Thanks to Michael Bird for stimulating this discussion of his list of top 25 NT scholars. It's like sticking one's neck out... along with a few "amens," it's bound to invite critique. So, for the bravery... kudos.
So, here's my complaints. :)
Actually, no complaints, though I resonate with Mark Goodacre's points. How G. Theissen does not make it onto such a list is beyond me. (I guess in order to make room for Origen and Bruce.) As for period parameters, I would at least take a cue from Bill Baird and make a cut-off starting date somewhere around the Reformation at the earliest. Not only does that represent the beginning of a newer type of NT scholarship, it also corresponds with the newer textual medium, the printed text, that facilitates this type of study.
However, my genuine suggestion is that in order to make a more meaningful list, the start date should be something like "Post-Westcott-Hort," for obvious reasons. After all, the vast majority of the current listees fit this era anyhow, and it allows the comparison of apples to apples.
A side reflection... I wonder if in years to come, NT scholarship will be divided into "pre-computer-assisted" and "computer-assisted" scholarship.