His commentary has always been very exciting and invigorating to the viewer. Miss him doing play by play.

Greatest? nah...... the 99 series with the two sides and the 88 title clash between Pakistan and the WI were better. Most significant? Certainly. It signalled the end of a style of cricket that had dominated the sport for the last 20 years. Reason I say 20 years is because the style of cricket perfected by the WI had really been started by the Chappell brothers and Lillee and Thomson.

The West Indies dominance of test cricket in the late 1970's and 1980's probably started just after their 5-1 hammering by Australia in 1975. In my opinion anyway.

They should have lost the 1st test also as that was only a draw due to shoddy umpiring decisions that went against the Aussies

Had there been no AB, the hard edge of McGrath, Warne, Waugh twins and Taylor visible here wouldn't even exist. Border established the empire, Taylor administered the finishing touches.

Unfortunately for them Greenidge retired in 1991 and Haynes in 1994. Considering Greenidge made his debut in 1975 and Haynes in 1978 I’m not surprised!! 😂😂👍👍

That's right!!!! Campbell and Williams was absolute shit.

@@andrewassing2269 they should have played Phil Simmons....who had an excellent ODI series before the tests. Campbell was kinda ok, hideous to watch but he has scored some useful runs for us....williams was downright awful. But the WI shot themselves in the foot.....played keith atherton(garbage) the entire series, the wicb barred Haynes for playing i SA and were subsequently sued(haynes won the lawsuit) and they changed the popular manager rohan kanhai for andy roberts.......who lets just say wasn't any of the team's cup of tea. Honestly i think a lot of politics went into that series......not saying Aus didn't deserve to win but i am saying the WI with better selection and Steve Waugh not being dropped by courtney browne, we probably would have won. In 95 the teams were evenly matched. In 97, they were definitely better but not in 95

@@juanestadian8471 I agree with you about Phil Simmons. He scored a battling century at Melbourne in the 1992/93 test series. A very good player, would you say that he was a bit of an unfulfilled talent??

@Mr Kipling I was too young to see a lot of his career, but I know my parents along with most other Trinidadians said he was never the same after David Lawrence hit him with a bouncer in bad light during the 88 series. I wasn't around in 88 but I did read that he needed emergency surgery to save his life following the incident. That must mess with you mentally as a batsman. Case in point, I remember Dilhara Fernando felling Sarwan with a bouncer in that classic world cup game in SA. I am convinced that Sarwan was never the same after that lash. He developed a tick, a nervous ticket vs the fast men. Not that he was shoddy against them but he was never as settled as he was before.

Good luck man

15 yeres ws king cirket now Australia 13 yeres now south Africa 10 yeres now indai 201????

I was about to ask the same thing. SA dominance lasted until Mitchell Johnson paid them a visit in early 2014........and caused Graeme Smith to quit.......softies

@@donmylifedonmylife368 Wait, I would like to disagree with you. Indian dominance in what sense? They're mostly winning in Indian subcontinent, and if purely record wise and in terms of winning ODIs and Tests, they don't come anywhere close to the Windies if 70s and 80s and Aussies of mid 90s and early 2000s. What they do heat every cricket playing nation in, is money.

@@CoolnCarin5241 West Indies have not beaten India since 2002 in any test series in both home and away.

Aus tied with WI 2-2 in 1998. The domination started after that, I'd say.

👍

Everything that rises has to fall one day, That's what it was with the Great West Indies team, Still the West Indies was a competitive side till the early 2000s.

Amazing catch that stuck it up Lara had a bigger impact on the series.

Hi Guha i'd like to meet you.I'm a single Jamaican Man

T20 ne sab barbaad kar diya

Exactly!!!!! Those of us in the Caribbean who saw it live are still bitter about that. Australia a bunch of shameless cheats. And what's worse his teamates commenting was trying to defend it

They surged during Lara’s home series again

@@raveeshlohani5563 Lara won just 10 test, I would say after Richardson stood down.

Yes you are right and we haven't fully recovered since :-(

adam872 Considering how close Australia got in 93 to beating the West Indies Richie Richardson should have taken the challenge of Australia more seriously. It showed arrogance and poor judgement.

He was right though....they had better bowling and batting....Lawson, alderman, McDermott, Hughes, border

@@thecarpetman7687 hard to say. Steve Waugh is an all time great and this was his moment, and Mark Waugh could produce Lara like magic albeit less consistently. This team was less experienced but in hindsight a better one. They definitely fielded better than Border's Aussies.

@@meshalsinnen5917 That is a myth about Lara and Mark Waugh. Lara failed completely in the 1996-97, played only one token innings of any significance in 2000-01, and only played a decent innings in a dead rubber after the series was already lost in 2005-06. Lara’s impact in the 2003 series was also fairly minimal. Lara only exerted genuine impact in two of the six series he played against Australia i.e. 1992-93 and 99. Mark Waugh on the other hand, performed consistently in all of his first four series against the West Indies when they still had a powerful bowling attack, and made timely contributions in the 1999 series when their attack was still competitive, though no longer feared. Among his colossal individual scores, Lara made 400, 375, 216, 209, 179 and 152 in lifeless, pointless, high scoring draws on flat pitches where the bowlers of either side were never in the match at any stage. He also made 226 in a dead rubber after he had done nothing earlier in the series, which his team lost anyway, but none the less would have been a predictable boring draw on a flat pitch had the West Indies still had other batsmen around him of similar class to their 1980s line-ups. Even his 277, only about the first 100 exerted any genuine impact on the match and series. Those innings in the previous paragraph account for six of Lara’s nine 200+ scores, and 8 of his 19 150+ scores, 16% of all his test runs and almost 25% of his centuries. Lara’s 400 also came in a dead rubber with his team 0-3 down and Lara not having reached even 50 in any of the previous tests. Mark on the other hand only had pointless non-impacting 100+ scores of 111 and 111, which was barely 2% of all his test runs and only 10% of his test tons. Australia lost only one test in which Mark made a ton, but he outscored the next highest scoring team mate across both innings by a decimal of 1.41, and the third highest by 2.88. He was pipped by the highest opposition scoring batsman by a decimal of only 1.01, but outscored their second highest scorer across both innings by 1.53. In a test lost by only 74 runs, Mark more than did his job. 15 of Mark’s 20 tons were in wins, three of which were in deciding tests in series. All 4 of his test tons in draws were in deciding tests, with Australia the series victors on three of those occasions, with the other shared at 1-1. I am not saying Mark was a better batsman than Lara, but I am saying that if Lara was better, than it was only by a miniscule margin, and the determining factor is in no way sheer volume of runs on their personal stats.

Don't forget the impact junior had with his fielding especially his catching at second slip one of the best if not the best slippers to ever play. Also once in a while he would take a wicket or two

Par Juli jaldi gayab ho gaya

think he said that cause border just reitred..jones just left..no hughes or mcdermott..but in hindsight he was wrong..mcgrath obviously turned into a champion

We wouldn't have won if Border had stayed on.

It was even worse in 1998 against England!!

Why?

Haha said was the weakest Aussie side he’s faced. Was very good

@@mattmorgan4000 pretty stupid comment, but it was a team without AB who all the Windies greats considered they're best and toughest opponent

Richie was a poor loser, but it wasn't like he'd had much experience of it at this point! His captaincy in the 92-93 series was a key reason the West Indies weren't de-throned then. He also captained the West Indies to a number of other cliffhanger victories in the lead-up to 1995.

@@tommyandrewd Definitely, plus McGrath was very early in his career and it wasn't known then just how bloody good he was.

RIP? Rise if possible?

Well from 76/77 anyway. Australia flogged them in 75/76.

2008/09. South Africa and England...

Should have played more

@@peterquali76 I agree but I think after winning the WC in 99 he decided to leave international cricket.

He should have played more test matches than the 7 he actually played.

@@mrkipling2201 Nah, he could barely hit the cut surface by the late 90s in Shield cricket. The one thing he had going for him was the lack of left arm seamers at the time.

@@colourandsound really?? I didn’t know his form dropped off to that extent. I’m surprised he didn’t play more test cricket from, say, 1992-1998 though.

He was such sore loser

Craig Watson Good point Craig. With hindsight they are greats now.

@@roygbiv6010 h

He was basically saying they weren’t good enough to beat a second-rate team. So, third-rate?

@@roygbiv6010 Steve played in five and a half series against the West Indies up until 1999, and Mark played in five - Steve only getting picked for two of the five tests in 1991. There are ‘deciding tests’ and ‘deciders’. All deciders are deciding tests but not all deciding tests are deciders. A deciding test is the test in which the series result of win, loss or draw is sealed. For example, Mark Waugh debuted in the 4th test of a 5-test series and his team was leading 2-0. A win or a draw in this match seals a series victory with one to play. In Mark’s first series against the West Indies (in 1991), the deciding test turned out to be the 4th (of 5) as the West Indies won it after leading 1-0 going in. In Australia’s first innings, Mark was left stranded on 20 not out when they were bowled out for a paltry 134 in reply to 149. What he scored in the second innings was irrelevant as Australia were facing a lost cause, set 536 to win in the fourth innings, which no team will ever even come close to achieving. His second series against them (1992-93) was the only one of five in which he failed in the deciding test - this was also a decider as the series was locked at 1-1 going into the final test. However, Mark had scored 39, 60, 112, 16 and 57 in the first three tests after which Australia led 1-0. The only team mate to match his run scoring in those tests was David Boon, but his speed of scoring in no way matched Mark’s. Then there was the 126 in this video. In 1996-97, he scored 82 in the deciding test, the 4th, and then scored 65 in the decider in 1999. 2000-01 is irrelevant as the West Indies were now virtual minnows. Performing in deciding tests was Mark’s specialty. In his prime years, from the 1993 Ashes until the 1999 world cup, inclusive, he played in 18 test series consisting of 3, 4, 5 and 6 tests durations. In the 18 deciding tests of those series, 10 of which were also ‘deciders’, he averaged 61, and made 17 scores of 50 or more, six of which were centuries. Australia were victorious in 13 of those series, drew 3 and lost only 2. I am pretty sure no other batsman in history would match that record in a streak of deciding tests of anywhere near that long - Bradman played in only 11 series altogether, and didn’t bat at all in the deciding test of 1 of them, the 1938 Ashes. I know you never said as such, but speaking to the wider cricket fan population all over the world, anybody who assumes that Steve Waugh was Australia’s premier test match batsman in the 1990s has not done their homework at all.

I don’t understand how as a fielder you claim a catch that bounces off the ground. I bet Steve Waugh was unsure- so he still claimed it?

Yes... So understated...

🙄🙄🙄

Yeah football stinks

??

Australia are notorious for cheating. And what's worse was he won man of the series

@@andrewassing2269 not really that's why it surprised me

At the end of his career after a break he did really well and averaged a lot, think he averaged close to 50 as captain, and scored one if the best looking 200’s you’ll ever see against India. Then he lost the captaincy for no obvious reason. But you’re right in that people remember the early years of him when he was averaging in the 30’s when he looked like he could do so much more

champaign supanova by oasis

the background music during 3 rd test match is probably from blood diamond

no he wore it in all 3 odis in England in 1995 he wore it 2nd innings 4th test at old trafford 1995 he wore it in every innings he batted in 1996 world cup

@@theman9042 Thanks for the correction. I should have said it was the last time he wore it without interruption. I know he wore a helmet for the first time in the next innings in that 1995 series against Australia when he opened the batting. Also he continued to wear it while fielding.

It was, but he also took 6 wickets in the preceding test against England in Perth, including Mike Atherton in both innings which is where he established his bunnyship over that particular English batsman.

I don't think it was making of him so much as it was the first reveal of how good he was.

someone you idiot

That would be Mike Coward

Not related even though they're from the same island

Every single test playing nation has been caught cheating, what are you bitching about?

Maybe....but he got caught. That's because West Indians aren't used to cheating. However the aussie cricketers' hard but unfair tactics are a tradition that hordes of future aussie cricketers secretly cherish. Remember steven smith asking for off field help in india or handscomb's grounded catch of virat kohli

I think Waugh genuinely thought he caught it.

Yeah unlike Steve Waugh who claimed a catch on Lara in the first test, even when he knew the ball hit the turf. Shut up please!!

@@juanestadian8471 West Indians aren't as saint as they claim to be; they behaved terribly at times and were crybabies like any cricketing teams; You know about Sabina Park bloodbath in 76 ?? That was actually before quatret appeared first time (later against Pak in early 1977); Clive was frustated after hammering in Aus; then they gave us turning tracks at QPO and Bedi and Chandra made a mess of them apart from Viv Richards who scored half of team runs; West Indies always whine about umpring in Nz and Aus but there umpires were equally hypocrite post Viv's retirment and even 88 onwards; They dont like bouncers as well even complaint once that Steve Waugh is bowling a lot of snorter at them..I remember Viv threatning umpire here in India in 87 to force him to get Vengserkar.. At end of day all teams are flawed; But Windies werent as saint or free spirited as they claim..

Haynes retired in 1994.