Print

[Hayden2012]

How good would Bradman have been today,?
Pros- flatter wickets, better bats, lighter gear,one day cricket,less time to get to England, no war to interrupt things
Cons- faster bowlers, better games,more pressure,no back foot rule when bowling.
And don't EVER say that Tendulker is better, he is a joke compared  to Bradman!

[Tail Ender]

If Bradman had been around now, he would've had his unorthodox technique coached out him and would probably be a bit like Phil Hughes.

[Number4]

I'd argue about the faster bowlers point

[Buzz]

the coaches did try to change his technique, he told them to do one.

my suspicion is that he would have averaged about 70 but scored about 70 test tons, he would have played more games, but the video analysis would have come up with different "weaknesses"

I am not sure the bowlers are faster now either.
it is an anomaly in sport that in almost every athletic pursuit sportsmen have got higher/faster etc, but no one could say Harold Larwood would have been anything other than fast, for example.

[Johng]

He would of enjoyed batting on covered pitches of today, say no more!!

[trypewriter]

Bradman obviously had something a bit extra. The true greats in any sport would prosper in any era.

[Leddster138]

I don't think bowlers are faster these days but I do think they can bowl faster for longer spells as the majority are arguably fitter. I also think fielding is a different level now and I don't think people take that into consideration with these kinds of chats.

Personally, he'd be great but I don't think he'd average anything far over the recent greats. There are teams of people working you out these days with bowling plans and bowlers fit enough to execute plus it's rare to see test cricketers misfield or drop catches.

The one thing I would say is that he'd do 100 times better playing in this era than the like of Kallis, Tendulkar etc in his.

[DevAussie]

Although I agree that there are teams of people working on ways to target players weaknesses, i think a great like Bradman would counteract his weakness like Steve Waugh used to with the short ball....West indies used to pepper SW with short balls cos he just plainly couldn't play them so he just dodged them or took on the body as he was aware he couldn't play them....

[BigBlueMachine]

Its really hard to compare a player in a different era. You can only play against what is put infront of you. What would be interesting tho is instead of thinking about Bradman in this era, what about today's greats playing during Bradmans time? Same training, pitches, equipment, opposition, how would they fair?

[DevAussie]

Temperament plays a huge factor in batsmen's performance....can have best gear and weak opposition but its all down to the individual.

Would be good to see how well current stars perform without helmets, thigh pads, arm guards etc like Bradman era....would they lack the confidence they have now

[Vic Nicholas]

How good would Bradman have been today,?
Pros- flatter wickets, better bats, lighter gear,one day cricket,less time to get to England, no war to interrupt things
Cons- faster bowlers, better games,more pressure,no back foot rule when bowling.
And don't EVER say that Tendulker is better, he is a joke compared  to Bradman!

Larwood and Voce were as fast as anybody going around today.

Being a coal miner, Larwood was unbelievably fit too. Could bowl long spells with pace and hostility.

The back foot no ball rule actually favoured the bowlers...they could slide and bowl at you far closer than they can these days.

Uncovered wickets those days were a KILLER. How guys like Bradman, Hobbs, Sutcliffe etc batted on stickies etc simply makes the mind boggle.

The only, and I mean ONLY area that has truly improved out of sight since Bradman's time is fielding. Fielders did not dive around and slide along boundaries trying to save boundaries. Those days, if the ball was past you, it was four. Also, guys as a rule did not take diving one handed catches.

While I doubt that Bradman would have averaged 99.94 in this era...I still reckon he would have averaged in the 70's and as someone mentioned, probably would have racked up 70 plus test tons.

Many great players played in those times...Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hutton, Headley...yet Bradman averaged nearly double all of them.

Tendulkar is not only not averaging nearly twice his contemporaries, he does not even have the highest average of this era as Kallis averages more and Sangakarra, Lara, Ponting were never far behind.

Bradman is one of those freak occurances that we are unlikely to see in our life times.

[Gerry SA]

If Bradman played in the modern era, he'd average 150+.

Bradman ruined bowlers when bowlers had everything in their favour.

On modern day flat roads, Bradman who scored 309 by himself in 1 day, could easily score 400-450 in a day.

[Manormanic]

This is a non question really.

If Bradman had played today, he would have had to cope with the merry-go-round of international cricket, which in itself breeds mediocrity, and would have had the disadvantage of playing against sides who could have analysed his technique and worked out ways to counter it.  He also would have been exposed by the fact that there would never have been the pathetic sooking over bodyline that there was at the time.

Think I'm being mean? I'm really not.  But those who think he would have averaged better than he did should ask themselves in what other sporting endeavour is the gap between first and second place so massive?  And how many records stand from 10 years ago, let lone 50, 60 or 80?  None, and not many are the answers.  Bradman was doubtless an all time great - possibly (but note, not probably) THE all time great - but it is doubtful that he would have done better now than he did then, and likely on balance that he would have done substantially worse.

I do still like the Caddick anecdote though...

[Vic Nicholas]

This is a non question really.

If Bradman had played today, he would have had to cope with the merry-go-round of international cricket, which in itself breeds mediocrity, and would have had the disadvantage of playing against sides who could have analysed his technique and worked out ways to counter it.  He also would have been exposed by the fact that there would never have been the pathetic sooking over bodyline that there was at the time.

Think I'm being mean? I'm really not.  But those who think he would have averaged better than he did should ask themselves in what other sporting endeavour is the gap between first and second place so massive?  And how many records stand from 10 years ago, let lone 50, 60 or 80?  None, and not many are the answers.  Bradman was doubtless an all time great - possibly (but note, not probably) THE all time great - but it is doubtful that he would have done better now than he did then, and likely on balance that he would have done substantially worse.

I do still like the Caddick anecdote though...

Not only harsh...but your argument is unsustainable a few fronts.

1/ In an era of video analysis of opponents, you are overlooking the fact that Jardine sat in front of a projector watching clips of Bradman batting for hours on end to search for a hint of a weakness.
2/ "Sooking about Bodyline" - with only two bouncers an over allowable along with only two men behind square, I fail to see how it could possibly have been harder than having every ball a bumper and seven men behind square!
3/ Walter Lindrum's records from the 1930's also still stand.
4/ Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak record from the 1941 season still stand.
5/ Cy Young's record as a pitcher have stood for more than a century and are unlikely to be ever broken.
6/ Johnny Unitas record of throwing at least one touch down pass in 47 straight games (set in 1960) is unlikely to ever be broken.
7/ Rocky Marciano's record (set in 1955) of a Heavy Weight Champion going 49-0 and retiring undefeated will most likely never be broken.

I could go on...

Separating Bradman the person from Bradman the batsman may be hard, but the prevailing view is that if he was around in this era, he would also have been far away the best of the best.

[Wooly]

Well said Vic.