well, I didn't have a chance to reply to some of the posts directed to me in the other thread, since it was closed:
Here goes, first of all, I haven't seen Bradman but his record and what everyone says about him places him so much above everyone else that we HAVE to consider him the #1 batsman of all time, regardless of whether we have seen him or not. It is almost impossible to argue with his stats itself, but apart from that we have the views of so many cricket literates, so to speak.
But when it comes to Hobbs and Richards, the diff. isn't so marked and therefore, I believe I am within my right in saying that he may/may not have been a better batsman than Richards. Only someone who has seen both can say, honestly. And yes, I still do believe that given how many variables are there in cricket, the only best way to judge a player is by having watched them over the years. Only then can we really compare to any real sense of fairness. Arguing about x was better than y by just seeing their numbers serves no purpose and will NEVER be anywhere near the facts....