No one can be better than that. If someone gets close, then well done. But regardless of the amount of cricket, i don't see that as a valid argument. There were different factors at play to hinder them in those days - like i said, he almost died! His wife who spent a month traveling over to meet him actually heard a false report he died at one stage! Obviously he didn't, but he had to spend months recovering from that. Medicine, injuries, travel - everything was much more arduous back then. And if its so different - then why did no one else back then even get close to him? Thats how F***ing good he was. No one in ANY era has gotten close to his average. The next closest is 60-odd. From eras before, or after - no one close. The argument of a different time doesn't fly, because in his time he blew everyone away. He would bloody well do the same now as well.
You can keep talking the big run totals, whatever. You included first class cricket in your stat up there - i pointed out that in all forms of first class cricket, Bradman still averaged 90. Look at Bradmans career, please.
I fully believe that no one will ever better Bradman. Everyone else believes that as well, every time i hear pundits talking his name is still mentioned as a comparison - 'Bradmanesque' is the term. You tell me any player from any other sport who transcends time like that? Theres none. Bradman was, and always will be in my opinion, the greatest player to ever play the sport. Sachin right now is second on the list, and like i said - he would acknowledge thats his rightful place as well i think.
Logged