. "That Historical Don" in the black n white footage would have had a lower average if he had played in the 2 W's era or the "Kaali Aandhi's" era of West Indian dominance for sure. He would also had difficult time training his brain to bat while having so much of an extra padding. And yes, modern day fielders would have definitely reduced his run rate.

And then, In today's world where spin seems to be the driving force of future cricket bowling, Don would have perhaps scored low as well since it's hard to hit good spinners.

Scenario 2

If Don was a young kid who had learned how to play cricket in 1990 and started his cricket career as a youngster say in 2005 then he would have learned how to bat against today's bowling and fielding to gain skills and cope with modern day's advance bowling weaponry. In this case, he would have perhaps been equally potent to maintain the same stats as he had in his original black n white era. And this is based on the logic that he was ahead of the game in his era, so he would have perhaps been ahead of the game in this era too.

Another gem by a bulb that is supposedly fused but still sheds some intelligent light.
For me personally, I think there is hardly anything left to discuss after this very good post.

 

[amit]

35-40

bradman would have never faced the standard of fielding which exists these days. also he would be udrs-ed a few times. and the quality of bowling is also good with current & recently retired bowlers like steyn, mcgrath, zaheer, warne, muralitharan, kumble

 

[adi_6294]

I think we should compare him with the batsmen of his age to see how good he was...
I think during his playing days, not many batsmen have batting averages equal to or near to 55.
So it is clear that he was a best batsmen that time.
We cant compare him to today's batsmen or compare it to today's century...

He was the best, the invincible and the genius.....

Other thing is his first class average which is 95, which proves he was consistent enough to score runs against every team and every surface.


A true legend......I wish I could see him bat

 

[Robert]

N
In the days when Bradman played most cricket were played on well balanced pitches of Australia and England although the pitches being uncovered was a disadvantage for the Batsman.

No true. There were 'roads' in those days too but there were also wet wickets, sticky dogs, bunsens etc. which would expose the techniques of the batters of today.

 

[adi_6294]

And considering they dont have the helmets, some covering equipments, straight bats etc.
If that applied to today's batsmen, then they cant even score a fifty...lol

So no point of comparing two centuries....

 

[James]

It's generally the older fellas that don't rate modern players as much.

 

[wrongun]

He was almost twice as good as his contemporaries then. I don't see why it would be any different now.

 

[James]

He was almost twice as good as his contemporaries then. I don't see why it would be any different now.

Well I can think of at least twelve potential reasons why it might be different, but the Aussies don't generally take critiques of Bradman very well.

 

[JibranAnsari]

Around the same .. give or take 5

 

[Gilly]

Well I can think of at least twelve potential reasons why it might be different, but the Aussies don't generally take critiques of Bradman very well.

Critique Bradman all you like, I dont think one Aussie would take offense, never have. People might think you have made some silly comments but that would apply regardless of who the batsman was.

What I find unusual about Englanders reducing Bradmans average is for some reason it doesent apply to batsmen like Crompton and Hutton that played in the same era, amazingly thier averages stay the same.

 

[Robert]

What I find unusual about Englanders reducing Bradmans average is for some reason it doesent apply to batsmen like Crompton and Hutton that played in the same era, amazingly thier averages stay the same.

Has there ever been such a thread about Crompton [sic] and Hutton? If so we will discuss it properly.

 

[James]

Critique Bradman all you like, I dont think one Aussie would take offense, never have. People might think you have made some silly comments but that would apply regardless of who the batsman was.

Tries to refute the point but ends up supporting it Superb.

What I find unusual about Englanders reducing Bradmans average is for some reason it doesent apply to batsmen like Crompton and Hutton that played in the same era, amazingly thier averages stay the same.

As already pointed out by Robert, you've made this up.

But never mind. Straw man arguments are common amongst cheerleaders.

If the likes of Hutton and Compton had played from the 80s onwards, there's no doubt in my mind that their averages would also have been less.

 

[Sixhitter]

99.6

 

[James]

If he did avg 99 because it was so easy to play back then, why werent the averages of other batsmen around that time period 90+ as well?

There are numerous other examples from this era of abnormally high batting averages.

Bradman only played first-class cricket in a small handful of countries and when cricket was still quite a new international sport. Batsmen today meanwhile have to play in a huge variety of conditions against many different kinds of bowling, whilst facing video technology and vastly improved fielders. There's no way anyone could ever maintain a career average of 100 under these circumstances.

 

[Executioner]

Another point to be made is that if he was asked to play so many different formats his average would definitely be as high.

Such huge workload and constant shifting of formats is bound to make even the best of batsman struggle. However, if he sticked to just 1 format, probably tests, he would have averaged around 75.

 

[wrongun]

There are numerous other examples from this era of abnormally high batting averages.

.

No there aren't. Headley is the only one who comes close (69) who played 20 tests or more.

 

[Itachi]

around 55-60.... 70 if only post 2005 era is takien.

 

[kungfu90]

He wouldn't even be a Cricketer.
Seriously, you can't predict like this. A sportsperson is a product of his environment.

 

[Mamoon]

He definitely would have been a 50+ player.

 

[SL_Fan]

I do not see the great man averaging any thing below 80 if he was around during the last couple of decades. When you take away dozen or so of his performances on sticky wickets (probably his only blemish as far as batting is concerned) he averaged close to 120. So 80 is just two thirds of that. I reckon he would have averaged in the high 80s or 90s this century.

As for those who claim that batting would have been easier back then here's some food for thought.

Average of top 5 batsmen from the top 5 teams during the last 3 decades (1982-2012) = 41.22

Bowling average of the top 5 teams during the last 3 decades (1982-2012) = 34.57

Batting stats link

Bowling stats link


Average of top 5 batsmen from the top 2 teams (rest were minnows) during Bradman's time +/- 5 years (1923-2053) = 43.09

Bowling average of the top 2 teams (rest were minnows) during Bradman's time +/- 5 years (1923-2053) = 34.29

Batting stats link

Bowling stats link


Hardly any difference is there. Pretty much along the same lines. Bradman was just one of a kind. One of sport's greatest anomalies.

 

[Gilly]

As already pointed out by Robert, you've made this up.

But never mind. Straw man arguments are common amongst cheerleaders.

If the likes of Hutton and Compton had played from the 80s onwards, there's no doubt in my mind that their averages would also have been less.

Robert posted that Compton is better than Viv Richards'

Difficult to say. I don't know that Sir Viv was necessarily better than the following:

Hammond
Headley
Compton
Weekes
Sobers
Miandad
Lara
Tendulkar

And here he puts Hammond in the all time best ever eleven,

Sobey would get in ahead of the rest for his bowling and catching and perhaps Hammond would too. So Viv would have to beat out several guys who were around-about as good as him.

My ATG XI would be:

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist (w)
Imran (c)
Marshall
Warne
Barnes

So Robert has put Hutton before Gavaskar even though Gavaskar played against bowlers far better than we currently have.

 

[Jeetu111]

How much do you think would Donald Bradman average if he played in the 21st century.
Taking into consideration the New Technology aiding the Batsman as well as the bowlers and the new ICC Rules that favor that Batsman considerably and also with the inventions of the Reverse Swing and the Doosra and the workload of all 3 Formats how much would Bradman average in Test Cricket if he played for Australia in the current day in all three formats.

66.64 in tests .

 

[Gilly]

There are numerous other examples from this era of abnormally high batting averages.

Bradman only played first-class cricket in a small handful of countries and when cricket was still quite a new international sport. Batsmen today meanwhile have to play in a huge variety of conditions against many different kinds of bowling, whilst facing video technology and vastly improved fielders. There's no way anyone could ever maintain a career average of 100 under these circumstances.

But somehow I bet your all time eleven contain at least one Egland batsman pre 1950's.

 

[lilFlip]

150+ easily. He would've smacked modern day trundlers all over the park.
Playing against WI of 80s/2Ws etc is other thing but I can bet he would have adjusted his game easily against any kind of swing/pace.
Now IMAGINE MODERN DAY 'LEGENDS' IN THOSE PITCHES WITH NO BODY ARMOUR AND IN BODY-LINE SERIES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scwtTaEo43U

 

[shaz619]

Tend to agree with you.

Scenario 1

If you pull out Don from the history as he was from that era and put him against today's bowlers then it would have been a different story ... Bowling has been revolutionized since then. The vicious in and out swing, the mastery of reverse swing, doosra, flipper, wrong-un, carom ball and a couple of other varieties are in the weaponry to surprise any batsman. "That Historical Don" in the black n white footage would have had a lower average if he had played in the 2 W's era or the "Kaali Aandhi's" era of West Indian dominance for sure. He would also had difficult time training his brain to bat while having so much of an extra padding. And yes, modern day fielders would have definitely reduced his run rate.

And then, In today's world where spin seems to be the driving force of future cricket bowling, Don would have perhaps scored low as well since it's hard to hit good spinners.

Scenario 2

If Don was a young kid who had learned how to play cricket in 1990 and started his cricket career as a youngster say in 2005 then he would have learned how to bat against today's bowling and fielding to gain skills and cope with modern day's advance bowling weaponry. In this case, he would have perhaps been equally potent to maintain the same stats as he had in his original black n white era. And this is based on the logic that he was ahead of the game in his era, so he would have perhaps been ahead of the game in this era too.

I disagree with you entirely, i believe that with the technique don bradman had, it would not be difficult for him to adjust to the modern era and the technology available would benefit him even more then other players due to his own nautral ability and hard work. Therefore he would be able to overcome any weakness he may posses in the modern era for example getting use to the varieties of fast bowlers and spinners.

 

[Random Aussie]

70 to 80

 

[Black Zero]

as i mentioned in other thread, he would still avg around 92+

 

[Robert]

Robert posted that Compton is better than Viv Richards'

I didn't. Read what I posted. I said that I didn't think that Richards was necessarily better than Compton.

( Compton <> Richards ) is not equal to ( Compton > Richards )

And here he puts Hammond in the all time best ever eleven,

Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Richards
Tendulkar
Sobers
Gilchrist (w)
Imran (c)
Marshall
Warne
Barnes

Do you think before you post, at all? I know some of them begin with H, but you have to read the whole word, not just the first letter.

So Robert has put Hutton before Gavaskar even though Gavaskar played against bowlers far better than we currently have.

What has putting Hutton ahead of Gavaskar got to do with the type of bowlers "you" have now?

 

[James]

But somehow I bet your all time eleven contain at least one Egland batsman pre 1950's.

That's because we're cack though

And I don't have to answer for Robert, he is perfectly capable of doing that himself. Don't say England fans or Englanders when it is really just one bloke.

 

[Khaseer]

There's no way to tell for sure, and probably never will be, but 65-75 seems reasonable for some reason.

 

[Sandeep]

Oh wait let me check

54.32 to be precise

 

[velu]

i guess Don might be averaging less than 99.94 bcoz of improved fielding standards and video analysis

but the likes of sachin and other modern greats would be averaging less than their current average if they played in Don's era

 

[KingKhanWC]

lol, some hilarious posts.

Bradman was a good batsmen in his era who under the circumstances managed to finish with a very high average.

People are in cuckoo land if they seriously believe Bradman in the modern era would average anything above 60, no batsmen can over a long period of time.

 

[Inherent Ignorance]

i guess in the 60s.

 

[Chrish]

60-70

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Somewhere in the 60s

 

[Joseph Gomes]

as i mentioned in other thread, he would still avg around 92+

LMAO, no.

Ashwin and Jadeja would make him look like a tailender on rank turners.

Sangakkara averages 95 against Bangladesh (over 1816 runs)

Andy Flower averages 94.83 against India (over 1183 runs)

Sehwag averages 91.14 against Pakistan (over 1276 runs)

Mohammad Yousuf averages 101.16 against West Indies (over 1214 runs)

Marvan Atapattu averages 95.41 against Zimbabwe (over 1145 runs)

Heavily bashing English trundlers in two country's can skew anybody's stats

 

[IndianWillow]

If u lift Bradman straight out of 1930s and put him to bat in the 21st century he would struggle to average 20 in my honest opinion. Just like Jesse Owens wont win a single medal, not even be a remote contender today.

But greats will be greats in any era. Somebody like Bradman who did so well against his peers, will do well against his peers today also. To be honest he will average 55-60 in tests, 50-55 in ODIs and 50 in T20s - this is the benchmark for a great modern batsman. I dont believe Bradman will average 99.94 now. His only good opposition was England back then - cricket is very different today.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

If u lift Bradman straight out of 1930s and put him to bat in the 21st century he would struggle to average 20 in my honest opinion. Just like Jesse Owens wont win a single medal, not even be a remote contender today.

But greats will be greats in any era. Somebody like Bradman who did so well against his peers, will do well against his peers today also. To be honest he will average 55-60 in tests, 50-55 in ODIs and 50 in T20s - this is the benchmark for a great modern batsman. I dont believe Bradman will average 99.94 now. His only good opposition was England back then - cricket is very different today.

He would be in mid 20s in India if BCCI gets aggressive. India destroyed South Africa in 2015, and they best touring side in last 20 years. Amla averaged above 100 in India before 2015 series.

Before 2015 series, Amla used to average 102.87 in India



After 2015, he now averages just 62.73



Just 4 tests butchered his average from 100 to 60

Rank turners can destroy any player, Bradman's stats are the most skewed in history of the game. He was lucky to face same batch of trundlers for 2 decades on same surface and conditions.

 

[Ab Fan]

60-70 maybe.. Can't really say as it's just not possible to predict what he would be averaging exactly in this era.

 

[AlizeeFan]

20-30 max if it was just for a series or two. How he would have evolved over a period of 10 years is difficult to answer.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

60-70 maybe.. Can't really say as it's just not possible to predict what he would be averaging exactly in this era.

Low 60s like Steven Smith is possible, nothing above that. Amla's average in India before and after 2015 is perfect example of stats changing under different conditions.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Don Bradman wouldn't average anywhere close to 99.94 in the modern era

Why? Not very difficult to answer

The following modern day players averaged this against their fav opponents

Sangakkara averages 95 against Bangladesh (over 1816 runs)

Andy Flower averages 94.83 against India (over 1183 runs)

Virender Sehwag averages 91.14 against Pakistan (over 1276 runs)

Mohammad Yousuf averages 101.16 against West Indies (over 1214 runs)

Marvan Atapattu averages 95.41 against Zimbabwe (over 1145 runs)

Bradman faced the same bunch of trundlers for 20 years, in two different countries. That's all he knew about world cricket (to be fair, that's all there was to cricket)

In present day we have various types of pitches, even in the same country.

Hashim Amla averaged an astonishing 102.87 in India before 2015



After 2015, he got humbled by rank turners. His astronomical average dropped from 100 to 60 in just 4 tests



Needless to say, it's impossible to maintain stats against strong opponents for a long period of time across various conditions. You can still get players who favour certain opponents (Like Sehwag against Pakistan), but make no mistake, Bradman's stats are SKEWED. That's a fact.

Please take a good look at what I posted above again, Bradman was good but he's no godly player

 

[kingusama92]

He'd probably settle somewhere among the best batsmen of this era.

50-60 AVG.

This is assuming he'd meet modern fitness standards and have a good work ethic.