Since we are into linguistics I changed just into clearly.
Since Jassy and ORS are on a tangent I will respond.
Lets start with Ponting (a batsman I greatly admire) and Sobers. Cricket is more than just statistics, especially for batsmen, otherwise we would be discussing Barrington as a contender as the best after Bradman and head and shoulders above Viv among much others, yet we don't. It's about impact, dominance, statistical and anecdotal evidence.
Just for an example when Cricinfo chose their ATG XI Bradman and Sobers, along with Warne were unanimous selections. If Sobers was a batsman alone, he would have easily made the team. How close was Ponting? He didn't even make Australia's XI (though he makes mine), and before anyone says that it's a tough fit into the Aussie middle order (which it is), who other than Bradman would have made it ahead of Sobers?
Sobers is seen as one of the three or four legitimate candidates for the best after Bradman, Ponting is borderline top 10 - 15 and the clear No. 3 of his own era. Few are closer to the Australian set up that Ina Chappell, he among many has advised Sobers was the best batsman he has seen. The batsmen in the same category as Sobers are Richards, Tendulkar, Lara, Hobbs. The ones just missing out are Chappell, Headley, Pollock and possibly Hammond. Ponting probably comes just behind and that isn't just an opinion held by myself but historians, journalist and past players throughout the cricketing world. There really isn't much to argue about here. Regarding Ponting batting higher, Sobers also succeeded at first drop, but dropped down the order because of the countless overs he had to throw down as the teams stock bowler, which undoubably had to effect his batting more than a negligible amount.
Bradman was the best batsman the world has seen, he also benefited from an amazing perfect storm, though he deserves exceptional credit for capitalizing on it better than any other. When Fred is speaking of Larwood, he often speaks of the flat pitches and debilitating LBW law that hampered his career. His best test series against Bradman was also his last.
Everyone speaks of Bradman averaging almost a hundred, and it's an amazing achievement after all he averaged 40 more than Headley after all. Just slight difference. Headley only played against the best two teams of his era (though some would say vs slightly weakened English attacks) and somehow in 20 Tests still payed in more countries, playing both Australia and England away from home. Bradman averaged over 100 against only two teams, a very weak Indian attack (avg 178) and an equally weak (Bambino will no doubt disagree) South African attack (avg 201) while scoring 4 hundreds in 5 Tests vs each. He averaged 75 vs the W.I after struggling initially in the series and a dropped catch before scoring his first of two centuries. Note, basically the same Indian team that Everton Weekes destroyed scoring 5 consecutive hundreds and a run out 92. Of course Weekes then had to face Lindwall, Miller and Trueman and Bradman rarely faced bowlers of that quality. Going into the War Headley had an average of 66, Bradman ended up with an average of 100, looking at the respective opponents, is he still justifiably twice as good? So even in the same era, especially early cricket, doesn't mean same opportunities. Sobers, Richards, Hobbs etc were all seen as superior to Headley. I believe Viv at his very best was close to equal in dominance to Bradman and Sobers was right there as well. Lillee said the best three batsmen he bowled to were (an aging) Sobers and the two Richards'. Fred once wrote that without the extreme burden of his heavy bowling work load and travel schedule may well have approached the heady heights of Bradman's average, I have no reason to doubt he could have, also factoring in he entered the team as a 17yr old left hand spinner and made himself into a batsman.
