• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The greatest triple

Which triple century was the greatest?

  • Sandham 325 vs West Indies 1929/30

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sobers 365* vs Pakistan 1957/58

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Simpson 311 vs England 1964

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Edrich 310* vs New Zealand 1965

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cowper 307 vs England 1965/66

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gayle 317 vs South Africa 2004/05

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • *Added* Khan 313 vs Sri Lanka 2008/09

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    99

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Not a triple though! :p
No, but really - 299 is a whole 1 run's difference.
Im sure its a minor annoyance to him. 300 isnt that big a deal though. His 299 runout isnt as heartbreaking as what these poor guys have to deal with
Maybe. I don't know - as someone who is never remotely likely to score a half-century, never mind a century, I can't really have a true perspective. But I'd think that the fact a triple is one hell of a lot more exclusive club than a single might mean Crowe might be more annoyed. Neither Warne nor Tudor had batting in their job-description - the fact that both were decent lower-order bats was merely a bonus.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Given that all of these innings where played on flat pitches i guess the quality of the innings can be divided on how they dominated an attack & team situation. So For dominance i'll take Bradman 334, scoring 300 runs in a days play is unbelievable even for modern standards especially when viewing Sehwag tripe the other day. While Mohammad's innings looks a pretty special back to the wall innings given his side were had a first innings deficit of over 400 runs.
 

FRAZ

International Captain
Not being patriotic but just take a look at the score card ...
I guess this is the only innings by any Pakistani which was a true one man show . Hanif was a little warrior and I heard his interview in which he mentioned that after the end of the day's play there were always bruises and bumps on diferent parts of the body and Windian bowlers were like demons .
I salute Hanif's contribution to the Pakistani cricket .
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62835.html
I know that making a triple is not easy under any circumstances but avoiding the mammoth first inning lead and to avoid defeat by single handedly facing all the bowlers and staying on the wicket for close to a 1000 minutes puts him on top of my list ..
 

haroon510

International 12th Man
Sehwag vs RSA..

i am supprised to see most people voting for Mohmmad and Bradman's innings.. how can u guys tell their innings were better than sehwag? were u guys actully there watching the game? cuz that makes u guys older than my grandma and grandpa..lol
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah, just TBH it's not really very good voting for an innings as the best just because it's all you saw.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Two things struck me, both are fairly obvious, but no one else has mentioned either yet:

1) The majority of triple tons are scored in draws;

2) Before 1990 we'd seen 11; since then another 11, 7 of which have been scored in the current decade. Supports the "batting getting easier" theorists.

Any call as to the best is going to be arbitrary, I suppose. I have a great deal of affection for Goochie's effort (uniquely coupled with a second ton in his other innings) as I saw it live & one must suppose that either of Bradman's efforts were imperious. I'm going with Hanif tho as, almost by definition, a triple is an effort of endurance above all else & no other matches his mammoth knock in this respect.
 

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
Im sure its a minor annoyance to him. 300 isnt that big a deal though. His 299 runout isnt as heartbreaking as what these poor guys have to deal with
Crowe wasn't run out - he edged Ranatunga (of all people!) to the keeper. For that alone, he doesn't deserve a triple century. :ph34r:
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Heard so much about that 334 by Bradman... Hard to vote for any other innings.


The best triple that I have seen would be Lara's 375, btw...... 11/2 is certainly quite a bit of pressure.......
 

neville cardus

International Debutant
I have narrowed the list down to six particularly worthy worthies -- or, at least, those that I think will be the most popular among the voters.

Bradman's world record stands as a behemoth. It comprised almost sixty per cent of Australia's first innings, in which only two others surpassed fifty. The English attack wasn't half bad either, comprising such men as Hammond, Larwood, Geary and Tate. The fact that Bradman had his triple ton by the close of the opening day is also difficult to ignore.

Hammond's crusade was every bit as wondrous and magisterial as it has been made out to be, but, against an attack spearheaded by Badcock and Dunning, the task was far easier for him than for most of the others on the list. The bowling was wretched, the wicket a mattress and the fielding abysmal: he was dropped innumerable times.

Hanif Mohammad's triple-ton was not as dominating as the previous two, but a dominating innings would have been completely out of place in the context of a match in which his own team had been ruthlessly dominated. Of all the rearguards in Test history, this one stands sovereign. 970 minutes is just preposterous.

Lawrence Rowe's knock was a bona fide masterpiece, perhaps the beau idéal. It illustrated perfectly what could and should have been. It was not the fastest nor the most heroic, but, as a objet d'art, it is without equal. Never, perhaps, has an innings been more perfectly constructed. The opposition attack was stronger than most on this list, and the wicket was by no means a snooker table. That England's first innings was a footslog may be viewed as proof that run-making was not quite so easy as it usually is in matches containing triple centuries. Where none of his opponents managed a strike rate of even fifty, Rowe flew along at over seventy.

Lara's 375 was at once a patient, autocratic, skilful and imperishable exemplification of greatness. England's attack was decidedly limited, but not hopeless. The Antigua deck, however, was an aberrancy, just as it was when he outdid both himself and that Hayden pretender ten years later. Although it was obviously a great innings, it is obvious, from this abridged list alone, that there were numerous greater.

All of which leaves us with Sehwag's blitzkrieg. Granted, it was compiled on a bowlers' graveyard, but the South African attack was arguably stronger than that which any other triple-centurion had to counter. It was an innings with everything that made the others great and more: for a time, it was a rearguard effort; it was scored at more than a run a ball; the opposition was formidable; he never looked like getting out; there was not a single moment he was not dominating; and it entertained the pants off me.

Sehwag it is.
 
Last edited:

pasag

RTDAS
I didn't see the Sehwag Special, despite following the match, reading an incredible amount on it, not only from regular people that watched it - ie on the forum but also in the media, CI etc. Could I not vote for it then?

It's the same thing with all those other knocks, there's a wealth of anecdotal information about them, so much has been written about this sport, more than any other, that it is possible to get as close a picture on the games history as is possible - provided your willing to put in the effort to do the research and listen to people who were there and who know - the anecdotal evidence. Obviously it's not perfectly ideal, but it is more than enough for a person to be able to discuss, rate and debate it.

To supplement that you have stuff like quality of the bowling attack, the pitch, the state of the match and series and the impact of the knock on the match and series to help go along with trying to rate the knock, all valid methods and can all be used even if you weren't privileged enough to see the knock. And if we limited discussion to things we have just seen, despite collectively having such a great wealth of knowledge about cricket and its past, this would be a pretty boring forum, hey.
 

stumpski

International Captain
I saw bits of Gooch and Sehwag #2, but I've never seen a 300 in its entirety, and don't suppose many here have. Besides, the Gooch knock was almost 20 years ago, I wouldn't trust my memory to be that reliable.

Inevitably, sentiment will play a part when voting in these things, coupled with what we've read and heard.

Re: Bradman, it's strange how his 334 has passed into folklore almost, while his 304 on the same ground four years later is relegated to a footnote. Almost as if people were expecting it by then. Reflected in the voting here.

And lastly, a little surprised not to see one or two for Sir Garfield, even though Pakistan were down to three fit bowlers for most of his innings - it was his maiden Test 100 after all. The declaration at 790-3 was really an act of mercy.
 

Top