We can only say Bradman is the best of his era. That's without question.
The fact no-one has averaged 99.94 since him doesn't automatically mean the other batsmen were inferior. For people to not even weigh up the possibility of bowlers being considerably better in following decades is close minded. I was fully open to Bradman being the best ever, hell it's been drummed into me since I was a kid.
BTW- Sehwag has made 2 triple-centuries and could easily get another (or another 2 if the wickets in India are akin to his magnificent run a ball triple) but does that mean he's better than Bradman? (Though tbf, I would say he was good for an extra run in 1932 @ Adelaide so I unofficially count it as 3 triples).
There are 10 individual test scores better than Bradman's 334 and Lara has 2 in the top 3. Looking at that list statistically, especially with Lara having both a test 400 and FC 500 (both of which Bradman didn't have) someone in X amount of years who hasn't seen footage of either could come to the conslusion Lara is better. The fact both of those were made under the best conditions for batting imaginable isn't made available.
Haven't seen The Babe or Gretzsky's stats then?Statistically speaking, Bradman is the greatest sportsman of all time. No-one in any other sport where talent can be reasonably measured statistically has been as dominant of his peers as Bradman has.
Ruth was a very successful pitcher before being turned into a HR king.
Gretzsky's points tally is insane.
He takes 4/292 in 1930 and then 2 years later takes 33/644.
TBH, he only had 1 good Ashes series and the Bodyline series was it.
It's also very hard to compare 2 players who faced completely different attacks.
A guy who averaged 40 against the fearsome foursome would be in my eyes better than someone who averaged 40 against lesser bowlers. Stats wont tell you who they faced on the face of it.