Opinion Cricket thread

[Twinkletoes]

Interested to get peoples thoughts on how Bradman would go in today's era? Obviously the bats are able to hit the ball further . Pitches are well protected from the elements with covers ect. Boundary ropes introduced. I was debating this with my brother in law and I was of the very strong belief conditions were much harder back in the day

There's no doubt the pitches were far more exposed to the elements back in Bradman's day. He really only batted on English and Australian pitches and did so with ancient body protection, sans helmet, and a wafer thin bat. I would've liked to see how he went on some of the flat spin friendly (and batting friendly when conditions suit) pitches of the Sub Continent. As for how he'd go today, we'll never know I guess!

 

[astrovic]

Interested to get peoples thoughts on how Bradman would go in today's era? Obviously the bats are able to hit the ball further . Pitches are well protected from the elements with covers ect. Boundary ropes introduced. I was debating this with my brother in law and I was of the very strong belief conditions were much harder back in the day

He'd average 99.94.

One thing history had shown is that despite all the changes in the game, batsmen average about the same, teams score about the same, bowlers average about the same. Every change is matched by a countervailing change, which keeps things roughly even. Shorter ropes and heavier bats? Fitter and more skilled bowlers (yes there were some superstars in Bradman's day but there were mostly serious trundlers who wouldn't get a look in now). Uncovered pitches? Doctored pitches. Helmets and pads? Almost unrestricted bowling at the body and head. It all evens out in the wash.

The best batsmen averaged 50+ in the 1920's, 1930's and so on and it is still the same now. The handful of freaks averaged over 60, then and now. The trend line for averages show how little the game has changed despite so many changes.

So my take is Bradman would average about the same now as then.

The big difference is that if he played now, he would average about 10 tests a year over a 20 year career, or about 200 tests - same as Sachin "better than Bradman" Tendulkar. Bradman only played 52 in 20 years due to the small number of tours and teams, and the interruption of WWII. So roughly 4 times as many tests.

So whereas Tendulkar finished with nearly 16,000 runs and 51 centuries, if Bradman played 200 tests like Tendulkar did he would have probably scored about 28,000 runs with about 115 centuries. Average wouldn't change IMO, but the gross numbers would quadruple.

The numbers are mind-boggling.

 

[King Corey]

He'd average 99.94.

One thing history had shown is that despite all the changes in the game, batsmen average about the same, teams score about the same, bowlers average about the same. Every change is matched by a countervailing change, which keeps things roughly even. Shorter ropes and heavier bats? Fitter and more skilled bowlers (yes there were some superstars in Bradman's day but there were mostly serious trundlers who wouldn't get a look in now). Uncovered pitches? Doctored pitches. Helmets and pads? Almost unrestricted bowling at the body and head. It all evens out in the wash.

The best batsmen averaged 50+ in the 1920's, 1930's and so on and it is still the same now. The handful of freaks averaged over 60, then and now. The trend line for averages show how little the game has changed despite so many changes.

So my take is Bradman would average about the same now as then.

The big difference is that if he played now, he would average about 10 tests a year over a 20 year career, or about 200 tests - same as Sachin "better than Bradman" Tendulkar. Bradman only played 52 in 20 years due to the small number of tours and teams, and the interruption of WWII. So roughly 4 times as many tests.

So whereas Tendulkar finished with nearly 16,000 runs and 51 centuries, if Bradman played 200 tests like Tendulkar did he would have probably scored about 28,000 runs with about 115 centuries. Average wouldn't change IMO, but the gross numbers would quadruple.

The numbers are mind-boggling.

Great post.

 

[big_e]

He'd average 99.94.

One thing history had shown is that despite all the changes in the game, batsmen average about the same, teams score about the same, bowlers average about the same. Every change is matched by a countervailing change, which keeps things roughly even. Shorter ropes and heavier bats? Fitter and more skilled bowlers (yes there were some superstars in Bradman's day but there were mostly serious trundlers who wouldn't get a look in now). Uncovered pitches? Doctored pitches. Helmets and pads? Almost unrestricted bowling at the body and head. It all evens out in the wash.

The best batsmen averaged 50+ in the 1920's, 1930's and so on and it is still the same now. The handful of freaks averaged over 60, then and now. The trend line for averages show how little the game has changed despite so many changes.

So my take is Bradman would average about the same now as then.

The big difference is that if he played now, he would average about 10 tests a year over a 20 year career, or about 200 tests - same as Sachin "better than Bradman" Tendulkar. Bradman only played 52 in 20 years due to the small number of tours and teams, and the interruption of WWII. So roughly 4 times as many tests.

So whereas Tendulkar finished with nearly 16,000 runs and 51 centuries, if Bradman played 200 tests like Tendulkar did he would have probably scored about 28,000 runs with about 115 centuries. Average wouldn't change IMO, but the gross numbers would quadruple.

The numbers are mind-boggling.

The man himself was once asked the question:

"Tendulkar and Warne then asked Bradman what his Test average would likely have been if he was playing then. Bradman replied: "Around 70." "We were slightly surprised and asked if he was sure it would be so much lower than his famous career average of 99.94," Tendulkar writes. "He said, 'Well, 70 isn't bad for a 90-year-old!""

 

[Hojuman]

Reynolds, Barassi, Carey, Ablett snr.

No denying talent any era.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

BBL7 starts kicking off now with the Thunder and Sixers and we have 2 of NSW's most overated cricketers in Nick Maddinson and Moises Henrequies playing.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

And they're both gone.

 

[darko]

Dougy Bollinger still around geez

 

[SpiderBurton22]

Henrequies, the spud. Scores level with 1 ball to go and he has fielders on the fence and blokes deep, right on the ring.

 

[tazaa]

Henrequies, the spud. Scores level with 1 ball to go and he has fielders on the fence and blokes deep, right on the ring.

Insipid field setting

 

[King Corey]

Insipid field setting

Still better than his actual fielding.

 

[King Corey]

BBL7 starts kicking off now with the Thunder and Sixers and we have 2 of NSW's most overated cricketers in Nick Maddinson and Moises Henrequies playing.

Has the NSW media centipede commenced its annual Nick Maddinson telethon yet?

 

[Hojuman]

Dwayne Bravo. Solid chap. Doesn't move that well. 5/28 with his " see if you can hit this " bowling.
Not bad.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

Dwayne Bravo. Solid chap. Doesn't move that well. 5/28 with his " see if you can hit this " bowling.
Not bad.

Great mix of slower balls and some ordinary batting, trying to hit him to the longest boundary. He's not moving that due to ripping his hamstring of the bone in last year's Big Bash.

Good start by the Renegades, if their fast bowling holds up they're a big shot this year.

 

[naturally north]

He'd average 99.94.

One thing history had shown is that despite all the changes in the game, batsmen average about the same, teams score about the same, bowlers average about the same. Every change is matched by a countervailing change, which keeps things roughly even. Shorter ropes and heavier bats? Fitter and more skilled bowlers (yes there were some superstars in Bradman's day but there were mostly serious trundlers who wouldn't get a look in now). Uncovered pitches? Doctored pitches. Helmets and pads? Almost unrestricted bowling at the body and head. It all evens out in the wash.

The best batsmen averaged 50+ in the 1920's, 1930's and so on and it is still the same now. The handful of freaks averaged over 60, then and now. The trend line for averages show how little the game has changed despite so many changes.

So my take is Bradman would average about the same now as then.

The big difference is that if he played now, he would average about 10 tests a year over a 20 year career, or about 200 tests - same as Sachin "better than Bradman" Tendulkar. Bradman only played 52 in 20 years due to the small number of tours and teams, and the interruption of WWII. So roughly 4 times as many tests.

So whereas Tendulkar finished with nearly 16,000 runs and 51 centuries, if Bradman played 200 tests like Tendulkar did he would have probably scored about 28,000 runs with about 115 centuries. Average wouldn't change IMO, but the gross numbers would quadruple.

The numbers are mind-boggling.

Fair enough post and plenty agree, I personally think you cannot compare era's. DB average during his 10 tests in the late 30's against SA/India was 375.00. am not sure they were of the quality that others have faced since.

He smacked the Windies and I am confident they were terrible......... well when compared to the 70's and 80's. He was an amazing batsmen and nothing shows this more so than his average of 56 during the body line series.

But am not sure it is as simple as multiplying his career numbers if he played later than the 30's/40's. As a kid I watched on in awe at the Windies and to this day I feel for Allan Border who averaged at home 33.00 against them. He finished his career with an average of 51.00.

Tubby Taylor finished with a batting average of 43.00- Has he played ten years earlier his career average would have been much less.

 

[Nate7]

The umpires in the BBL are garbage!
Last over of the Strikers innings and 2 in a row were bowled at chest height yet not called no ball - the last of which a batsmen was out caught.
Seriously, if there's any suspect betting going on, these dickheads should be looked at!

 

[Hojuman]

The umpires in the BBL are garbage!
Last over of the Strikers innings and 2 in a row were bowled at chest height yet not called no ball - the last of which a batsmen was out caught.
Seriously, if there's any suspect betting going on, these dickheads should be looked at!

Yeh. Why no appeal system ? Takes too long ?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

The umpires in the BBL are garbage!
Last over of the Strikers innings and 2 in a row were bowled at chest height yet not called no ball - the last of which a batsmen was out caught.
Seriously, if there's any suspect betting going on, these dickheads should be looked at!

Richardson was getting away with it against the Hurricanes all night the other day.

Full tosses clearly above waist height but called legal, reckon he bowled 2 full tosses an over. They called it his variation ball...

 

[Hojuman]

Beautiful.
1. Boxing day
2. Ashes test match.
3. 3 - 0 up
4. Aussies batting
5. Bottle of red
6. Home alone

 

[Hojuman]

Tom Curran ? Poms pick him up in the draft ?

 

[shinboner magic]

Bancroft struggling like a Pom

 

[koshari]

Davey warner in pretty good form again. Not quite 100 runs in a session form but good none the less.

 

[ferball]

Merry Christmas Dave.

 

[Arathrawn]

WOW just WOW. Dave Warner you lucky sob.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Geez you'd hate to be Curran right now.