PDA

View Full Version : Difference between a triple and double century


Tigers_eye
April 4, 2008, 10:16 AM
Is not 100.
the Doubles are more of a match winning knock. The triple pushes you towards a draw unless against minnows.

Spitfire_x86
April 4, 2008, 10:36 AM
A triple century is also rarer than a test victory

Tigers_eye
April 4, 2008, 10:40 AM
A triple century is also rarer than a test victory
Absolutely. There is only 23 triple hundred scored in test history. So as a player which one he should go after? A (double) win (not garanteed though) or a triple?

Tigers_eye
April 4, 2008, 10:42 AM
I think the triples are over-rated.

Fazal
April 4, 2008, 11:05 AM
Is not 100.
the Doubles are more of a match winning knock. The triple pushes you towards a draw unless against minnows.

Agree 100%


Double centruy is equally good for the team as well as for the player personally (and fans) and have some significance in game outcome. One the other hand a Triple Century is only good for the Player, their fans and for the stat; No real value in outcome of the game itself.

Therefore double century may do more good to team than a triple century.

Shehwar
April 4, 2008, 11:21 AM
U ppl!...Let me tell u the difference....The Difference between a triple and double century is 1 run! When u are on 299 its a double but when u score 1 more run its triple! Problem solved!.

bharat
April 4, 2008, 11:22 AM
Good post ..Lara if he were not the captain would not have had the 375 and 400.He literally killed the match for the records.

Hard to see a non-captain break the record unless its a maniac like Shewag.But again I dont think he can do it again.

Speaking of Captains I remember Mark taylor declaring when he was at 336 and dint go for the 365 record of Sobers.Now I call that selflessness.

Sovik
April 4, 2008, 11:34 AM
Good post ..Lara if he were not the captain would not have had the 375 and 400.He literally killed the match for the records.

Hard to see a non-captain break the record unless its a maniac like Shewag.But again I dont think he can do it again.

Speaking of Captains I remember Mark taylor declaring when he was at 336 and dint go for the 365 record of Sobers.Now I call that selflessness.

lara wasn't captain when he scored 375. you can bash lara as much you can but i believe he did the right thing. there's only one player didn't go for the record and that was mark taylor.

Tigers_eye
April 4, 2008, 11:37 AM
Shehwer is correct. Only one run. :)

Out of the 23 triple hundreds, 15 of them resulted draw (includinging Mark Taylors 336*). Among the seven that had results,
1. Sobers's one came on six day (if counting the break day it would be seventh day).
2. L Hutton's was in 1938.
3. Edrich's came against NZ (minnow back then).
4. Hayden's came against Zim.

So basically 3 out 19 triples were worth a winning knock.

Jayawardene 374 against SA at Colombo '06.
Gooch 333 against India at Lords '90.
Inzi 329 against NZ at Lahore '02.

bharat
April 4, 2008, 11:48 AM
lara wasn't captain when he scored 375. you can bash lara as much you can but i believe he did the right thing. there's only one player didn't go for the record and that was mark taylor.

maybe you are right on the 375, was in the mid 90's I guess.But where am I bashing Lara ...common..why do you have to defend evrey non-Indian and bash every Indian.

This forum is surely going in the wrong direction ...not the same as it used to be around 3 years back when I joined ...phew

Sovik
April 4, 2008, 11:54 AM
no body was bashing any indian batsman, i just told you the fact

MohammedC
April 4, 2008, 12:11 PM
U ppl!...Let me tell u the difference....The Difference between a triple and double century is 1 run! When u are on 299 its a double but when u score 1 more run its triple! Problem solved!.

299 reminds me of Martin Crowe

Check his stats (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/newzealand/content/player/36622.html)

Sovik
April 4, 2008, 12:13 PM
299 reminds me of Martin Crowe

Check his stats (http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/newzealand/content/player/36622.html)

and bradman and he was not out

Spitfire_x86
April 4, 2008, 12:41 PM
So basically 3 out 19 triples were worth a winning knock.

Jayawardene 374 against SA at Colombo '06.
Gooch 333 against India at Lords '90.
Inzi 329 against NZ at Lahore '02.
+ Sehwag's 309 against Pakistan.

And don't forget that a triple can also be a match saving knock. Without Sehwag's 319 India could've lost the 1st test, as the rest of their batsmen didn't bat too well. The same can be said about Lara's 400, considering how well his team fared in that test series without his contributions. Even after his late declaration, they had 2 and half days to bowl out England twice.

thebest
April 4, 2008, 01:47 PM
+ Sehwag's 309 against Pakistan.

And don't forget that a triple can also be a match saving knock.
Not sure of the ones you mentioned as those were "what-if" but H Mohammad's 337 was definite one and only one in the team's second innings and possibly fourth innings of the test.

Kabir
April 4, 2008, 02:05 PM
maybe you are right on the 375, was in the mid 90's I guess.But where am I bashing Lara ...common..why do you have to defend evrey non-Indian and bash every Indian.

This forum is surely going in the wrong direction ...not the same as it used to be around 3 years back when I joined ...phew

Bharat...aren't you over-reacting?

I guess it'll be right to say that your post is going in the wrong direction...nobody bashed an Indian player here.

And when it comes to Sehwag - I'll still maintain that he's an overly mega ultra over-rated player, and lacks many of the basics. Now don't ask me why he's here...may be he just manages to play with the "mental" part of his abilities.

al Furqaan
April 4, 2008, 08:19 PM
Shehwer is correct. Only one run. :)

Out of the 23 triple hundreds, 15 of them resulted draw (includinging Mark Taylors 336*). Among the seven that had results,
1. Sobers's one came on six day (if counting the break day it would be seventh day).
2. L Hutton's was in 1938.
3. Edrich's came against NZ (minnow back then).
4. Hayden's came against Zim.

So basically 3 out 19 triples were worth a winning knock.

Jayawardene 374 against SA at Colombo '06.
Gooch 333 against India at Lords '90.
Inzi 329 against NZ at Lahore '02.

the sehwag one could have been a winning knock given it was the fastest one by far. over a run a ball. had he taken 100 more balls to score the same runs, it could still have been a winning knock. the pitch killed the game, result wise.

but then again, on another pitch sehwag would have scored less than 319, perhaps 313 less.:umm:

auntu
April 5, 2008, 03:06 AM
300 goes to only class players

Ishtylish cricketer
April 5, 2008, 09:01 AM
Unless you can play with a high strike rate you won't be able to make 300. All the players who made 300s play fast. Jaques Kallis, Dravid, Jaffer, etc don't have 300 because they are too tired to continue after their 200 because they've exausted all their energy trying to get to 200. In Kallis's case he is still not made a 200. Someone like Shewag who relies mainly on boundaries and during his knock of 319 was still fresh after 200. In fact he was sprinting for doubles in the 250s. 300 demoralises the opposition so it can't be that bad and to suggest that 200's are always match winning is simply not true. Whether it's against a minnow or a top team not many can get 300. I know Hayden's 380 came against Zimbawae, others 300 were against good teams with good fast bowlers.

James90
April 5, 2008, 09:03 AM
Agree 100%


Double centruy is equally good for the team as well as for the player personally (and fans) and have some significance in game outcome. One the other hand a Triple Century is only good for the Player, their fans and for the stat; No real value in outcome of the game itself.

Therefore double century may do more good to team than a triple century.
I daresay if Sehwag had kept going on day four, India would have been able to declare and set South Africa four sessions to bat. The way it turned out India was going to have to bat again and that contributed to the game just dying on day five. It certainly wasn't easy for South Africa to draw that game either. They had to score 700 runs or so themselves which in most instances would be enough to win.

I certainly do see cases of teams batting on for too long (Lara's 400, Taylor's 334 - even though he eventually declared on himself it still went on longer than it should have). I don't think this test was one of those cases.

Aritro
April 5, 2008, 09:26 AM
This is why I usually get myself out in the 290s

auntu
April 6, 2008, 04:05 AM
This is why I usually get myself out in the 290s

:floor::floor::floor:

ja koilen ...

al-Sagar
April 6, 2008, 08:20 AM
well think of this

5 batsmnan scring centuries to score 600 for the team in the 1st innings
2 bastman scoring double to score 600 for the team in 1st innings
1 batsman scoring 300 to score 600 for the team in 1st innings

in all these case these are situations created for winning.... now itsa up to bowlers.

now if a team score 500-600 in the 1st innings then the other team needs to avoid defeat or get into a winning position then someone has to score those triple centuries.

remeber as well as scoring a big score you need to bowl well.

Tigers_eye
April 7, 2008, 12:39 PM
+ Sehwag's 309 against Pakistan.

And don't forget that a triple can also be a match saving knock. Without Sehwag's 319 India could've lost the 1st test, as the rest of their batsmen didn't bat too well. The same can be said about Lara's 400, considering how well his team fared in that test series without his contributions. Even after his late declaration, they had 2 and half days to bowl out England twice.
You bring an excellent point that I didn't think of. A 300+ knock can save a team from an heavy defeat. wow!!

A would like to rephrase my previous comment.
"So basically 3 out 19 triples were a winning knock and 2 triples were match-saving knocks." :)

MalikBro
April 7, 2008, 01:57 PM
There is a huge different between triple and double century, but usually triple century win you match or atleast bring team is in good position and set opponent in under pressure situation to survive. I'd prefer a century in sporting pitch than triple century in flat dead track which is completely dead end for fast bowlers. Inzimam inning unbeaten 92* was best of all the times faced SA in SA and same goes with Mohammad Yousuf with his double century in England pitch although it was flat pitch, but had little bounce for fast bowler.

MysoreHuli
April 12, 2008, 07:45 AM
lara wasn't captain when he scored 375. you can bash lara as much you can but i believe he did the right thing. there's only one player didn't go for the record and that was mark taylor.


but he was when he score 400 and he killed the match....

Rabz
April 12, 2008, 01:49 PM
Absolutely. There is only 23 triple hundred scored in test history.

You learn something new everyday.
I didnt know that.

Thanks Mr.Eye. :)

Sovik
April 12, 2008, 02:43 PM
but he was when he score 400 and he killed the match....

say he declared and windies won the game, what would have been the outcome of the series.