I don't get why there is a debate on this at all. Bradman was the best ever keeper/batsman. If Bradman dropped down the order to bat at 7 like Gilly, and like Knott, when he was supposedly good, and like Sangakara, who would have been awesome if he did, even though he didn't, then Bradman would have averaged 160, which he did. Now let's just say Knott was a 50 runs better wicket keeper than Bradman, well, turd!... He is still a long way short of being up to scratch. And Gilly, if he was a 30 runs better keeper than Bradman, further behind. And Sangakara is so far behind because he is. When he batted at 3 like Bradman and didn't glove up he was a worse player. And when he batted and gloved up he was a much worse batsman, and had Bradman been given the gloves he would have been awesome. So clearly, even though Bradman never kept that is only because he was doing the team thing, but he could have had he wanted to, because he caught balls rebounding off a corregated water tank. So, It's Bradman, because also, he would have been keeping to Grimmet and Bill Oreiily and Miller and Lindwall. That is just an awesome effort. Aussie, you just can't debate this. It is beyond logic.
