Arthur Crabtree wrote:I was comparing with 20 years ago, which isn't deep history. I accept the golden age is unknowably murky. Though The Don's average being 40 above anyone else from his era still demands respect...
I think claims that Bradman played through the golden era are themselves indicative of the blind bias that is given to certain eras in the game. I would say without a shred of doubt that Bradman's era is the worst throughout test history, and one of the reasons that you get such a statistical outlier as himself in the game. All the test teams he played were rubbish at this time and new to the game, save for England, who had lost 250 FC cricketers in WWI and struggled to repair the domestic game for decades after.
The game was still about class and wealth. Post-war and depression era meant less amateurs playing on merit, and more on being able to afford to play if you wanted. Counties at this time have many players who wouldn't even get into a bad sunday league team. Yokshire and Lancashire, who won 19 of the 21 CCs inbetween the two world wars, were both captained by players who batted at 11 and didn't bowl, and who averaged 8 and 10 in FC respectively. Bradman scored 900 plus runs in the 1930s Ashes, but the England team had Cambridge University students bowling for it, ones that had never played FC to that point. Another bowler ended up as a senior officer in the RAF in WWII.
Its dubious at this point whether test status should be given to matches. Nowadays we say "England v Australia", but its not true - it was the MCC selection touring Australia, not an England team. And these selections were not based on merit. My favourite stat of this era is, in 1933 England won the Ashes away with a team featuring 14 out 17 players who were amateurs..... The following summer, the players beat the gentleman by an innings and 310 runs, with a sporting declaration included. So Bradman played against an "England side" during a seismic period of recovery the game had to endure, against a side that cannot be described as its best representatives, and even then those that did get to play he did managed through various reasons to dodge.
I mean, take the low point of his career initiated by Larwood.... never had to face him again as Larwood took all the blame for Bodyline. Bowes was a part-time cricketer who didnt have a deal to play as he couldnt afford to be an amateur, and ended up missing tests to groundstaff at Lords for his day job. Verity and Farnes died in WWII. Gubby Allen had a full time job and rarely played.
You can even go into other things like player health. The post WWII Ashes series are noted for the fact rationing meant England's players were under-weight and underfit. Gubby Allen said of his 46-47 away tour in Australia that all the players felt like stepping into the land of milk and honey... they all gorged on food for the first time in 6-7 years, and all of them put on weight... Allen estimated they all put on 5-6 stone each during the tour, and were not in any shape to play. And then in 1948, which was the peak of the rationing period, they all were underweight after returning.
And that's before we get to pitches.... In the handfull of a few years, 3 of Englands 5 top team scorers in history were made including highest one. Same for Australia (and in both cases, highest conceeded). The test indivdual innings record was broken multiple times by both teams, with 3 of England's triple centuries being wracked off quickly, and 6 of Australia's all time top 19 sores being knocked off in the space of 4 years. Bradman's record has been only surpassed twice by Australians since, and no one has got within 31 runs of Hammond's record for England. Individual series runs for batsman..... 7 of the top 10 all time come within this span, and another in the 1948 Ashes.... Bradman has 4, but 4 other batsman feature in the all time list.... both equate to England's highest, Australia's highest, and highest overall..... By all measures, this was a record breaking batting era for both sides.
I think (I can be corrected, its something I remember reading but cant be bothered to check) that Bradman was only top scorer for Australia in 3 of the 8 series he played in Ashes cricket, and in some wasn't even second. So it was farily common to average mammoth runs in series, Bradman was just more consistent. I think in 1948 all the invincible piled up runs, and Bradman was like 4th best with an average in the 70s. I guess you can some up the state of English cricket after two world wars in quick succession by the fact Australia, who didn't win the last away Ashes in 1938 , felt confident in remaining unbeaten in the 1948 tour ont he basis England were so rubbish.
Any team Jadeja played against would be better than any Bradman played against who werent England. And then maybe if we somehow killed off 75% of Australia cricketers, gave them no facilities or players to recover, then set him to play their D team we coulf fully compare eras.
Bradman played in a pants era. Hed never have averaged anything near 100 being born ten years after or before.