Who would/should they be? When such an exercise was first conducted by Wisden in '96, the 5 were:
I believe - though I am not totally sure about it - that when the exercise was reprised in '00, the same 5 were again selected.
Now the field would be a more competitive one with the addition of a few more names - Tendulkar, Gichrist, Kallis, Lara, Murali.
Note: I will freely confess that I felt that the methodology (simplistically construed) adopted by Wisden was rather strange; in fact, not to put too fine a point on it, it was actually somewhat biased in favour of the countries with the longest cricketing histories. Essentially, the number of voters (cricketing and cricket related worthies from around the globe) were in proportion to the length of time that their countries had been playing tests, a rather strange way of conducting such an exercise, and one that would go a long way towards explaining how Warne (in '96) was chosen as one of the cricketers of the century ahead of more deserving candidates.
Please feel free to choose your 5, preferably in descending order of importance, using any combination of cricketing prowess and influence on the game. Interesting digressions are also appreciated, though preferably not those related to voting and public choice theories!