C_C:
I am a Russian, and I only became interested in cricket a few month ago. But I knew the name and appearance of Shane Warne for a decade now, and I have heard of Lara's records for at least five years. I never heard of Tendulkar until I made some Indian friends about a year ago.
Maybe I am an exception, since you said that Tendulkar is popular in non-cricket countries. But you said it yourself that popularity must be expressed in either awe, love, hate, etc. I am pretty sure that even if a person in a non-cricket country knows a name of Tendulkar (or almost any other cricketer and their achievements), they do not get any of those feelings. The reason is simple - they don't care about cricket or anything connceted to it. I can tell you that Henning Fritz is a very good and famous handball player. Do you feel awe or hate, or anything? I didn't think so...
In any event, to be the most known is not the same as to be the most legendary. Otherwise, as was mentioned, Beckham would be the biggest legend as, thanks to modern media and advertisements, he is known almost everywhere in the world. A person from a village in China might never heard of Maradona or Garrincha, but would know of Beckham. But Maradona and Garrincha are bigger legends that Beckham could ever hope to be. Why? Because there was something special about them and the football-savvy people can see it. It includes popularity, achievements, influence on the sport etc.
You can find many examples when the amount of popularity is not directly proportionate to "legendarity". I am sure Lara and Gilchrist are more well-known that Bradman. But are the more legendary? Also, you can find, for example, some Indian football player who is very popular and well-known in India. Does love and support of 1bn people make him a biggest football legend? Probably not.
I believe it is false to base the test just on the player's exposure around the world. It must interwive with achievements and general influence on people around the world. Although Bradman played during the period when it was easier to play cricket (according to you), he still scored much more runs that anyone else during his time. That means that he was simply an extaordinary player of that generation. Thus, he would get my "rookie" vote.
