There is also the changing attitude towards pain and other forms of physical discomfort. There is a large psychological input to how much something like a pulled hamstring would affect sportsmen. In the olden days, they knew less about long term aspects of sports injuries and on-field physiotherapists were not as common as they are now. More often than not, the players had to make-do with what they could get - which was usually not much. So, to some extent at least, they were able to put the pain out of their minds and get on with the job as it were, helped by the fact that there was not much that a physio or doctor could do in the short term anyway. I am not saying that modern players are softer, but they do have the subconcious knowledge that even a relatively minor ailment need not be endured 'unnecessarily' since immediate help was only a wave-to-the-dressing-room away. Human nature being what it is, the contemporary players are very unlikely to turn down assistance and play on wth the risk of aggravation of the injury.

The sign of the times will also have something to do with the player's attitude towards themselves and the team. In the Bradman era, the various wars and general world situation impacted on everyone including cricketers. They tended to put the 'all-concerned' - in this case the cricket team - before themselves and so would have been more willing to suffer personal discomfort if it was in the good of the whole team. While it would be unfair to say that modern players are selfish by comparison, it is natural for them to think of 'number-one' first under more circumstances than before.

Therefore I think not only would Bradman have successfully adapted to the ODI form of the game if the need arose, but so would several other players from various cricket-playing countries.