If Bradman played 150 test matches...?

Question

Do you think his average would have stayed the same?

or do you think it would have decreased? If so by how much?

Note- Bradman played 234 First Class matches and averaged 95

Answer 1

I once read about a statistical analysis done at the University of New South Wales that determined that had his career not been disrupted by the war, he would have ended up with an average of 101. Of course, if Bradman scored 74 in his last last innings, he would still have had an average of 101 (7070 runs in 70 completed innings; in 80 innings, Bradman was not out 10 times). I think the point of the study was to show that time and more games would not, by the evidence of the statistical pattern established by him before and after the war, have affected his average. However, it is unlikely that, had the war not interrupted his career, he would have played 150 Test matches.

Although some will say that incessant touring would debilitate him physically and a multitude of matches diminished his appetite for runs, it must be noted that the New Zealand, South Africa, India and West Indies sides of his time were nowhere near as strong as they are now, so if he played more matches against them, he would get a glut of runs. In fact, his average vs. South Africa was 201.50 runs, albeit in just 3 innings. So if his playing more matches entailed more matches against the minnows of the time, then it is hard to see his average dipping. Instead, it would probably increase past 105.

On the other hand, playing against England regularly would be a different propostion altogether, the regular games would mean that the English bowlers and captain might have noticed some weakness or bad trend in his batting style and been in a better position to dislodge him, even without resorting to unsportsmanlike conduct as in the Bodyline series. Against England, over a long period, his average would definitely dip to under or around 90.

If he carried on playing into the 1950s, then his body would show signs of wear and tear and his run-scoring abilities would decrease. The attached file on Bradman (see source) has a section called "the ghost of a once great bastman", highlighting how he was prone to regular bouts of illness in his post war career. So if his playing 150 matches extended his career another few years, his average would slip some more.

The net result of playing 150 matches would be that the higher average against weaker teams would be slightly more than cancelled out by playing England frequently into his 40s. Thus, if he played 150 test matches, Bradman's average would probably decrease slightly, to about the 95 that he averaged in his FC career.

Answer 2

I don't believe it would be any different.

Answer 3

I think it would have ended around 80 - as the Oracle stated it would be difficult to sustain an average that high playing so much more cricket.

He batted 80 times in 52 tests = 1.53 innings per test.

150 x 1.53 = 229.5 (rounded to 230) innings

230 x 80 = 18400 runs which would have put him nearly 7000 ahead of Brian Lara

Even 230 x 70 would still have given him 16100 runs.

Just more proof of the extreme margin between Bradman and the rest.

And just for the record 230 x 99.94 = 22986 (almost double Lara's total)

Answer 4

It's really difficult to say. Bradman only played 52 Tests, but these were over a 19 year period (7 of which were lost to WW2).

He only toured England, so was not constantly away from home as today's cricketers are. You could conclude that due to his lack of matches, he was hungrier for runs.

His Test career average fluctuated from a low point of 9.50 after the second innings of his first Test in 1928-9, to a high of 112.29 following his 299^ at Adelaide in 1931-2.

His Test career batting average was generally in the 90's from 1934 onwards. Indeed, from 1932-3, when his average stood at 100.66, until 1946-7, when it rose to 102.11, it remained in the 90's.

I consider it unlikely that Bradman would have maintained an average as high as he did had he played 150 matches. To play such a high volume of games, he would need to have been touring incessantly throughout his career. This would have taken its toll on an already fragile body, and his average would have decreased.

Had he played 150 Tests, I would say his average would probably have dropped to the high 60's or early 70's. Still ahead of the pack, but not by as vast a margin.

I realise that he played 234 first-class matches and averaged 95, but remember these were spread of a 20+ year playing career, or 14 or 15 if you take out the War years. He wasn't playing cricket day in, day out, year after year as today's batsmen do.

So Bradman would still have remained peerless, but not with such an extraordinary average.

Answer 5

Bradman was a class act and although his average might have dropped slighty - I would guess in the 80s over 150 tests, his average would still never be matched in test cricket.  

Answer 6

If he had to, i dont think that his recrds would have been broken fr the next 3 decades

Answer 7

In 20 years, Bradman played 52 test matches. They played so few matches, those days. If he had to play 150 test matches, he would have to play till he was 80 years old.(Rodney Marsh wrote somewhere about how Don was negotiating the balls in the nets when he was 65 years old when Marsh felt 'this guy should have been playing on the field. He was so good even at the age of 65).

Any ways, imagine that Bradman has played 150 test matches in the present times. I would think that he would cross 20,000 runs easily.

Who were really better than Don in the years he played ?

1948:

I would place him as the 6th best after Frank Worrell, Arthur Morris, Andrew Ganteaume, Everon Weekes and Arthur Dudley Nourse. Next to him would be John D B Robertson, Cyril Washbrook and Vijay Hazare.

1947:

He was second to Walter Hadlee who played 1 match.

1946:

Don was the 4th best after William Brown, Joseph Hardstaff Jr, and Sidney Barnes.

1938:

Don was the 4th best after Maurice Lyeland, William Brown and Edward Paynter.

1936:

He was the best. He was immediately followed by Hammond, Merchant and McCabe.

1934:

He was the best followed by Bill Ponsford, Maurice Leyland and McCabe.

1932:

He was the 4th best after Henry Vivian, James Christy and Kenneth Viljoen.

1931:

He was the best followed by Herbert Sutcliffe and Charles Dempster.

1930:

He was the best followed by Charles Dempster and Robert Nunes.

1928:

He was the fourth best after Wally Hammond, Archibald Jackson and JB Hobbs.

Somewhere I read yesterday somebody writing that Tendulkar is better than Bradman. In his career since 1989, there was only one year (1998) when Tendulkar was the best in the world. In the latest year 2008, he is very very low; below even retirement level.

Answer 8

it would have stayed