Well said, thank you for posting that. People will dismiss Don Bradman simply because its "only" cricket and not one of the American sports or football (soccer). But Bradman's record was so superior that it was simply incredible, and no words can fully describe. And whilst during Bradman's time, cricket wasn't as strong in India as it is now, today cricket is likely only 2nd to soccer for global popularity (number of followers).
Cycling fans here would do well to check Bradman's record against every other cricket player then or since. The raw statistics say Bradman was certainly even more superior in cricket than Merckx was in the sport of cycling.
But on Pogacar and Merckx - nobody will ever beat Merckx's record, not even if Pogi continues like this.
Certainly The Don will always have an argument for being the greatest sports person ever......his numbers were simply so superior to anyone else, either during his era or since. Having said that, Bradman was purely a batsman, and there are two main components to cricket; he didn't bowl (so perhaps some cricketers with decent averages with bat and ball could argue that they're maybe within 25% of him in terms of statistics.
He only ever played tests in Australia and England though, strangely (never went to India or South Africa.
It's a little similar to another great Aussie, Rod Laver. He did the grand slam twice (which none of the current day 'goats' have ever done), and perhaps could have done it even more (he was banned from the tennis Tour for many years after turning professional).....could have had Bradmanesque numbers perhaps. But as with cricket, tennis wasn't very global, mostly being Australia vs. America for a while. For a while 2 (maybe even 3) of the 4 grand slams were played on grass also. These days 2 are played on hard courts, but that's a neutral surface.
Tennis has probably been effected even more by technology than cycling imo......who knows, but the touch and net attacking game of Laver may have been totally useless today, just as the heavy topspin backcourt game of Nadal may have been a joke on tour in the 60's.
I think that the greater depth in teams is what made the big difference in cycling, and forced greater specialisation. Perhaps Cancellara could have won grand tours in the 60's?
As for Pogacar, one could make a decent argument for him being the greatest cyclist ever if he keeps a similar level for at least a few more years. He'd probably need a minimum of 4 TDF's, at least 7 GT's in total, and at least 7 monuments in total (and to win at least 4 of the 5, plus a WCRR would help). That would put him way ahead of purely classics guys like Gilbert, Boonen and Cancellara, and GT guys like Contador and Froome (and he's already arguably ahead of the more versatile Nibali and Valverde).
Making a case for him will also depend on superiority against his current day rivals.......winning 7 monuments for example will seem a little less impressive if Evenepoel (or someone else) achieves the same.