Proper champions knock from Hanif.
-
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.
Best and worst Triple Century and above knock ?
- Thread starter Sunil1z
- Start date
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Part of me jumps to Bradman's 334 for the 300 in a day stat I remember coming across a lot as a kid, for the best one.
Hammond's 336 was considered by some to not even be a legit record, the bowling of NZ's test team pre Cowie being that weak.
Hutton's 364, the score to give England back the undisputed title, was very highly regarded and infamous too
Karun Nair's looks **** because scrub batsman not good enough to be test regulars aren't meant to get them. It's like Voges ATG average, it looks out of place
Hammond's 336 was considered by some to not even be a legit record, the bowling of NZ's test team pre Cowie being that weak.
Hutton's 364, the score to give England back the undisputed title, was very highly regarded and infamous too
Karun Nair's looks **** because scrub batsman not good enough to be test regulars aren't meant to get them. It's like Voges ATG average, it looks out of place
Victor Ian
International Coach
Sehwag!
The press coverage of Hutton’s 364 was focused around his beating Bradman’s score. Hammond’s 336 was little mentioned.
shortpitched713
International Captain
shortpitched713
International Captain
Bradman's 300 in a day looks pretty decent, but is there anything to note about his other triple century?
It looks like he scored less, from more deliveries, so maybe a candidate depending on context?
It looks like he scored less, from more deliveries, so maybe a candidate depending on context?
I thought a while ago that his second triple rather sailed under the historical radar. Maybe it was just that after 1930 people just began to expect these things from himm
SillyCowCorner1
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hello there Karun Nair.
Yeah it would be in the bottom quarter of these but was defo better than, say, the Hayden 380.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Both Bradman’s triples were at Leeds which is kinda cool.
1930 (21 at the time):
105 before lunch, 115 in between lunch and tea, a paltry 89 between tea and stumps.
100 in 145, 200 in 263, 300 in 413
fun fact: Bradman had already scored 101 runs in a session that series during his 254 at Lords.
Worth noting the other top scorers in that match - Hammond 113, Kippax 77, Woodfull 50.
Also worth noting Tate’s performance. 5/124 including Bradman and Kippax.
1934:
102 between tea and stumps, also went on to score 109 in a session at the Oval that series.
100 in 235, 200 in 359, 300 in 457
Other scores of note: Ponsford 181, Leyland 49*, Walters 45
Bradman and Ponsford combined for 485, the other 9 batsmen combined for 82. Bowes had a great performance, 6/142 including Brown, Woodfull, Bradman and McCabe. 5 of them bowled.
Tbf to Hammond, the bowling he faced was poor, but only one other English batsman crossed 50 (Wyatt, 60). Hammond scored his 300 off 355, and scored 111 before lunch, and 150 between lunch and tea.
For Hutton, that wicket was flat, there’s no denying it. Hell that whole series was flat. Hutton scored 300 off 727 (no tons during sessions ofc). England had two other batsman (Leyland and Hardstaff) score 150+.
Ironically, all of these were draws except for Hutton’s (in just 4 days in what was supposed to be a timeless match). Fingleton pulled a muscle and Bradman ****ed his ankle in a footmark. Both were unable to return. Australia only had 3 recognised bowlers, O’Reilly, Fleetwood-Smith and Waite (medium/off spin, averaged 31 in FC). McCabe opened the bowling, he and Barnes both ended up with 38 overs.
Hutton on 40 got lucky, missed stumping opportunity, missed a ball from Chuck and the keeper missed it entirely. Apparently on day two there were also 4 no balls, on every occasion a wicket would have been taken.
1930 (21 at the time):
105 before lunch, 115 in between lunch and tea, a paltry 89 between tea and stumps.
100 in 145, 200 in 263, 300 in 413
fun fact: Bradman had already scored 101 runs in a session that series during his 254 at Lords.
Worth noting the other top scorers in that match - Hammond 113, Kippax 77, Woodfull 50.
Also worth noting Tate’s performance. 5/124 including Bradman and Kippax.
1934:
102 between tea and stumps, also went on to score 109 in a session at the Oval that series.
100 in 235, 200 in 359, 300 in 457
Other scores of note: Ponsford 181, Leyland 49*, Walters 45
Bradman and Ponsford combined for 485, the other 9 batsmen combined for 82. Bowes had a great performance, 6/142 including Brown, Woodfull, Bradman and McCabe. 5 of them bowled.
Tbf to Hammond, the bowling he faced was poor, but only one other English batsman crossed 50 (Wyatt, 60). Hammond scored his 300 off 355, and scored 111 before lunch, and 150 between lunch and tea.
For Hutton, that wicket was flat, there’s no denying it. Hell that whole series was flat. Hutton scored 300 off 727 (no tons during sessions ofc). England had two other batsman (Leyland and Hardstaff) score 150+.
Ironically, all of these were draws except for Hutton’s (in just 4 days in what was supposed to be a timeless match). Fingleton pulled a muscle and Bradman ****ed his ankle in a footmark. Both were unable to return. Australia only had 3 recognised bowlers, O’Reilly, Fleetwood-Smith and Waite (medium/off spin, averaged 31 in FC). McCabe opened the bowling, he and Barnes both ended up with 38 overs.
Hutton on 40 got lucky, missed stumping opportunity, missed a ball from Chuck and the keeper missed it entirely. Apparently on day two there were also 4 no balls, on every occasion a wicket would have been taken.
Last edited:
subshakerz
International Coach
Is there any other innings as selfish as Lara's 400?
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
“All of Chanderpaul’s” - Chanderpaul haters
“All of Boycott’s” - Boycott haters
subshakerz
International Coach
I mean among the triples.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Is there any innings as pretending to be unselfish as Warner declaring on 335* when he could have probably got 500 and Pakistan still would have been beaten on day 4
I have Jedi's opinion on this, it totally is virtue signalling to pretend you don't care about individual records and only care about winning. Anyone who's played cricket ain't buying that.
At the end of the day, Warner or Clarke going on to get 401 would have been such a better moment for the fans and Australian cricket long term then making sure they beat Pakistan in a dead rubber in 3 days in a series nobody will remember
subshakerz
International Coach
Imran Khan got a lot of flack for declaring when Miandad was 280 not out against India. However, he himself declared when he was in the 90s against SL.
Having said that, the issue is Lara's 400 definitely seemed to cost his team a chance at victory. I don't think a milestone should compromise a team result.
mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Agree, but the Warner situation was taking the absolute piss. Too far the other way
Imran actually declaring when he himself was in the 90s, is something I will respect as genuinely selfless. Couldn't have paid me enough to do that (not a match fixing reference)
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Absolutely. Clarke especially. He had over 2 days left in the game and could easily have gone for the record.
Declaring when he did was actually more selfish than batting on because he clearly did it to make himself look like he's unselfish. Ironic
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
This is some dumbass virtue signalling against virtue signalling.