facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Cricket > Cricket

Cricket Join fellow Tigers fans to discuss all things Cricket

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 18, 2013, 01:43 AM
jeesh jeesh is online now
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: January 4, 2005
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Posts: 2,209
Default How Don Bradman Would Fare In Todays Cricket

Heres sth i always ponder about. How would Don Bradman fare in todays cricket? When i say today i mean the 20-25 years (1990+).

Obviously cricket in the last 20-25 years is more intense than the cricket played in the previous era. More emphasis on fitness, batting, bowling have evolved, fielding has become ever so important. The last 25 years have also seen some of the best bowlers in the history of the game be it Wasim, Waqar, McGrath, Donald, Walsh, Kumble, Warne, Murali, Mushtaq, Saqlain. We have also seen bowlers who can bowl at extreme pace-Lee, Akhter. The benchmark of fielding improves by the day, now even the South Asian countries are exceptional in fielding sth that was an rarity in the previous eras.

Now put Bradman in these last 25 years-more busy cricketing schedule, ODI, Test, T20. Year round cricket, tours. Quality bowling, stakes are higher, pressure is greater. Would he succeed the same way he did in his time.

Is Bradman the greatest batsman of all time, or is it one of Tendulkar and Lara who have played under more professional, challenging circumstances?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old July 18, 2013, 02:31 AM
Gowza Gowza is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Australia
Favorite Player: Mike Procter
Posts: 8,934

so many factors to consider. true fielding is at a much higher standard overall nowadays, but to counter that bradman was terrific at finding the gaps so if he was to play today and he still had that ability then he'd still pierce the field i'm sure enough times to match the other great batsmen in history. let's not forget his average is far and away the best ever by a long way, even if you cut it completely in half he would still be there abouts when talking about great players. he had the ability to hit big scores consistently to and he also had a great repertoire of strokes, and although it hasn't been officially recorded i've read that from records that people have been able to gather and calculate that his strike rate was actually in the 70s which is very high for test cricket. his lowest ever test series average was something like 56 from the bodyline series.

so i think if you factor everything in, even if you cut him down 1/3 or even more he's still matching it with the best ever so i'd say he is the best batsman ever, he would do it in this era to.

but at the end of the day you can't really compare across era's.
__________________
All Time Test XI: 1 Hobbs 2 B.Richards 3 Bradman 4 Pollock 5 V.Richards 6 Sobers 7 Gilchrist 8 Procter 9 Miller 10 Marshall 11 Warne
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old July 18, 2013, 06:35 AM
sum_1's Avatar
sum_1 sum_1 is offline
First Class Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 17, 2013
Location: City of Joy :)
Favorite Player: Men in Blue
Posts: 471

How Don Bradman would Fare In Todays Cricket? We'll never know.
How the current greats like Tendulkar and Lara would've fared in Bradman's era? We'll never know.

Having said that, there's no reason to think Bradman wouldn't be extremely successful in the modern era also. Would he have managed the unbelievable average of 99? Probably not, but that'd still be better than most of the current players, if not all.

As Gowza mentioned in his post, you can't really compare across era's. How'll you compare Alexander's army with Napolean's army?
__________________
You can be the ripest, juiciest peach in the world, and there will always be someone who hates peaches.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old July 18, 2013, 08:02 AM
Gowza Gowza is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Australia
Favorite Player: Mike Procter
Posts: 8,934

99.94 closer to 100 than 99 but yeah probably wouldn't average that much but i think he'd still do well enough to be considered the best, at minimum i think he'd be in that top group of who might be the best ever but i think with what he did achieve he'd still do enough to be considered the best.
__________________
All Time Test XI: 1 Hobbs 2 B.Richards 3 Bradman 4 Pollock 5 V.Richards 6 Sobers 7 Gilchrist 8 Procter 9 Miller 10 Marshall 11 Warne
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old July 18, 2013, 08:55 AM
BengaliPagol's Avatar
BengaliPagol BengaliPagol is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Location: Wagga Wagga, NSW
Favorite Player: Luka Modric
Posts: 5,386

He would be a Nazimuddin.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old July 19, 2013, 09:32 AM
ammark's Avatar
ammark ammark is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 17, 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,090

A few years before Sir Don passed away, there was a documentary made about him which also featured quite a bit of Tendulkar and Lara. There were side by side video comparisons of Don Bradman's batting technique and flow with Tendulkars. He himself stated that in that decade he thinks he would have probably averaged about 60 in test cricket.

Even compared to the 1990s, quality test cricket today like the ongoing Ashes series is different. The cricket nowadays is more mechanical and intense. The fitness and the professionalism of today's players and gameplay is of a completely different level. I feel that 1990s cricket was more human - more raw. There was more room for mistakes and inconsistency from players even from the best teams, that brought in an element of uncertainty, passions and emotions.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old July 19, 2013, 05:20 PM
Gowza Gowza is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Australia
Favorite Player: Mike Procter
Posts: 8,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by ammark
A few years before Sir Don passed away, there was a documentary made about him which also featured quite a bit of Tendulkar and Lara. There were side by side video comparisons of Don Bradman's batting technique and flow with Tendulkars. He himself stated that in that decade he thinks he would have probably averaged about 60 in test cricket.

Even compared to the 1990s, quality test cricket today like the ongoing Ashes series is different. The cricket nowadays is more mechanical and intense. The fitness and the professionalism of today's players and gameplay is of a completely different level. I feel that 1990s cricket was more human - more raw. There was more room for mistakes and inconsistency from players even from the best teams, that brought in an element of uncertainty, passions and emotions.
but was the don saying if he had been trained as tendulkar/lara/in current day that he'd average 60 or if he was playing current day but as he was back then. that' would make probably make a difference.
__________________
All Time Test XI: 1 Hobbs 2 B.Richards 3 Bradman 4 Pollock 5 V.Richards 6 Sobers 7 Gilchrist 8 Procter 9 Miller 10 Marshall 11 Warne
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old July 19, 2013, 07:40 PM
Jadukor's Avatar
Jadukor Jadukor is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: October 17, 2010
Location: Bangkok
Favorite Player: Shakib, Brian Lara
Posts: 7,164

Since we cannot compare across eras the only thing we can do to measure greatness is compare Bradman's stats with the other great players during his era. Did any other player average in the 90s or 80s or 70s during that time? If the answer is no then we can assume he was miles better than anyone else who had the same conditions to bat on as Bradman. I think in the modern era it is impossible to seperate yourself to such levels from your peers but Brad probably would have had a 60-70 average
__________________
রিয়াদ ফ্যান রা মানুষ হিসেবে উত্তম কারণ তারা অল্পতেই খুশি থাকে - জাদুকর ২০১৪
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old July 19, 2013, 08:50 PM
Gowza Gowza is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Australia
Favorite Player: Mike Procter
Posts: 8,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadukor
Since we cannot compare across eras the only thing we can do to measure greatness is compare Bradman's stats with the other great players during his era. Did any other player average in the 90s or 80s or 70s during that time? If the answer is no then we can assume he was miles better than anyone else who had the same conditions to bat on as Bradman. I think in the modern era it is impossible to seperate yourself to such levels from your peers but Brad probably would have had a 60-70 average
yeah this is really all you can do for comparison. bradman is so far seperated from his peers, it's unmatched in current times. as it is people have trouble deciding who is better between tendulkar, lara and even ponting, not to mention guys like kallis and dravid who in their own right could lay claim to being the best of their generation/era. in current day there is no clear best over his peers, no one has separated themselves above the rest of that top pack. but bradman....well we know the numbers.
__________________
All Time Test XI: 1 Hobbs 2 B.Richards 3 Bradman 4 Pollock 5 V.Richards 6 Sobers 7 Gilchrist 8 Procter 9 Miller 10 Marshall 11 Warne
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old July 19, 2013, 10:45 PM
jeesh jeesh is online now
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: January 4, 2005
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Posts: 2,209

Quote:
Originally Posted by ammark
A few years before Sir Don passed away, there was a documentary made about him which also featured quite a bit of Tendulkar and Lara. There were side by side video comparisons of Don Bradman's batting technique and flow with Tendulkars. He himself stated that in that decade he thinks he would have probably averaged about 60 in test cricket.

Even compared to the 1990s, quality test cricket today like the ongoing Ashes series is different. The cricket nowadays is more mechanical and intense. The fitness and the professionalism of today's players and gameplay is of a completely different level. I feel that 1990s cricket was more human - more raw. There was more room for mistakes and inconsistency from players even from the best teams, that brought in an element of uncertainty, passions and emotions.
Very true!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old July 20, 2013, 09:05 AM
koushik koushik is offline
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: April 4, 2013
Location: india
Favorite Player: rahul dravid
Posts: 1,632

I thik badman's av would be around 80s

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old August 1, 2013, 02:14 PM
Zeeshan's Avatar
Zeeshan Zeeshan is offline
BC Staff
BC Editorial Team
 
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Posts: 25,815

@ammark

yeah but he was also kidding..cant find the video... when someone asked him that's pretty low he replied well for THAT age it's not.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old August 2, 2013, 10:12 AM
ammark's Avatar
ammark ammark is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 17, 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6,090

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeshan
@ammark

yeah but he was also kidding..cant find the video... when someone asked him that's pretty low he replied well for THAT age it's not.
Hehe, fun. I watched that a long time ago so don't remember that one. But I recall he also explained that in his day Test matches didnt end at 5 days, they went for as long as the 4th innings could go on till they all got out, or they chased down the runs. It also gave him that room to stay at the crease and build a 99.94 average without having to worry about the game ending within 5 days and instead they would bat out till the match was 8 days long.

Re: Jadukor bhai,

Very true, comparing between eras is comparing lemons with oranges (same citrus family, different fruits). Once upon a time cricket only had underarm bowlers, and the wickets had one bail and no middle stump. As the game evolves, players will also play in different contexts.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old August 2, 2013, 10:55 AM
Gowza Gowza is offline
Cricket Guru
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Australia
Favorite Player: Mike Procter
Posts: 8,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by ammark
Hehe, fun. I watched that a long time ago so don't remember that one. But I recall he also explained that in his day Test matches didnt end at 5 days, they went for as long as the 4th innings could go on till they all got out, or they chased down the runs. It also gave him that room to stay at the crease and build a 99.94 average without having to worry about the game ending within 5 days and instead they would bat out till the match was 8 days long.

Re: Jadukor bhai,

Very true, comparing between eras is comparing lemons with oranges (same citrus family, different fruits). Once upon a time cricket only had underarm bowlers, and the wickets had one bail and no middle stump. As the game evolves, players will also play in different contexts.
bradman was a pretty quick scorer though, the 5 day limit might not make that much of a difference....
__________________
All Time Test XI: 1 Hobbs 2 B.Richards 3 Bradman 4 Pollock 5 V.Richards 6 Sobers 7 Gilchrist 8 Procter 9 Miller 10 Marshall 11 Warne
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket