Personally, I think they should've gone for 10. Really, many felt there were just 2, rather than 3, choices to make. Bradman and Sobers were obviously a given (I'm truly astonished that there were
9 people who did not vote for Sobers
- that's nearly 1\10th of the panel) and more than enough said the same applied to Hobbs.
Warne and Richards - there are any number of names who were equally or more deserving than these two. It is interesting, though, to note in Warne's case that this was a player selected as a cricketer of the century when the turn of the century came not far off the midpoint of his career.
It'd be futile, though, to suggest they had no part to play.