Will Bradman's average ever be broken?

Rudolph, you raise the question as to what would happen if Bradman had only played in 40, 30, 20 or 10 tests. There is an answer in terms of statistics using the "central limit theorem". One calculates the arithmetic mean but one also needs to calculate the standard deviation and the not out scores have to be dealt with in some way in order to achieve that. Using the theorem one could calculate, say 95%, confidents limits on a batsman's long term average and without doing the calculations I would suggest that 10 or 20 tests would be such a small sample that the confidence interval would be too broad to be meaningful, it might be that we can say with 95% confidence that a batsman's long term average would be in the range 80 to 120 if we had so few tests to go on. Student's t distribution or the Normal distribution could be used in the calculations. How to deal with the not out scores -- one could just ignore them, or assume they are "out" scores (underestimating the standard deviation), or add the batsman's average to the not out scores. There is no right answer here. Although the normal distribution can be used with the "central limit theorem" for analysing an individual batsman's long term average I don't believe it is appropriate to use in comparing different players averages, I believe the distribution would have much longer "tails" than the normal distribution. On the average I believe we would have to live several lifetimes before we could see a batsman equal to Bradman.

Thanks Bearfax & Aransan. Final points, if I may. Bradman was the greatest 'in his era'. No one disputes that. But 'enduring' greatness demands a little more than 'leader of your pack by a long shot', especially in a game that's over 200 years old. Leader of your pack only means others in that era just couldn't catch up, for whatever reason - nothing less. Importantly, nothing more. The speculation, of greatness across generations, gets tougher if you ask - what if Bradman had played only 40 Tests, only 30 Tests, only 20, only 10 and still averaged what he did. Should he still be crowned the greatest ever? Point is, enduring greatness, across generations isn't decided on speculation - what a player 'could have' or 'would have' done had he faced a stronger, wider, deeper opposition but on the fact that he has indeed faced the strongest, widest, deepest opposition. The 'greatest ever' title is usually bestowed on someone who has been tested in the widest possible conditions, for the longest possible time. First Class cricket is good fun and welcome practice to hone skill but there's a reason why Test cricket is called thus - it is a 'test' in a way that First Class isn't. No matter how compelling they appear to neighbourhood teams, it is simply not in the same league as international cricket. And considering over 2100 Tests and 3600 ODIs, Bradman just didn't have the opportunity to be tested that way and therefore has, shall we say, more limited claim to the title than has been suggested all along. Not his fault. No one else's either. Many thanks again for the interesting points raised.

Bearfax, Walter Lindrum in billiards was also an exceptional talent.

Actually I should say the comparison would be taking wickets at every 5 runs because there was a bowler in the 1890's early 1900s called George Lohmann who averaged 10.75 with the ball and John Ferris in the same period averaged 12.7 with the ball.

I'm sorry but I have to concur with Aransan on this issue. Firstly the issues you raised are well known to me and I feel make no difference in respect of averages. Averages are determined by innings played, and take no account of DNB innings of which most batsmen have many. But if you are worried by the lack of test matches, then its obvious to look at first class averages to get a further insight. He averages 95.14 in 338 innings which shows the consistency of his batting . No other batsman again comes close. And it seems you fail to take into consideration, what I indicated before, that he missed 8 years of cricket because of WW2, during what would have been for most batsmen their most productive years. The issue of number of tests, as Aransan has said, has to be seen in the context of the time. They could only play as many tests as were available to play. Headley only played 22, Hobbs 61, Hammond 85, Sobers 93, Sid Barnes who was considered a potential giant only played 13 ( of course his paucity of tests was more to do with behaviour). These were the giants of their time, yet none came within 35 runs of Bradman on average even in first class cricket. Comparing today with those past times of course is always going to be difficult. Yes there are better training programs, yes the competition is wider and in many respects stronger. But todays cricketer is generally a full time professional, with far better equipment, training regimes, frequency of test play, nutrition, styles of play etc. But put these past champions in today's setting and do you think they would with those advantages be any less outstanding...I think not. Consider the disadvantages to a batsman back then. Makes me wonder how they achieved what they did. The wickets were often uncovered and quite variable. 'Sticky wicket' obviously comes from those times. There was virtually no protection such as helmets, substantive padding etc (I wonder whether some of today's greats would cope). They were all part timers having jobs they also had to meet so training was very much an individual thing and done whenever they could. They would often be on ships travelling to England for many months at a time and they ate what they were given, nothing like todays tucker for sports people or legal stimulants etc. They were paid a pittance compared to today's cricketer. Rules that protect the batsmen far more today were not available back then ergo Bodyline. I'm sure you are aware of these factors and I acknowledge that it is therefore difficult to assess comparisons. In my mind there is only one way, and I use this even in today's environment when I push for certain batsmen or bowlers to be given test spots. And that is by comparing players in their same contemporary times with each other based upon the opposition they have to meet. Realistically that is the only true way you can compare players. And if tests are too few then you go to first class cricket averages. Based upon these stats, Bradman is like a blinding light even amongst champions. I can think of no other sport (perhaps Mckay in squash where only Nicol David has since come within cooee) where an individual has been so dominant. Best comparison I could suggest in cricket is if there was a bowler who took wickets during his test career, at an average of around every 10-15 runs. That is I believe how dominant as a batsman Bradman was.

Rudolph, out of 80 innings Bradman had 29 scores of 100 or more and 42 scores of 50 or more. You have to go to decimal places to distinguish his average from 100. Bradman had 2 triple centuries and another score of 299 not out, the only other players to have scored multiple triple centuries are Brian Lara, Chris Gayle and Virenda Sehwag. I believe you will find that they took more than 80 innings to achieve that. Brian Lara is the only player to have 2 scores in excess of 350 and of course one of them was 400 not out. I don't really care whether Bradman played 50 or 52 tests, that was all he could play in over a 20 year period. The important thing is that he batted in 80 innings and was not out in 10 of them.

Thanks Bearfax...and I understand your reluctance. But for those who think they know all about Bradman and his playing context, it may help to think again? This isn't the place to elaborate on my book but I've found the extent of comment here fascinating because the Bradman/enduring greatness theme still holds such interest across generations. So, I'll offer just two tiny illustrations. There are at least a couple of confident/casual references in the article and comments above, to Bradman's "52 Tests". Actually, he played in only 50. It seems trivial but it helps to reflect - do we really know all there is to know? If he'd played 300 and you get the figure wrong by a Test or two that's fine as it's unlikely to threaten a sacred average by much but if he played only 50, it probably matters slightly more? The 99.94 stat is easy to embrace; hence the many references here to "an average of 100" almost implying that every time he went out to bat afresh, he scored 100. It's tougher to accept though that for about a fourth of his international career (22 out of 80 innings) Bradman scored 18 or fewer runs and for close to half his career (35 out of 80 innings) he scored 40 or fewer runs. My point being not so much about fact (vs fiction) but an inexplicable reluctance to take a closer look. "....based on facts available". Yes, but are all of them "available" (immediately obvious)? Or are some hidden? As I've said, for those whose minds are made up, it's all pointless. But for those who are open.....who knows, they just might discover something new? Of course I could be wrong.........

On a crapy pitch, with a crapy wooden bat, with bigger boundaries, no Helmets How would the player from this era score back then? I don't think they would be averaging a hundred...The Don was freak.

The bats were just bits of wood, boundaries were bigger, pitches much worse, no helmets. There is a reason why all the other batsman averaged the same as today's batsman and Bradman was streaks ahead, he was a freak. You can never truly compare eras but what he achieved was remarkable to say the least.

Good points Bearfax.

Sorry Rudolph but I cant agree with you on a number of levels. Firstly all of your quotes here are made after 2000, other than I assume Bradman's. Assessing the worth of a player you probably never even saw and most of those quoting never saw, other than by factual stats available lacks credibility. Bradman played test cricket between 1928 and 1938 and 1946 and 1948. That means he played tests from the age of 19 to 29 and then 38 to just short of 40. Yet it is well established that the best years of a batsman's career is between 30-35. One of Australia's greatest openers Matt Hayden didnt start to score big test runs until he was almost 30. Most batsmen reach their batting peak during their early 30s. Tendulkar averaged only 52.71 by the time he was 30 but between 30-35 he averaged 57.6. What would Bradman's average have been if he had played during his early 30s. He was averaging 97.94 up until 29 and averaged 105.72 during his 38th and 39th years. To put Bradman's performances down, it means that you also have to put down batsmen like Hobbs, Headley, Sobers, even Viv Richards, Hammond and Pollack, given they played in conditions just before, during or just after Bradman. I doubt that you will get much support for that. I can appreciate that the range of opposition was no where near as great as it is today, but as mentioned Bradman played over 70% of his tests against England, the only other top cricket nation at the time. Most batsmen today play a range of quality teams and its doubtful they play the best as often as Bradman did on average. But competition is greater today because of the greater number of players and this is the one area that I can concede. But the argument still does not explain how one batsman, even in a smaller sample, can be that much better than the rest. The best batsmen age by age consistently average in the 50s, a few make the low 60s. Bradman made it 100. The gap is just too great to justify arguments against by a long shot. I never saw Bradman live, but I have watched cricket since the 50s and have seen some fine cricketers during the past 50-60 years. But it seems incomprehensible to me based on the facts available, that it can be suggested Bradman was not the greatest batsman by far who has played the game. There is just no evidence other than opinion to suggest otherwise.

Fascinating question zacbrygel and some gripping, if heated, discussion in the comment section. For those interested, my book "Greater than Bradman" tries to demonstrate why Bradman isn't the greatest batsman ever and why many who succeeded him were greater. But the book isn't for those whose minds are made up! It's meant instead for those who agree that Bradman was the greatest 'of his era' but who are also wondering - nearly 70 years after he quit, is he still the greatest 'in cricket history'? There is a tiny - but steadily growing - group of experts who have begun to question Bradman's rank and they include Richard Hadlee, Dennis Lillee, Simon Hughes, Nasser Hussain, John Emburey and Hanif Mohammad. Both sides of the debate are here http://www.greaterthanbradman.com/the-debate.html

However cricket is a game where you can compare eras. For the past century the contest between bat and ball has been fairly even. Top batsmen of Bradman's era averaged around 50, like they do today. His dominance simply can't be attributed to slower bowlers or less athletic fielding, when he had the disadvantages of inferior bats and dodgy wickets. Also he didn't have the chance to play against "minnows", except 1 series against India, when he averaged 299. Bradman's superiority is one of the very few inarguable truths in all sport.

"Comparisons are odious" as John Lydgate said some 600 years ago. And he could have added pointless especially between eras.

And pitches are more consistently flat today than they were back then.

Hey Targa, greatest squash player of all time has to be Heather Mackay. 9years without a loss. Won a world championship semi-final 9-0, 9-0, 9-0, and then did the same in the grand final. Unfathomable. (Khan was amazing too)

Most people don't realise that Bradmans average was beaten. In 1948 by Andy Ganteaume, in 1948. He played one test for 112 so has a 112 average. I think it's fitting that history likes to keep Bradman at the top by insisting a minimum number of tests, mainly because it's more interesting. Many players debut with centuries so for the time being, are ahead of Bradman...until they play subsequent tests. But I'm sorry, good old mathematics doesn't work that way. An average, is an average, no matter what the divisor is. But on Bradman, I'm with Biltong...you can't compare eras. But equally you must also accept the efforts of the day. Cricket is no more 'correct' today than it was in Bradmans day. To really appreciate Bradmans efforts, you only have to read through the tour scores at the time and look at the scores he compiled in comparison to others, match after match, tour by tour. It is compelling viewing, the 1930 tour from memory a complete standout. While others were getting 50's, Bradman was getting 100's. Where others got the odd century, Bradman was getting doubles. In comparison to his peers at the time, stood out like no other batsmen has since, the Gavaskars, Tendulkers etc included. In that way, a freak of a scorer. Only Michael Jordan stood that much higher than his peers of his day.

DO NOT DO THIS. SUCH ACTIONS ARE FRAUGHT WITH DANGER. they will end up outside the Enchhantment Under the Sea Dance with their mothers falling in love with them. Or they won't be able to find a bowler able to bowl above 88mph to trigger the flux capacitor. I urge you not to try this.

He may be a kiwi, but you are definitely an Ozzie...George smith or pocock I better than McCaw...mark Ella? Stick to cricket pal. .