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

[Abdullah719]

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

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.

What made you change your mind

 

[Joseph Gomes]

What made you change your mind

He probably saw Amla getting humbled during 2015 India tour. Amla's average in India dropped from 100 to 60 after that tour

 

[kingusama92]

What made you change your mind

Must be something in the water.

 

[QalandarFan]

Heck it's my opinion so I'll say 200.

 

[IndianWillow]

What made you change your mind

Because we have a mind that thinks and reasons. Opinions change based on current understanding. We can support the very viewpoints we were against, and vice versa, with passage of time.

 

[Specialisttailender]

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

View attachment 76203

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

View attachment 76204

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

If he was class apart from players of his time he would definitely stand out in this era. Considering he is from Australia, their academy would have honed his skills even better and he would have better coaching staff, scouts, and trainers. Can you eliminate the mighty West Indian teams of 70s and 80s ? They only played vs Australia, England, India and Pakistan. NZ was a minnow, SA was banned, SL, Zimbawbe and Bangladesh didn't even get Test status until late 80s and early 90s.

 

[IndianWillow]

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

View attachment 76201

After 2015, he now averages just 62.73

View attachment 76202

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.

The fastest deliveries Bradman faced were probably 125-130kph. Typical pacemen bowled in 115-120kph range. Spin quality was probably good, but still evolving. Murli and Warne level 'hyper' spinners were definitely not there. Only one good opposition, matches played only on a few grounds, so rich diversity in match conditions we see today was not there. Pitches were mostly flat, some of the biggest innings and partnership scores were made before the 50s. If it rained, batting wasn't by any means easy on those sticky wickets.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

If he was class apart from players of his time he would definitely stand out in this era. Considering he is from Australia, their academy would have honed his skills even better and he would have better coaching staff, scouts, and trainers. Can you eliminate the mighty West Indian teams of 70s and 80s ? They only played vs Australia, England, India and Pakistan. NZ was a minnow, SA was banned, SL, Zimbawbe and Bangladesh didn't even get Test status until late 80s and early 90s.

There are always players who stand out. Some more than others. Steven Smith is by far the best test batsman of current generation. However Bradman's stats are still skewed for the reasons I mentioned. Sangakkara scored nearly 2k runs at 95 average, scoring all runs against a single team can make stats deceiving

 

[Proactive_]

100+. Obviously the guy had talent beyond compare which enabled him to rise up and beyond his contemporaries in such a staggering fashion. I don't see how it would be any different today if let's say an 18 year old with Bradman's talent was given modern day coaching and underwent the same programs that today's athletes do.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Around 20-22 and I am being generous here

 

[Joseph Gomes]

100+. Obviously the guy had talent beyond compare which enabled him to rise up and beyond his contemporaries in such a staggering fashion. I don't see how it would be any different today if let's say an 18 year old with Bradman's talent was given modern day coaching and underwent the same programs that today's athletes do.

LOL Sangakkara also averages 95+ against Bangladesh, bashing trundlers in two countries doesn't make you GOAT. Ashwin averages 100+ in India until 2015, then he got humbled by rank turners.

 

[Gilly]

There are always players who stand out. Some more than others. Steven Smith is by far the best test batsman of current generation. However Bradman's stats are still skewed for the reasons I mentioned. Sangakkara scored nearly 2k runs at 95 average, scoring all runs against a single team can make stats deceiving

Bradman scored his 7000 runs against WI, SA, IND and ENG averaging 99 over 20 years and 52 test matches.

Against the minnows SA and IND he scored 1400 runs @ 190

 

[Proactive_]

LOL Sangakkara also averages 95+ against Bangladesh, bashing trundlers in two countries doesn't make you GOAT. Ashwin averages 100+ in India until 2015, then he got humbled by rank turners.

Your point would stand if the difference between England and Australia was like India-Bangladesh in those times but it wasn't. It was a battle between two teams of comparable strengths. Bradman averaged close to 200 vs India who were the actual minnows during those times.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

Bradman scored his 7000 runs against WI, SA, IND and ENG averaging 99 over 20 years and 52 test matches.

Against the minnows SA and IND he scored 1400 runs @ 190

A sample set of 10 test matches lol

 

[Rana]

Its impossible to say. No one here has ever watched him closely and compared his style to that of today's batsmen.

 

[IndianWillow]

100+. Obviously the guy had talent beyond compare which enabled him to rise up and beyond his contemporaries in such a staggering fashion. I don't see how it would be any different today if let's say an 18 year old with Bradman's talent was given modern day coaching and underwent the same programs that today's athletes do.

Cricket until the 1960s had not truly entered the professional era. Most first class cricketers were doing other jobs or playing other sports like football during off seasons. In these scenarios it is not unthinkable to have a standout individual just like we see in club cricket today. But in the truly professional era after the 60s, we did see such standout individuals like Viv Richards or Sachin Tendulkar in terms of talent, but we never saw unusual batting averages because it was a completely professional era played by high paid professionals, where the playing nations had a fully professional first class system. Until the 70s even test players from many nations had off season jobs apart from cricket.

 

[Sachin136]

30, unless he would completely remodel his play style.

 

[Sachin136]

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.

How would they expose modern batsman when they couldn't expose Hobbs' pathetic technique?

 

[Abdullah719]

Because we have a mind that thinks and reasons. Opinions change based on current understanding. We can support the very viewpoints we were against, and vice versa, with passage of time.

Yes, but all that you've written is rather obvious.

I simply wanted to know the specific reason for the change in opinion.

 

[Chrish]

By playing in current century, it's logically assumed that he is trained in current cricket environment just like current players; rather than bringing him directly from time machine into the middle of the playground

 

[zn426]

I will say that there is one thing we are not taking into account-Bradman had a lot of natural ability, and more importantly, he had perhaps the strongest work ethic of all time.

The first 10-15 matches he would probably average between 20 and 40, but after that he would easily be over 50 and regularly get over 70 as he adapted to the pitches. That is his greatest asset-his attitude and mindset.

 

[Hasan123]

40 plus.

 

[Cric1234]

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

None of the batsman above average over 60 in tests or first class if you want to compare small sample sizes Bradman averages around 190 against SA and India.

 

[TestMatch]

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

View attachment 76203

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

View attachment 76204

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

Very interesting post and comparison.

 

[Cric1234]

Laker averaged 21 in Bradmans era O'Reilly 22 Verity 24 wickets must have helped spinners otherwise such averages wouldn't have been possible.

 

[bujhee kom]

Pro era, crazy schedules, much better bowling & fielding, variance in conditions would all work against the Don. He would likely average 55-60.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

How can anyone say?

The competition today could be completely out of his depth or he can average 60. He was the best from a very small talent pool. That talent pool has grown enormously since then.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

How can anyone say?

The competition today could be completely out of his depth or he can average 60. He was the best from a very small talent pool. That talent pool has grown enormously since then.

Not just very small talent pool, but also very limited variety of pitches and conditions.

 

[Chrish]

What made you change your mind

Hehe classic!!

 

[Cric1234]

Not just very small talent pool, but also very limited variety of pitches and conditions.

Despite the small talent pool in first class cricket modern day greats still struggle to average over 60.

 

[Tusker]

None of the batsman above average over 60 in tests or first class if you want to compare small sample sizes Bradman averages around 190 against SA and India.

Tendulkars FC Avg ( excl Tests) is 62 ... pretty sure there are others who avg above 60.

Mohd Yousuf Avgs 250 vs Bangladesh in Tests:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ualval1=matches;template=results;type=batting

 

[IndianWillow]

Among test batsmen with the 25 highest batting averages some 65% of the names are from pre 70s era, inspite of the fact that there are many more teams and players who played after the 70s. Most 55+ averages are seen before the 70s and they reemerged only recently. Batting was definitely easier before the 70s, in general. And after the noughties. Bradman was an outlier in terms of stats, but still very little test cricket was played, and between so very few teams, on so very few grounds which favoured the emergence of an outlier freak in batting or bowling more readily. Best batting and bowling averages are seen during the early days of cricket. Until the advent of modern fast bowling of the 60s and 70s, spinners were as dominant force as pacemen, a testimony to the relative effectiveness or venom of pace of the early days of cricket vis-a-vis spin.

Cricket usually favoured the batsmen, more so during the era of no live coverage. Runouts, edges, LBWs etc usually went to the batsmen unless the margins were clear. So batting outliers were more likely compared to bowling. Bradman was exceptional but he was more a historic outlier rather than a vast superior over every other batting legend of post Bradman era.

 

[New Yorker]

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.

Whatever have been the changes, the net effect is that the standard of what is a great batting averages, on average, has not changed very much. 50ish is still the gold standard.

So. 100.

 

[New Yorker]

The fastest deliveries Bradman faced were probably 125-130kph. Typical pacemen bowled in 115-120kph range. Spin quality was probably good, but still evolving. Murli and Warne level 'hyper' spinners were definitely not there. Only one good opposition, matches played only on a few grounds, so rich diversity in match conditions we see today was not there. Pitches were mostly flat, some of the biggest innings and partnership scores were made before the 50s. If it rained, batting wasn't by any means easy on those sticky wickets.

You're just making this up as you go along aren't you?

Larwood is widely estimated to have bowled 150 +. By cricinfo "One of the rare fast bowlers in the game's long history to spread terror in opposition ranks by the mere mention of his name, he was, in turn, a young tearaway breaking free in the 1920s from a life in the Nottinghamshire coalmines."

The question always comes back to this. If if it was so easy to bat back in the day why was it easy only for Bradman? Not only in internationals but in FC cricket. Who else ever averaged 100 in FC? I don't see any Murali levels bowlers in Indian FC cricket but Sachin still doesn't average more than 60.

 

[Cric1234]

Among test batsmen with the 25 highest batting averages some 65% of the names are from pre 70s era, inspite of the fact that there are many more teams and players who played after the 70s. Most 55+ averages are seen before the 70s and they reemerged only recently. Batting was definitely easier before the 70s, in general. And after the noughties. Bradman was an outlier in terms of stats, but still very little test cricket was played, and between so very few teams, on so very few grounds which favoured the emergence of an outlier freak in batting or bowling more readily. Best batting and bowling averages are seen during the early days of cricket. Until the advent of modern fast bowling of the 60s and 70s, spinners were as dominant force as pacemen, a testimony to the relative effectiveness or venom of pace of the early days of cricket vis-a-vis spin.

Cricket usually favoured the batsmen, more so during the era of no live coverage. Runouts, edges, LBWs etc usually went to the batsmen unless the margins were clear. So batting outliers were more likely compared to bowling. Bradman was exceptional but he was more a historic outlier rather than a vast superior over every other batting legend of post Bradman era.

Interestingly only one from Australia D Bradman average 99.94 next best from Australia is Ryder averaging 51 from Bradmans era.
He is a historical outlier but an astronomical one averaging 40 more than the next best.

 

[Robert]

How would they expose modern batsman when they couldn't expose Hobbs' pathetic technique?

Hobbs, with Ranji, is considered the father of modern batting. He was the first to work out how to play the new swing bowling that had emerged.

I am firmly of the belief that a champion in one era, having the sheer drive to achieve lofty heights, would be a champion in any era. So if Hobbs had been born into the modern era instead of the teens and twenties he would be scoring like Smith is now.

There is nobody today whom you can say is pushing the art of cricket forward in the way that Hobbs did.

 

[Bilal7]

1) The Don
2) Gary Sobers
3) Viv Richards
4) Brian Lara
5) Sachin Tendulker

This is the definitive hierarchy of test batsmen. Hypothetical threads such as this will not knock The Don off his perch.

 

[Tusker]

Hobbs, with Ranji, is considered the father of modern batting. He was the first to work out how to play the new swing bowling that had emerged.
.

Then why is that technique obsolete today ?

Easy to propagate "greatness" when there is nobody asking awkward questions like that.

 

[Abdullah719]

Then why is that technique obsolete today ?

Easy to propagate "greatness" when there is nobody asking awkward questions like that.

Because cricket, just like most other things in the world, is in a constant state of progression.

You can't run before you can walk.

What was great 100 years ago may not be great in today's circumstances but that doesn't negate the past.

This is why comparisons across eras, specially those that are spread across several decades are fairly pointless.

 

[Cric1234]

Then why is that technique obsolete today ?

Easy to propagate "greatness" when there is nobody asking awkward questions like that.

How is it obsolete today? The feet movement getting in line driving cutting etc seem normal.
Here is the bestman today in the nets what makes his technique so much better than Hobbs in your opinion.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AJFXnDUFLFY

 

[Tusker]

How is it obsolete today? The feet movement getting in line driving cutting etc seem normal.

https://youtu.be/HkHWtsrt9Sk?t=5m41s watch the shot you see there and tell me which batsman plays a drive like that by jumping out of the crease in that manner front foot almost 90 degrees to the backfoot and by the time he is done jumping his backfoot has moved not more than 6 inches ahead ?

Another shot: https://youtu.be/F2wXENbhueE?t=1m33s

No balance at all. It might appear as though he has loads of time to play his shots but it is only because the bowler is super slow and the ball takes ages to get to him here have a look : https://youtu.be/0rrx2nrgev4?t=2m37s

let me know if you want me to analyze his other shots.

Here is the bestman today in the nets what makes his technique so much better than Hobbs in your opinion.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AJFXnDUFLFY

First of all nobody considers Smith to be a proper technician like how Hobbs is considered to be a technically great batsman.

but to answer your question Smith can execute much much better shots to deliveries that are significantly faster than what Hobbs ever faced. It is called hand-eye co-ordination and super fast reflexes. Anyone with Hobbs technique, style and level of reflexes today would have their dental work re-arranged even with a helmet on if they faced the sort of fast bowlers that Smith faces.

 

[Tusker]

Because cricket, just like most other things in the world, is in a constant state of progression.

You can't run before you can walk.

What was great 100 years ago may not be great in today's circumstances but that doesn't negate the past.

This is why comparisons across eras, specially those that are spread across several decades are fairly pointless.

I agree but the credit for finding out how to walk should go to the inventors of the game who began playing it many many decades before Hobbs was even born.

I get your point but it gets really tiring to see the usual old era fanatics trying to prop up long bygone era's and players thru plain lies and then they have the cheek to run down current players.

 

[IndianWillow]

You're just making this up as you go along aren't you?

Larwood is widely estimated to have bowled 150 +. By cricinfo "One of the rare fast bowlers in the game's long history to spread terror in opposition ranks by the mere mention of his name, he was, in turn, a young tearaway breaking free in the 1920s from a life in the Nottinghamshire coalmines."

The question always comes back to this. If if it was so easy to bat back in the day why was it easy only for Bradman? Not only in internationals but in FC cricket. Who else ever averaged 100 in FC? I don't see any Murali levels bowlers in Indian FC cricket but Sachin still doesn't average more than 60.

150+ kph bowlers in pre-helmet era and low protection era would have killed too many big folks. So those figures attributed to "ancient" bowlers is just a hype. Have you seen footages of fast bowling of the early days of cricket? The word "tearaway" fast bowler is only relative.

A 125kph delivery hitting your skull without protection is not a joke - it can kill you or seriously wound you. The ball that killed Phil Hughes (armed with a modern helmet) was not 150kph. It was much slower. Now imagine what 150kph can do to you, if you have to face it on a regular basis without helmets. What happens to less skilled FC batsmen of Bradman's era who have to face these type of monster 150kph deliveries? During the WSC bowlers had so skilled and evolved that playing without serious body protection became a life or death matter, which is when modern helmets and protection was introduced.

Modern pace bowling - 140+ speeds appeared only in the 50s and 60s, and reached its peak in the 70s and 80s where speeds of 155-160kph was regularly breached by a few elite pacemen.

 

[Chrish]

Cricket until the 1960s had not truly entered the professional era. Most first class cricketers were doing other jobs or playing other sports like football during off seasons. In these scenarios it is not unthinkable to have a standout individual just like we see in club cricket today. But in the truly professional era after the 60s, we did see such standout individuals like Viv Richards or Sachin Tendulkar in terms of talent, but we never saw unusual batting averages because it was a completely professional era played by high paid professionals, where the playing nations had a fully professional first class system. Until the 70s even test players from many nations had off season jobs apart from cricket.

Most of English bowlers DGB faced were professionals and so were batsmen like Hobbs and Hutton.

In England professionalism is as old as game itself

 

[Chrish]

Among test batsmen with the 25 highest batting averages some 65% of the names are from pre 70s era, inspite of the fact that there are many more teams and players who played after the 70s. Most 55+ averages are seen before the 70s and they reemerged only recently. Batting was definitely easier before the 70s, in general. And after the noughties. Bradman was an outlier in terms of stats, but still very little test cricket was played, and between so very few teams, on so very few grounds which favoured the emergence of an outlier freak in batting or bowling more readily. Best batting and bowling averages are seen during the early days of cricket. Until the advent of modern fast bowling of the 60s and 70s, spinners were as dominant force as pacemen, a testimony to the relative effectiveness or venom of pace of the early days of cricket vis-a-vis spin.

Cricket usually favoured the batsmen, more so during the era of no live coverage. Runouts, edges, LBWs etc usually went to the batsmen unless the margins were clear. So batting outliers were more likely compared to bowling. Bradman was exceptional but he was more a historic outlier rather than a vast superior over every other batting legend of post Bradman era.

If you set the 50 tests cut off, lot of those names will drop from the list. Also, the strength of DGB is his FC record where he played well over 300 innings.

Balance between bat and ball was most certainly tilted toward bat those days but that doesn't explain his dominance. Much like what Kohli is doing in ODI these days under much more batting friendly conditions. Still how many players around can match him? Don on the other hand was even more dominant than Kohli in test format.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

https://youtu.be/HkHWtsrt9Sk?t=5m41s watch the shot you see there and tell me which batsman plays a drive like that by jumping out of the crease in that manner front foot almost 90 degrees to the backfoot and by the time he is done jumping his backfoot has moved not more than 6 inches ahead ?

Another shot: https://youtu.be/F2wXENbhueE?t=1m33s

No balance at all. It might appear as though he has loads of time to play his shots but it is only because the bowler is super slow and the ball takes ages to get to him here have a look : https://youtu.be/0rrx2nrgev4?t=2m37s

let me know if you want me to analyze his other shots.

That's because you are judging a technique without considering the conditions he was facing. He was not facing quick bowlers, because the deadliest bowlers in those days with stickies quite prevalent in England was the slow/medium cutter bowlers. The pitches simply favoured that kind of bowling more than fast bowling. Even guys decades later like Derek Underwood thrived in similar conditions. Hobbs mastered the stickies/uneven bounce pitches with that kind of technique.

The technique and demands required to play that kind of conditions was totally different. That does not mean it was easier. Just different.

 

[New Yorker]

150+ kph bowlers in pre-helmet era and low protection era would have killed too many big folks. So those figures attributed to "ancient" bowlers is just a hype. Have you seen footages of fast bowling of the early days of cricket? The word "tearaway" fast bowler is only relative.

A 125kph delivery hitting your skull without protection is not a joke - it can kill you or seriously wound you. The ball that killed Phil Hughes (armed with a modern helmet) was not 150kph. It was much slower. Now imagine what 150kph can do to you, if you have to face it on a regular basis without helmets. What happens to less skilled FC batsmen of Bradman's era who have to face these type of monster 150kph deliveries? During the WSC bowlers had so skilled and evolved that playing without serious body protection became a life or death matter, which is when modern helmets and protection was introduced.

Modern pace bowling - 140+ speeds appeared only in the 50s and 60s, and reached its peak in the 70s and 80s where speeds of 155-160kph was regularly breached by a few elite pacemen.

You are still winging it. Every historical assessment of Larwood holds that he was very fast by any standard. Experts have gone over footage and assessed him at 150 + The point is not how fas he was exactly, but that the 125 figure you tried to convince us of is pulled out of a hat. The idea that no one bowled 140+ before the 50's is just a lie, plain and simple.

In fact it would be incredibly strange if in an era spanning 20 years there were not a few tearways on offer. Speed is not coached or trained, it requires a certain kind of body. You can't turn Umar Gul into a Shoaib Akthar, not matter how much you train him.

Similarly, what makes for a good batsman, things like hand-eye coordination, concentration and patience, are traits players are born with, not skills that they acquire. No matter how 'hungry' they are. And the human body, what it is capable of has not and cannot have 'evolved' in 60 years. That is not the time scale of evolution.

If there are Mark Woods around in today's population of Englishmen, then there were Mark Woods around 60 years ago, likely more of them.

Your belief that everything is better and faster and stronger today is, I venture, a conviction of ideology, and a common one at that, namely that modernity and capitalism must always produce progress, that everything is always getting better, that more competition will always yield better results, and that the only barrier to success, is 'will,' 'determination,' 'hunger' etc. Hence, those who do not succeed have only themselves to blame.

Unfortunately, even with steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, a biological organism such as the human body can only be pushed so much. Sprinters have been running the 100 metre faster over the decades, but the improvements are infinitesimally minute. Since 1891, 1.3 seconds/ 10 have been shaved off the world record.

Knowing this, what is really remarkable about your line of argument is the magnitude of the purported 'development' which English and Australian peoples have apparently enjoyed in the last 60 years.

The difference between a great batsman today and a mediocre one is relatively small, statistically speaking. Ave 50 is great, 40 mediocre, 30 is poor. Bradman didn't just average 10 or 20 more than the rest, he averaged 40-50 more. He wasn't just twice as good, but logarithmically better. If he were to be little better than a 50-something player today, then the very best players of his time, would have been no better than a bowling allrounder like Philander today; the mere mediocre ones would have had to be McGraths with the bat.

In other words, if you argue that Bradman was merely as good as a Ponting, then you also stand for the proposition that in an era spanning 20 years, England and Australia could otherwise not produce a batsman better than Philander. And that is a ludicrously unlikely proposition. Batsmen who can average 35-40 in contemporary Test cricket are a dime a dozen in every country. There is no reason to believe it was any different in Bradman's time.

 

[AlizeeFan]

You are still winging it. Every historical assessment of Larwood holds that he was very fast by any standard. Experts have gone over footage and assessed him at 150 + The point is not how fas he was exactly, but that the 125 figure you tried to convince us of is pulled out of a hat. The idea that no one bowled 140+ before the 50's is just a lie, plain and simple.

In fact it would be incredibly strange if in an era spanning 20 years there were not a few tearways on offer. Speed is not coached or trained, it requires a certain kind of body. You can't turn Umar Gul into a Shoaib Akthar, not matter how much you train him.

Similarly, what makes for a good batsman, things like hand-eye coordination, concentration and patience, are traits players are born with, not skills that they acquire. No matter how 'hungry' they are. And the human body, what it is capable of has not and cannot have 'evolved' in 60 years. That is not the time scale of evolution.

If there are Mark Woods around in today's population of Englishmen, then there were Mark Woods around 60 years ago, likely more of them.

Your belief that everything is better and faster and stronger today is, I venture, a conviction of ideology, and a common one at that, namely that modernity and capitalism must always produce progress, that everything is always getting better, that more competition will always yield better results, and that the only barrier to success, is 'will,' 'determination,' 'hunger' etc. Hence, those who do not succeed have only themselves to blame.

Unfortunately, even with steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, a biological organism such as the human body can only be pushed so much. Sprinters have been running the 100 metre faster over the decades, but the improvements are infinitesimally minute. Since 1891, 1.3 seconds/ 10 have been shaved off the world record.

Knowing this, what is really remarkable about your line of argument is the magnitude of the purported 'development' which English and Australian peoples have apparently enjoyed in the last 60 years.

The difference between a great batsman today and a mediocre one is relatively small, statistically speaking. Ave 50 is great, 40 mediocre, 30 is poor. Bradman didn't just average 10 or 20 more than the rest, he averaged 40-50 more. He wasn't just twice as good, but logarithmically better. If he were to be little better than a 50-something player today, then the very best players of his time, would have been no better than a bowling allrounder like Philander today; the mere mediocre ones would have had to be McGraths with the bat.

In other words, if you argue that Bradman was merely as good as a Ponting, then you also stand for the proposition that in an era spanning 20 years, England and Australia could otherwise not produce a batsman better than Philander. And that is a ludicrously unlikely proposition. Batsmen who can average 35-40 in contemporary Test cricket are a dime a dozen in every country. There is no reason to believe it was any different in Bradman's time.

This has discussed a lot here. If you believe that those bowlers bowled more than 120, then they were supermans.

Just try thinking how did Larwood and co bowled more 22 overs in an hour and 130-140 overs in a day, you will get the answer.

They were 100-120 kph bowlers at best.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Your belief that everything is better and faster and stronger today is, I venture, a conviction of ideology, and a common one at that, namely that modernity and capitalism must always produce progress, that everything is always getting better, that more competition will always yield better results, and that the only barrier to success, is 'will,' 'determination,' 'hunger' etc. Hence, those who do not succeed have only themselves to blame.

Unfortunately, even with steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, a biological organism such as the human body can only be pushed so much. Sprinters have been running the 100 metre faster over the decades, but the improvements are infinitesimally minute. Since 1891, 1.3 seconds/ 10 have been shaved off the world record.

If you consider that past bowlers bowled at 120 then you are automatically assuming that they were stronger than modern bowlers as their overs rates could be matched only by spinners who can't even bowl more overs than them in a day.

If you want to consider that they are equally strong than modern players, then they probably bowled at speed of 90-110 kph.

If you want to consider than they were weaker than modern bowlers then take their speeds as 70-90 kph.

Saying they bowled at 130-150 means you're assuming that they were Roman Gods and not humans.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Unfortunately, even with steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, a biological organism such as the human body can only be pushed so much. Sprinters have been running the 100 metre faster over the decades, but the improvements are infinitesimally minute. Since 1891, 1.3 seconds/ 10 have been shaved off the world record.

Claiming that they bowled at 140+ means that you are claiming older sprinters could run marathon at speed of Usain Bolt.

 

[New Yorker]

This has discussed a lot here. If you believe that those bowlers bowled more than 120, then they were supermans.

Just try thinking how did Larwood and co bowled more 22 overs in an hour and 130-140 overs in a day, you will get the answer.

They were 100-120 kph bowlers at best.

Indeed, lots of nonsense is traded on Pakpassion, so you are certainly keeping up the tradition.

In the Bodyline series Larwood bowled 15-20 overs an innings on average,25-45 overs per Test,
maxing out at 31 overs an innings. Nothing superhuman or godlike about that.

In the 2008 India tour of Australia Bree Lee and Mitch Johnson bowled 37 and 32 overs in one
innings, respectively.

Don't you think you should at least try to lie in a way that is not so easily fact checked?

 

[New Yorker]

Claiming that they bowled at 140+ means that you are claiming older sprinters could run marathon at speed of Usain Bolt.

I'm not claiming. Cricinfo is. And not 140+ but 150+ in the case of Larwood. You should write an irate letter of protest to them, and send us a copy.

 

[Tusker]

I'm not claiming. Cricinfo is. And not 140+ but 150+ in the case of Larwood. You should write an irate letter of protest to them, and send us a copy.

Not everythinig that you come across on the internet (cricinfo in this case) is a true story. If this was a court case you would lose in every single credible court of law around the world.

 

[New Yorker]

Claiming that they bowled at 140+ means that you are claiming older sprinters could run marathon at speed of Usain Bolt.

No it doesn't. The difference between 125 (supposed max bowling speed in 1930) and 160 (max speed in modern era) is 21 %. The difference between 10.3, the WC speed over 100 meters, in 1930, and the current WC of 9.6, is 8%. 60 years of progress has brought us an 8 % improvement in running speed.

And this really begs the question. Why is implausible to believe that a man could have walked the earth 60 years ago, somewhere on this planet, who was about as fast as Usain Bolt? The difference between Usain and the fastest recorded runners of the 1890's is still barely a second.

Where is evidence of this marvellous evolution of the average human physical form that we have supposedly enjoyed in 60 years of industrial living?

 

[New Yorker]

Not everythinig that you come across on the internet (cricinfo in this case) is a true story. If this was a court case you would lose in every single credible court of law around the world.

All the more reason for you to write an irate letter to Cricinfo. The cheek they have. Again, please send us a copy.

 

[Cric1234]

We can say Larwood at his peak bowled mid to high 80s inflicting injuries on different batsmen.
3 players were knocked unconscious in first class cricket by him speed doesn't guarantee success as we know Lee bowled 90mph+ regularly but McGrath averaged 10 points lower bowling 10mph slower.
The other point about Bradman not playing on turning wickets well somebody should explain Laker O'reilly and Veritys averages there must have been wickets which helped spinners.

 

[Chrish]

I honestly don't think he bowled at 150. I would say he was 135+ bowler with few deliveries in 140s.

Anyways Larwood was a miner iirc. So he was trained for hard sustained labor. Requirement for bowling pace is quick arm action; not a modern fitness regimen. Larwood has the smoothest action I have seen in limited footage available.

 

[TestMatch]

You are still winging it. Every historical assessment of Larwood holds that he was very fast by any standard. Experts have gone over footage and assessed him at 150 + The point is not how fas he was exactly, but that the 125 figure you tried to convince us of is pulled out of a hat. The idea that no one bowled 140+ before the 50's is just a lie, plain and simple.

In fact it would be incredibly strange if in an era spanning 20 years there were not a few tearways on offer. Speed is not coached or trained, it requires a certain kind of body. You can't turn Umar Gul into a Shoaib Akthar, not matter how much you train him.

Similarly, what makes for a good batsman, things like hand-eye coordination, concentration and patience, are traits players are born with, not skills that they acquire. No matter how 'hungry' they are. And the human body, what it is capable of has not and cannot have 'evolved' in 60 years. That is not the time scale of evolution.

If there are Mark Woods around in today's population of Englishmen, then there were Mark Woods around 60 years ago, likely more of them.

Your belief that everything is better and faster and stronger today is, I venture, a conviction of ideology, and a common one at that, namely that modernity and capitalism must always produce progress, that everything is always getting better, that more competition will always yield better results, and that the only barrier to success, is 'will,' 'determination,' 'hunger' etc. Hence, those who do not succeed have only themselves to blame.

Unfortunately, even with steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, a biological organism such as the human body can only be pushed so much. Sprinters have been running the 100 metre faster over the decades, but the improvements are infinitesimally minute. Since 1891, 1.3 seconds/ 10 have been shaved off the world record.

Knowing this, what is really remarkable about your line of argument is the magnitude of the purported 'development' which English and Australian peoples have apparently enjoyed in the last 60 years.

The difference between a great batsman today and a mediocre one is relatively small, statistically speaking. Ave 50 is great, 40 mediocre, 30 is poor. Bradman didn't just average 10 or 20 more than the rest, he averaged 40-50 more. He wasn't just twice as good, but logarithmically better. If he were to be little better than a 50-something player today, then the very best players of his time, would have been no better than a bowling allrounder like Philander today; the mere mediocre ones would have had to be McGraths with the bat.

In other words, if you argue that Bradman was merely as good as a Ponting, then you also stand for the proposition that in an era spanning 20 years, England and Australia could otherwise not produce a batsman better than Philander. And that is a ludicrously unlikely proposition. Batsmen who can average 35-40 in contemporary Test cricket are a dime a dozen in every country. There is no reason to believe it was any different in Bradman's time.

Great post.

 

[TestMatch]

This has discussed a lot here. If you believe that those bowlers bowled more than 120, then they were supermans.

Just try thinking how did Larwood and co bowled more 22 overs in an hour and 130-140 overs in a day, you will get the answer.

They were 100-120 kph bowlers at best.

Interesting point. Do we know for certain how many overs Larwood bowled in an over and day?

 

[CricFan2012]

Would have averaged sub 50.

Overrated batsman, people fawn over him despite never seeing him play, absolute farce.

 

[Tusker]

That's because you are judging a technique without considering the conditions he was facing. He was not facing quick bowlers, because the deadliest bowlers in those days with stickies quite prevalent in England was the slow/medium cutter bowlers. The pitches simply favoured that kind of bowling more than fast bowling. Even guys decades later like Derek Underwood thrived in similar conditions. Hobbs mastered the stickies/uneven bounce pitches with that kind of technique.

The technique and demands required to play that kind of conditions was totally different. That does not mean it was easier. Just different.

That technique won't work for modern spin bowling too. Look at the amount of gap between bat and pad.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Indeed, lots of nonsense is traded on Pakpassion, so you are certainly keeping up the tradition.

In the Bodyline series Larwood bowled 15-20 overs an innings on average,25-45 overs per Test,
maxing out at 31 overs an innings. Nothing superhuman or godlike about that.

In the 2008 India tour of Australia Bree Lee and Mitch Johnson bowled 37 and 32 overs in one
innings, respectively.

Don't you think you should at least try to lie in a way that is not so easily fact checked?

Ok, here are facts for you

http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/0/453/f_Bowling_by_Season.html

From 1926 to 1937, check Larwood's number of balls

Season	 	Balls	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BB	Ave	5wI	10wM
1924	(England)	156	5	71	1	1-51	71.00	0	0
1925	(England)	2863	98	1315	73	6-17	18.01	3	1
1926	(England)	5846	218	2509	137	7-95	18.31	7	1
1927	(England)	3776	147	1695	100	7-35	16.95	8	3
1928	(England)	5009	206	2003	138	6-24	14.51	9	1
1928-29	(Australia)	2726	61	1254	40	7-51	31.35	2	0
1929	(England)	5220	183	2535	117	6-54	21.66	6	1
1930	(England)	3726	124	1622	99	8-33	16.38	9	1
1931	(England)	3909	142	1553	129	9-41	12.03	12	2
1932	(England)	5198	203	2084	162	8-49	12.86	15	5
1932-33	(Australia)	1689	45	817	49	6-38	16.67	3	1
1933	(England)	60	3	18	1	1-10	18.00	0	0
1934	(England)	3069	103	1415	82	7-51	17.25	6	0
1935	(England)	5571	215	2316	102	6-79	22.70	2	0
1936	(England)	4075	165	1544	119	6-34	12.97	13	4
1936-37	(India)	264	10	157	2	1-26	78.50	0	0
1937	(England)	4156	153	1720	70	6-98	24.57	3	0
1938	(England)	714	23	366	6	2-23	61.00	0	0

Consistenly bowling 3000-5000 balls in a season.

Compare that Amrose or McGrath who could bowl 3000+ balls in their career 3-4 times in their career. Compare his numbers to any fast, medium fast, fast medium bowlers after 1970s and they won't come close. However you can find Bedi and some other spinners closer to those numbers.

Like I said you are willing to consider them superhumans and modern bowlers weak, fragile and less stamina athletes then it's ok.

 

[Chrish]

Bowlers like Bowes. Bedser,Grimett do look like dibbaly dably streer bowlers. Lardwood's footage on the other hand does look like he was a tearway bowler.

And the names I mentioned above did end up better bowling averages than larwood.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

A washed up retired sangakara is averaging 113 in the last 12 games in county cricket, and the attack sanga faced would be better than bradman's days, can we seriously take bradman's average seriously?

 

[Cric1234]

Bowlers like Bowes. Bedser,Grimett do look like dibbaly dably streer bowlers. Lardwood's footage on the other hand does look like he was a tearway bowler.

And the names I mentioned above did end up better bowling averages than larwood.

Philander looks like a trundler watching a few clips but does better than all who bowl express pace.
Same can be said for Asif ambling in bowling seamers and leg cutters skill is more than just pace.

 

[Chrish]

Philander looks like a trundler watching a few clips but does better than all who bowl express pace.
Same can be said for Asif ambling in bowling seamers and leg cutters skill is more than just pace.

They don't look like anything the bowlers I mentioned.

 

[Cric1234]

A washed up retired sangakara is averaging 113 in the last 12 games in county cricket, and the attack sanga faced would be better than bradman's days, can we seriously take bradman's average seriously?

12 innings or 12 matches? What's his overall average in FC I think you'll find it's in the 50s no batsman can maintain small purple patches in recent times.

 

[Chrish]

Ok, here are facts for you

http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/0/453/f_Bowling_by_Season.html

From 1926 to 1937, check Larwood's number of balls

Season	 	Balls	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BB	Ave	5wI	10wM
1924	(England)	156	5	71	1	1-51	71.00	0	0
1925	(England)	2863	98	1315	73	6-17	18.01	3	1
1926	(England)	5846	218	2509	137	7-95	18.31	7	1
1927	(England)	3776	147	1695	100	7-35	16.95	8	3
1928	(England)	5009	206	2003	138	6-24	14.51	9	1
1928-29	(Australia)	2726	61	1254	40	7-51	31.35	2	0
1929	(England)	5220	183	2535	117	6-54	21.66	6	1
1930	(England)	3726	124	1622	99	8-33	16.38	9	1
1931	(England)	3909	142	1553	129	9-41	12.03	12	2
1932	(England)	5198	203	2084	162	8-49	12.86	15	5
1932-33	(Australia)	1689	45	817	49	6-38	16.67	3	1
1933	(England)	60	3	18	1	1-10	18.00	0	0
1934	(England)	3069	103	1415	82	7-51	17.25	6	0
1935	(England)	5571	215	2316	102	6-79	22.70	2	0
1936	(England)	4075	165	1544	119	6-34	12.97	13	4
1936-37	(India)	264	10	157	2	1-26	78.50	0	0
1937	(England)	4156	153	1720	70	6-98	24.57	3	0
1938	(England)	714	23	366	6	2-23	61.00	0	0

Consistenly bowling 3000-5000 balls in a season.

Compare that Amrose or McGrath who could bowl 3000+ balls in their career 3-4 times in their career. Compare his numbers to any fast, medium fast, fast medium bowlers after 1970s and they won't come close. However you can find Bedi and some other spinners closer to those numbers.

Like I said you are willing to consider them superhumans and modern bowlers weak, fragile and less stamina athletes then it's ok.

That's interesting. But keep in mind current bowlers also play ODI format of the game. If we take someone like Wasim who played lot of both formats, his combined yearly numbers might match/ suppress these figures.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

12 innings or 12 matches? What's his overall average in FC I think you'll find it's in the 50s no batsman can maintain small purple patches in recent times.

12 matches , 12 freaking matches, thats almost 25% of bradman's career, his first class average includes international cricket

 

[Cric1234]

They don't look like anything the bowlers I mentioned.

Bedser was a very accurate bowler maintaining an economy of under 2 despite bowling to Bradman I doubt he's street level watch full innings to judge his accuracy.

 

[Cric1234]

12 matches , 12 freaking matches, thats almost 25% of bradman's career, his first class average includes international cricket

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/41253878

 

[Chrish]

Bedser was a very accurate bowler maintaining an economy of under 2 despite bowling to Bradman I doubt he's street level watch full innings to judge his accuracy.

What I said is he "looks" like a street bowler from the action. I also wrote he ended up with better figures than Larwood who looks like a proper bowler.

 

[ToeCrusher2]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/41253878

That's even more impressive, he score 7 centuries in 12 innings, it means he scored 25% of bradman's centuries in just 10% of the matches bradman played, whichever way you look at it, bradman is exposed

 

[Cric1234]

What I said is he "looks" like a street bowler from the action. I also wrote he ended up with better figures than Larwood who looks like a proper bowler.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R0zdfYSU8Bk

I think Bedser is bowling from 2 minutes onwards I'm not sure about the meaning of street level but it's easily better than associate level where bowlers are unfit and inconsistent in general.

 

[Cric1234]

Ok, here are facts for you

http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/0/453/f_Bowling_by_Season.html

From 1926 to 1937, check Larwood's number of balls

Season	 	Balls	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BB	Ave	5wI	10wM
1924	(England)	156	5	71	1	1-51	71.00	0	0
1925	(England)	2863	98	1315	73	6-17	18.01	3	1
1926	(England)	5846	218	2509	137	7-95	18.31	7	1
1927	(England)	3776	147	1695	100	7-35	16.95	8	3
1928	(England)	5009	206	2003	138	6-24	14.51	9	1
1928-29	(Australia)	2726	61	1254	40	7-51	31.35	2	0
1929	(England)	5220	183	2535	117	6-54	21.66	6	1
1930	(England)	3726	124	1622	99	8-33	16.38	9	1
1931	(England)	3909	142	1553	129	9-41	12.03	12	2
1932	(England)	5198	203	2084	162	8-49	12.86	15	5
1932-33	(Australia)	1689	45	817	49	6-38	16.67	3	1
1933	(England)	60	3	18	1	1-10	18.00	0	0
1934	(England)	3069	103	1415	82	7-51	17.25	6	0
1935	(England)	5571	215	2316	102	6-79	22.70	2	0
1936	(England)	4075	165	1544	119	6-34	12.97	13	4
1936-37	(India)	264	10	157	2	1-26	78.50	0	0
1937	(England)	4156	153	1720	70	6-98	24.57	3	0
1938	(England)	714	23	366	6	2-23	61.00	0	0

Consistenly bowling 3000-5000 balls in a season.

Compare that Amrose or McGrath who could bowl 3000+ balls in their career 3-4 times in their career. Compare his numbers to any fast, medium fast, fast medium bowlers after 1970s and they won't come close. However you can find Bedi and some other spinners closer to those numbers.

Like I said you are willing to consider them superhumans and modern bowlers weak, fragile and less stamina athletes then it's ok.

Larwood bowled in first class and tests modern day bowlers also bowl In Limited overs ODIs and List A maybe that's why?

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Ok, here are facts for you

http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/0/453/f_Bowling_by_Season.html

From 1926 to 1937, check Larwood's number of balls

Season	 	Balls	Mdns	Runs	Wkts	BB	Ave	5wI	10wM
1924	(England)	156	5	71	1	1-51	71.00	0	0
1925	(England)	2863	98	1315	73	6-17	18.01	3	1
1926	(England)	5846	218	2509	137	7-95	18.31	7	1
1927	(England)	3776	147	1695	100	7-35	16.95	8	3
1928	(England)	5009	206	2003	138	6-24	14.51	9	1
1928-29	(Australia)	2726	61	1254	40	7-51	31.35	2	0
1929	(England)	5220	183	2535	117	6-54	21.66	6	1
1930	(England)	3726	124	1622	99	8-33	16.38	9	1
1931	(England)	3909	142	1553	129	9-41	12.03	12	2
1932	(England)	5198	203	2084	162	8-49	12.86	15	5
1932-33	(Australia)	1689	45	817	49	6-38	16.67	3	1
1933	(England)	60	3	18	1	1-10	18.00	0	0
1934	(England)	3069	103	1415	82	7-51	17.25	6	0
1935	(England)	5571	215	2316	102	6-79	22.70	2	0
1936	(England)	4075	165	1544	119	6-34	12.97	13	4
1936-37	(India)	264	10	157	2	1-26	78.50	0	0
1937	(England)	4156	153	1720	70	6-98	24.57	3	0
1938	(England)	714	23	366	6	2-23	61.00	0	0

Consistenly bowling 3000-5000 balls in a season.

Compare that Amrose or McGrath who could bowl 3000+ balls in their career 3-4 times in their career. Compare his numbers to any fast, medium fast, fast medium bowlers after 1970s and they won't come close. However you can find Bedi and some other spinners closer to those numbers.

Like I said you are willing to consider them superhumans and modern bowlers weak, fragile and less stamina athletes then it's ok.

You compare unfit trundlers who bowl at 115k to modern bowlers? Is this a joke?

 

[Joseph Gomes]

A washed up retired sangakara is averaging 113 in the last 12 games in county cricket, and the attack sanga faced would be better than bradman's days, can we seriously take bradman's average seriously?

Already debunked his stats and why are skewed on previous page. Any great batsman can bully a single opponent in limited conditions. Bradman is by far the best example of misleading stats.

 

[Cric1234]

Already debunked his stats and why are skewed on previous page. Any great batsman can bully a single opponent in limited conditions. Bradman is by far the best example of misleading stats.

Who is the best in your opinion?

 

[zulfiqar]

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.

This is the kind of logic I have as well. Realistically, Scenario 1 is unfair on the individual, so the only scenario that should apply is the 2nd one. He didn't "con" anyone, he was just ahead. You'd imagine that his hand-eye coordination and playmaking ability would be superior, but perhaps innovation in cricket education would bridge the gap for "less capable" players.

Any answer given here is going to be pretty random and full of conjecture, but I'll give my 2 cents and say Bradman would average 75+ in tests.

 

[Robert]

Then why is that technique obsolete today ?

Easy to propagate "greatness" when there is nobody asking awkward questions like that.

Because the game changes, skills come in, skills get lost. Aussies and Indians can't play the moving ball any more, no way would Broad have got 8-15 against Chappell's boys or Clive's or Sunny's.