The pre-eminence of English and Australian cricket writers and commentators ended long before 1999. It probably ended with Packer.
Before WSC only England had ever won a Test series in Australia. West Indies and South Africa won their first home series against the Aussies only the decade before.
Cricket writers were generally old. They had watched a lot of cricket, spoken to a lot of players, and spoken to each other. They had been brought up to believe that a golden age had occurred during the twenty years up to 1914, when the balance between bat and ball was about right and runs had to be earned, not simply collected. Some of these writers were still around to vote with Wisden in 1999.
Rating of historical players was based largely on eye-witness testimony, of which there was plenty. With a much smaller historical playing pool than now, there was broad agreement on who the best cricketers had been.
Specialist statisticians emerged but in a supporting role. Statistics were very much of secondary importance. The ability of batsmen on bad pitches, and bowlers on good ones, counted for much when wickets were uncovered. The obsession with fast bowling dates only from the 1970s. Before then, a balanced attack was preferred. Short-pitched assaults, especially on the tail, were frowned upon.
English writers tended to be harder on their own players than those from elsewhere. They didn't like slow batting, unless it was genuinely justified, bowlers who couldn't adapt to different conditions, or wicket-keepers picked for their batting. When occasionally accused of living in the past, their response would be that the alternative was to ignore the evidence of their own eyes.