An elite club of triple centurions

England’s Harry Brook, right, celebrates after scoring a triple century during the fourth day of the first Test cricket match between Pakistan and England at the Multan Cricket Stadium in Multan on Oct. 10, 2024. (AFP)
Short Url
  • The most recent of 32 players to achieve that landmark was England’s Harry Brook against Pakistan in Multan on Oct. 10

For an individual to score 300 runs or more in a single innings must be regarded as the pinnacle of batting achievement. This feat of supreme technical skill, concentration and physical endurance has been achieved 32 times in Test cricket by 28 men. The most recent was Harry Brook for England against Pakistan in Multan on Oct. 10 this year.

Brook shared a partnership of 454 runs with Joe Root, one of the finest batters of his generation, now the fifth highest scoring player in Test match history. Root reached 262, the closest he has come to the magical figure.

Once a player reaches the pinnacle, is that an end in itself or are expectations heightened for future performances?

Scoring 300 is not a reliable predictor of future success — ask Brook and Root. In the second Test in Multan they scored 23 and 52, respectively. Although it was the same pitch, its condition was deteriorating, allowing Pakistan’s spinners to exert control. The result levelled the series and brought England back to ground.

The circumstances under which triple hundreds have been scored vary, as do the consequences for those who managed to do so. The distribution of the 32 scores over time is very uneven. Until 1990, it was a reasonable quiz question to ask — name the 10 players who have scored a triple hundred in Tests. All but three were either English or Australian.

The exceptions were Hanif Mohammad of Pakistan, and West Indians Garfield Sobers and Laurence Rowe. Not only was Rowe the only player to have scored a triple hundred in the 1970s, but he was also the only one to do so between 1966 and 1990. Sadly, his career was cut short by an eye condition and injury.

Prior to Sobers and Mohammad in 1958, all previous triple hundreds were scored in the 1930s. The first was in April 1930 by Andrew Sandham of England, aged 39, against the West Indies. This was Sandham’s final Test match and was also a “timeless” Test. On the eighth day, bad weather prevented any play and a draw was agreed. Three months later, Donald Bradman scored 334 against England at Leeds, only to be outscored by England’s Wally Hammond with 336 in 1934. All were eclipsed by Len Hutton’s undefeated 364 against Australia in 1938.

These players were the cream of their generation and it is no surprise that their abilities were expressed in terms of triple hundreds. Some fortune is often needed along the way. Hutton survived a fumbled stumping opportunity and was facing a below-strength fast bowling attack. Hammond gave three chances against a New Zealand bowling attack that was new to Test cricket.

There is no mention of dropped chances in Hanif’s innings of 970 minutes, the longest in Test cricket, an astonishing feat of endurance. He succeeded in saving the first Test match for Pakistan against the West Indies in 1958. In the third Test of the same series, Sobers, aged 21, was facing criticism for failing to realize his potential. Three key Pakistani bowlers suffered injuries and Sobers took full advantage on a benign pitch. It is typical of the man that his first hundred in Test cricket should be a triple.

Two other players have achieved that feat. One was Australia’s Bobby Simpson against England in 1964. Remarkably, Simpson, who had been playing Test cricket for seven years, often as an opener, had failed to score a century in that time. His triple century was also the first scored by the captain of a Test team. India’s Karun Nair was the other player to turn a first hundred into a triple. Blessed with outstanding talent, he made his debut for India against England in November 2016. In the next Test, he scored 303 from 381 deliveries faced. He played only four more Tests, his last innings against Australia in March 2017, when he scored five, after which he was sidelined. His triple hundred was no predictor of future success.

Brian Lara is the only player to have scored 400 in a Test match. This was in 2004 against England in Antigua. England led 3-0 in the four-match series and Lara’s captaincy was under threat. England’s bowling attack was weakened by injury and illness during the match and he took advantage, batting 13 hours and facing 582 deliveries. The feat was not universally applauded. Some called it a selfish act, not in the interests of his team. As it was, England were able to save the match, batting long into its second innings.

This innings by Lara was in very different circumstances to the one 10 years earlier when he scored 375 against England, also in Antigua. Although he batted for a similar length of time, he faced fewer deliveries (358). There had been an expectation for some time that Lara was the player who could surpass Sobers’ record. In the series, West Indies led 2-1 and a benign pitch provided Lara with the opportunity. When he overtook Sobers’ score of 365 the crowd erupted, flooding the field, along with assorted camera crews.

Lara’s record stood for almost 10 years, broken in October 2003 by Australia’s Matthew Hayden, who bullied a weak Zimbabwean attack and scored an unbeaten 380. Perhaps this rankled, making Lara determined to reclaim the record when the chance came six months later. In the same year, Lara also made the highest ever first-class score, an unbeaten 501 for Warwickshire against Durham.

If there are any common themes amongst the triple centurions, it is that there was sufficient time in the game for the feat to be achieved — all but two were scored in a first innings. They took advantage of the opportunity by dint of a mix of skill, good fortune, benign pitches, weakened bowling attacks and extreme physical effort. A number of players have fallen short, the saddest being Martin Crowe of New Zealand. In 1991, he edged to the wicketkeeper on 299. How that must have haunted him.