The previous posts raise an issue that may occur to anyone not familiar with cricket, viz. maybe Bradman looks so good because no-one else was/is terribly good. This is difficult to address across sports but let me say that the echelon below Bradman has players every bit as good as Brown, Payton, Sanders, Smith (& OJ - forgot him last time, but despite any moral distaste, he must be acknowledged as a great RB) etc.. For example, the best batsman in the World for the last ten years has been/is Sachin Tendulkar. He is a brilliant batsman. On a comparative scale, he is what you would get if you could combine Payton and Sanders. He can demolish any bowlers when on form, incuding current great bowlers, such as, Warne, Pollock and Muralitharan. At both their best, Bradman could not have been better, except by a hair. The difference that makes all the difference is consistency. Over a twenty year career, interrupted by WW2, Bradman averaged a test century every 2.25 innings and never went more than 11 innings without a century. As superb as Tendulkar is, he has not matched that degree of consistent domination. That is not to denigrate him but, rather, to appreciate the incredible career of the Don.