ESPNCricinfo has finally announced its All Time XI. The list, as close to a definitive ‘best' XI as could ever be expected took many months and many opinions to compile.

Four Australians: Don Bradman, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne and Dennis Lillee join Len Hutton, Jack Hobbs, Viv Richards, Sachin Tendulkar, Garry Sobers, Wasim Akram and Malcolm Marshall in a peerless fantasy line-up.

The selection process began when 10 cricket writers of each of the Test-playing countries were invited to name their country's all-time XI. To represent Australia, selectors including Peter Roebuck and Jim Maxwell, named Trumper, Morris, Bradman, G Chappell, Border, Miller, Gilchrist, Warne, O'Reilly, Lillee and McGrath.

These national XI's were then used as the player pool for possible inclusion in the all-time XI. Such a measure was required to limit the range of eligible players but denied the likes of Ponsford, Ponting, Hayden, Davidson and Lindwall the chance of making the final list on the strength of their opponents' opinions.

A panel of former Test captains - Australia's being Ian Chappell - selected the final XI alongside four cricket writers. Their job was to select two sides, a first and a second eleven, with five points awarded to a player in the firsts and three if selected for the seconds. The players with the most total points in each position formed the All-Time XI.

Three players, Bradman, Sobers and Warne were selected in the first-team of every judge while Tendulkar, Hutton and the three quicks made the All-Time side comfortably.

Of the close calls, Hobbs got the nod ahead of Sunil Gavaskar to open while George Headley missed out to fellow West Indian Richards in the middle order.

Behind the stumps, Gilchrist took the edge just ahead of Alan Knott, incorrectly according to Chappell, who would have selected his ‘keeper on his glovework, not lower-order hitting. And he has a point, after all, how many rearguard counter-attacks would be required in a side containing Bradman, Tendulkar and Richards?

In recent years the ICC has backdated its individual ranking system to produce what it believes is an inter-generational measure of cricketing greatness. This list records the highest peaks of the careers of batsmen and bowlers as judged against their performances relative to their opposition.

Unsurprisingly, there is considerable overlap between the All-Time XI and the top of the ICC's list of performance peaks. The batting table is headed by The Don, followed by All-Time XI teammate Hutton. Notably however, equal third with Hobbs according to the ICC is current Australian captain Ricky Ponting. His peak, in the summer of 2006, is considered to exceed the best performances of All-Time XI rivals Richards and Tendulkar. As Ponting was not selected by his fellow countrymen, he was ineligible for All-Time XI consideration.

Of bowlers with lengthy careers Muttiah Muralitharan and Glenn McGrath can count themselves unlucky. Murali had the misfortune of competing with the incomparable Warne for the spinner's role in the side while McGrath's consistency was overlooked in favour of the indefatigable top-order destroyer Lillee.

The product of such a process will never be to everyone's taste although rarely can such an undertaking have been approached so methodically and with such a broad array of partisan and neutral opinions. The near unanimous selection of most of the final eleven also suggests that greatness is tangible when it materialises. Debate will rightly rage about who missed out, which era was tougher, what equipment would be used and so on and so on until even the great Murali proposes John Crawley's inclusion.

In the view of the Australian XI and All-Time XI selector Gideon Haigh, this debate can only be positive. Haigh wrote recently that such discussion "cajoles us into contemplating the past, for which the modern game, which wants our money rather than our love, gives us little encouragement." Adding, "in superficially obscuring differences, it forces us to acknowledge them: we have to pretend that the world of cricket has not changed because we know it has."

Now it's over to you. Who was stiffed? Who was lucky? Whose statistics lie and whose big-match performances should count in their favour? The list of lists might be published but the debate will last for as long as the game is played.