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

[Robert]

True about stickies - the Don averaged 20 on them. Hutton played on them better, though he averaged 56 to the Don's 99 overall. Why not just makes stickies for Bradman then? Because they turned batting into a lottery with bowlers being sent in ahead of batters to use up time to give the pitch a chance to dry out.

 

[Robert]

Miller with his short run up and almost no jump would have been slightly faster than Afridi.

Not much pace comes from the run-up. Else Bob Willis with his 40 yard run would have been at 200 mph. Some bowlers run straight through their action and don't need to jump, look at Marshall and Wasim. Miller had extremely strong shoulders, have a look at footage of him. He looked at least as quick to me as Broad and Anderson, coming off seven, eight or nine paces depending on how he felt on a given day. The most natural player there ever was, I think.

 

[IndianWillow]

Speed of the run up adds to the speed of the delivery - simple physics i guess. Similar to why you automatically "run" when u get off a moving vehicle. Arm strength and biomechanics matter, but run up does matter. Spinners have short runups for good reasons, they are not relying on their runup for speed. Some pace bowlers can bowl fast with shorter runups but if they use longer runups they would be even more faster with the right stride, action etc. But longer runups might increase energy expended etc slowing the pace as the bowler wears down. So, many factors at work here.

 

[zarak]

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.

completely agree with you. In any sport a player of the 1920s can not be better than a present player. Bradman was ahead of his time but not up to the calibre of current players

What do you think Sachin would average if he played in the 1920's

 

[Tusker]

If there was little variation in pitches why do the spinners in Bradmans time have good averages uncovered wickets probably had more challenges for the batsmen at times than covered wickets.
Sehwags technique would be exposed on stickies and rain affected wickets as would Steve Smiths the evolution of cricket is backward in some ways.

Explain to me the difference between a covered wicket and a uncovered wicket assuming it does not rain during the 5 days.

 

[Tusker]

True about stickies - the Don averaged 20 on them. Hutton played on them better, though he averaged 56 to the Don's 99 overall. Why not just makes stickies for Bradman then? Because they turned batting into a lottery with bowlers being sent in ahead of batters to use up time to give the pitch a chance to dry out.

For one you cannot "make" a sticky ... they tend to happen if it rains and take in enough water that it needs time to dry during which time batting would be difficult. Secondly given that you couldnt predict rain back then ... and if England was batting the captain would have to declare innings (no matter what the score was) after it rained enough for the pitch to absorb water and begin drying.

The stupidity of the administrators to keep the pitches uncovered for decades despite the obvious lottery nature of it can shed a light on how backward everything was.