I brought it up because the list isn't outdated. The only people who's ranking would change are Sachin (maybe), Lara, McGrath and Murali would be in there. Other than that it's a list which illustrates how the games greats rank their peers.
-Firstly, the massive gap between Sachin and Lara is easy to explain. Lara had an average over 60 at one point, this dipped below 50 in the 90s. Lara was often criticised for not being motivated and that hurt him. However, reportedly, if Lara had one of two votes go his way, he'd be top 25.
-Sachin, however, was untouchable in the 80s. Just brilliant... and really I have no criticisms of him from the 90s. He got centuries faster than Gavaskar... and remember he's slowed down these last few years and still beat it faster than Gavaskar. Martin Crowe ranks him the best batsman after Bradman... debateable but he's a contender. Really, for me, Sachin was the cricketer of the 90s.
So yes it does make sense if you ask me. I personally don't see any bias in the picking... mainly because you have guys from different eras from different countires with difference opinions.
I love Lara, at his best, he's my favorite batsman to watch and he's the second best batsman for making insanely huge scores in cricket history (Bradman). But to say there should only be five rankings between them I don't agree with. It's not that they're not close... it's just that there are so many close rankings that could go either way.
For batsman better than Lara, I'd go with Bradman, V. Richards, Sobers, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Pollock, Gavaskar. For all-rounders better than Lara there's Sobers (of course), Imran Khan is a mile ahead of Lara if you look at Imran at his peak. Botham, Hadlee and Miller were better for me as all-rounders than Lara is with the ball. For bowlers I'd have Warne, Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee and Murali as better...
Of course with time I'd have him over guys like Chappell... but the point is that it's close... very close. And for me, to say only five positions sepparate them when there've been so many great cricketers... well I don't agree with it. That point of the list is that guys are so close that it incites dicussion... that's why I posted it.
