Completely understand why he was selected as the five cricketers of the century (criteria wasn't necessarily the best - it was influence).
Would he be on my top ten bowlers all time? Nope. But he still is probably the greatest leg spinner of all time, and would make my all time side (as sometimes you need a spinner, and he is about as good as you get). Unlike a fast bowler, no spinner has really had a fantastic record everywhere. It just comes with bowling spin.
Warne was sometimes quite ineffective against India, and he had a couple other downturns which were probably anomalies, but on the whole, he still beats out pretty much every other spinner, because all the rest of them have a lot more blotches on their cricketing record. Steroids or not, he still showed up in all the big games, and has an excellent cricketing brain, so he would make my all time XI if I decide to put a spinner in there.
In the modern era, his obvious rival is Murali but he played on less helpful pitches, plus he is also largely ineffective against India, just like Warne. And he is also ineffective vs. Australia, just like Warne (Warne averages 35 in the Aussie domestic scene, but Murali wasn't that effective even in SL against Australia, while I'd back Warne to be more effective in SL vs. Australians - but obviously that's just conjecture). Plus, a personal preference of Warne being more beautiful to look at while being at least as effective, and the additional skills you'd get in the batting department means he comes out ahead.