The first two names on my list were Kallis and Pollock. Not many people considered Pollock but I really think he was the Kallis of bowling allrounders - right up there with the best of his era in his strongest suit, at times the best in the world, and much more than handy in his secondary skill. For mine, their secondary skills more than make up for any differences between them and their aptitude in their primary skill and those are of specialists. To me, allrounders will always be the most valuable cricketers providing they are right up there in their primary skill as well, and we've had two hugely under-appreciated gems in recent times.
My next two picks were players who are, IMO, the best ever in their arts. Gilchrist as a batsman/keeper arguably changed the way selection worked by putting more emphasis on the batting ability on wicket keepers. He was a world class batsman in his own right and a more than acceptable wicket keeper right throughout his career. Murali is, in my perhaps controversial opinion, the greatest spinner of all time, so he joins my list as well.
My fifth pick was of course Warne. Arguably better than Murali as a bowler, I rate him a fraction below in his speciality. However, when you factor in his catching, leadership, tactical naus and occasional batting, I actually rate him a better overall cricketer than Murali and hence his inclusion is essentially compulsory.
Unlike others who did so, I didn't really make a conscious decision to leave Ponting, Tendulkar or Lara out; it just sort of worked out that way. The fact that they're so hard to split probably contributed to it as having to choose between the three would have proven difficult for me, but in the end I just don't quite rate them as highly as those I named. McGrath, too, was exceptionally unlucky. Those four in no particular order would round out my "top 9" as such. I think there's a little bit of a gap after that.
Kallis
Pollock
Gilchrist
Warne
Murali
