Very interesting. I feel Gavaskar's 100 should be removed from table 4 as he retired hurt, then came back, then stayed not out. So not a genuine case of carrying the bat.
[[
No, Gerry, I am not going to do it. The scorecard says Gavaskar not out 166 and the scorecard (the official file) does not have the retired hurt information. What you say is almost certainly true but I am going to leave this in since what do I know what happened in one of the earlier Tests. How do I verify.
Pl let go of this.
Ananth:
]]

A typically biased article from you Ananth, obviously designed to highlight your usual favourites - Read, Astle and Morris.
[[
Let the tongue come off the cheek !!!
Ananth:
]]

Hi Ananth,
A very nice article indeed.but i think u should have considered the both number of balls faced/Runs scored for TABLE 6 because this will include the low runs scored by Gambhir in Napier,though he played 430 balls thats almost 70 overs and saved the match for india and will include all those which are mentioned in the above table..in this way u can get more number of innings.Jus think about this suggestion.
[[
I have made this comment quite a few times. Balls played info is available only for about 25% of tests.
Ananth:
]]

Yet again ,a confirmation that V.Sehwag is among the greatest(if not the greatest) watch winners of all times. An analysis of the one day format on the same lines would be interesting too.

Fantastic article and stats Ananth. It surely does help in opening people's eyes that no of hundreds is not so important when compared to situations under which the hundreds are scored. Having a good technique and punching the best of the balls to the boundary does is eye catching but should not get anyone the "status-of-god".

A maximum of four? Hmmm - a little like sitting in the restaurant of the gods and being allowed a taste of only four dishes...and upon finishing wishing you`d ordered the lamb chops, or the garlic mushrooms, or the oysters naturale with a bit of lemon. Ah well, here I go. In no particular order, without explanation or apology, with an obvious bias towards those I watched live, with the great Dizzy Gillespie`s Double Ton still clear in my mind, here they are.

Botham 149, SR Waugh 200, Lara 277, Laxman 167 - Dave Bollen
[[
Being in a position of some control, I have nicely taken the way out by distributing my selections across the article. The wrong hundreds for the two L's, but there lies the charm. Yours will be the first RE in.
Ananth:
]]

I've been dying to get some stats. Let me know if you're okay with me asking for some stats from you. Take it as an "audience-request-for-an-article"

did rahul dravid's 190 and 103* in hamilton miss out the two hundreds in a match due to a 300 runs total cutoff?
[[
Yes, the line had to be drawn somewhere.
Ananth:
]]

even though you have limited it to scores above 150 i'd also like to add rahul dravid's 146* in the oval against england to the carrying bat through the innings section as he isn't a regular opener and also the bowling attack was pretty good
[[
The better idea is for you to contribute to the Readers' Entries selection.
Ananth:
]]

Hi ananth .... great work as always .... awesome amount of hard work ... i have no conflicts with nething written in the article ... just 1 query ... where does dravid's 180 in kolkata fit in the list of great innings??? just because laxman made 100 more runs (in a way it is just the number of runs that makes laxman's innings the best 3 of all time), does not mean dravid's effort is completely sidelined to a mere statistical detail .. it surely is (in my opinion) dravid's 2nd greatest innings (behind the twin 60s in bridgetown 2006) ... i personally would keep 232 at adelaide behind them as the bowling attack was not great ... we have seen how the absence of a certain mcgrath from the auusie team inspired the opposition men (edbagston 2005 being the best example)
...
[[
No one consigns Dravid's innings to the sideline. However it must be agreed that 100 runs is a lot.
Ananth:
]]

In the table where batsmen with two centuries in the same match I find it surprising that Javed Miandad'd name does not appear. He cracked 104 and 103* in what was the 1000th Test Match in the history of test Cricket against NZ in 1984-85. Can you have a look at it?
[[
The cut-off is 300 runs from the two innings combined.
Ananth:
]]

Great effort, as usual, Ananth.

My selection:
Lara 153* at Barbados vs Aus
Tendulkar 136 at Chennai vs Pak (2Ws, Saqlain, Afridi, Nadeem)
VVS 281 at Eden Gardens vs Aus
Sehwag 201* at Galle vs SL
[[
India-centric, but your selection will be respected and given its due place.
Ananth:
]]

PS: IMHO, fate / fortune played a part in separating Lara' brilliant, matchwinning 153* from Tendulkar's 4th innings epic 136. Healy dropped Lara off Gillespie when ~8 runs were needed, and the edge off McGrath just went past 1st slip when 3 were needed. On the other hand, Tendulkar (battling back spasms) was caught off Saqlain's doosra by Akram at mid-off when 17 were needed, and thereafter India's last 3 wickets collapsed for 4 more runs. Tendulkar made more than 50% of the target (271) after coming in at 6/2 and then seeing India fall to ~80/5, but the rest of the side made only 122. A great Test match despite the tragic finish for Indian fans.

Ananth, regarding Greenidge's 154* out of 550 in table 4, are you sure he carried his bat? Cricinfo scorecard says "retired not out" while it later has Andy Roberts not out with 1. The fall-of-wickets shows 1-296 (Haynes) followed by 1-301* (Greenidge, retired not out).
I checked because Greenidge appeared not the sort of batsman to have plodded to 154 while his team-mates blasted 396 at the other end. I remember Greenidge retiring in a Test to attend to his ailing daughter after a massive partnership with Haynes, but don't remember if it was this Test.
[[
I think this time I have to accept your suggestion. For me remaining not out is both "not out" and "retired hurt". For this table, I should have developed my selection parameter as "batsman_notout = notout" and not "batsman_notout = noy out or retired hurt". Silly oversight, but easy to do. Will remove Greenidge's entry since he has "retired hurt" and is not "not out" unlike Gavaskar, as pointed out by Gerry, who has remained "not out". Probably I would remove both.
Ananth:
]]

Great Analysis! I think it's going to take multiple readings to get it completely.
For now just a couple of comments:
1. In list #6 I was looking for Tendulkar's 176 at Kolkata against WI in 2002 and also Laxman's 100 in the same innings. Any reason that's not there?
[[
The arrears faced by India was only 139.
Ananth:
]]
2. I also wonder how Gavaskar's or M Amarnath's 1983 centuries against WI don't figure in list #5. Similarly Tendulkar's Melbourne 100 in 1999 or his 1992 centuries in RSA.
[[
In 1983, the Windian BQI values are 24.3, 26.6, 24.1 and 30.6. Excellent attacks but outside the cut-off value of 23.0.
At Melbourne Australia BQi was 24.9. Again very good, but outside.
Ananth:
]]
3. M Waugh's Port Elizabeth 100 in 1997 not in list #9 for some reason? (In fact that 100 is so similar to SRT's at Chennai in 1999. I guess the difference is only what the remaining players did after the main guy got out)
[[
Mark Waugh's 116 was in a winning cause and is in table 7. It is in fact one of my three selections in this table. Table 9 refers to match saving innings.
Ananth:
]]

Nice article Ananth, the selection criteria in most cases is easily understandable and the numbers do most of the explaining.

I like the fact that you have included Viv Ricahards fastest century in Table number 2. But the fact that the fastest century was just a special mention at the end of the table suggests that the criteria can be modified or improved.

I suggets that in addition to 250+ score, centuries scored at a strike rate of 150+ should also be included (I am sure it will not make the table too long). Otherwise the Table should be named "Only big hundreds at better than a run a ball".
[[
Not a problem at all. It can be a either or selection. Will update the table by morning.
Ananth:
]]

@Ananth: Super article.

1. Table 3 can be improved by adding one more column: ratio computed using RpW of the stronger side (stronger = more RpW in that match). This discounts big 100's scored vs poor teams.
[[
I am not ure about this. Since my next article is on "Batting performances by Pitch quality", a long-awaited article, I have been looking at RpWs, since this is the single defining measure.
The match RpW is the only correct basis.
Take the first Saf-Aus Test. The middle two innings' RpW value is 7.1, a way-out figure.. The first and last innings' RpW value is 43.3, again way-out, for the match. On the other hand, the match RpW is 18.9, almost perfect, placing Clarke's and Amla/Smith's innings in perspective. Still better is the Top-7 batsman match RpW, which is 23.4.
Ananth:
]]
2. Table 9 could include 3rd innings enforced by follow on. Gambhir's 11-hour classic certainly saved the match vs NZ.
[[
Let me see. The bar is now 250. If I change to 200 there would be many entries. However in Gambhir's case, it was not this deficit which was the problem. That was 314. It was the size of his innings, 137. The cut-off is 160. Only way out is to look at Blls faced. Then wnat about such efforts during 1950s. A conundrum.
The 155 was suggested only as an example. The 136 was against a much better bowling attack.
Ananth:
]]
3. You suggested SRT's 155 as an example. It is an excellent but majorly hyped up innings, IMO.

For what it is worth, my four in my preferred order :
Tendulkar 136, Gilchrist 149*, Laxman 281, Damien Martyn 104.

If the same question had been put to me some other time, except for Tendulkars and Laxmans, I would come up with different names. Lara's 153*. Ponting's 156. Sehwag's 201*. Kallis's 109*, Azhar's 109, G. Smith's 154*, Clarke's 151 and many more.

Nice article Ananth. Though i would be happy to see your articles starting without disclaimers of unbiasedness et al. I understand that there are accusations of bias et al but are they going to change despite your explanations ?
[[
While this may be an irritant to a few readers, I have at least managed to reduce such comments. One reason why this is constantly emphasized. If I never read any of the comments, as many Cricinfo columnists do, I would never bother.
Ananth:
]]

Grant and Andy Flower's hundreds against a Pakistani attack comprising of the two Ws in 1994-95 cannot be left out especially considering the fact that it enabled the babes of Test cricket to win their 1st Test. Similarly, Aamer Sohail's 105 against Craig McDermott, Glen McGrath and Shane Warne the same season was scored when Pakistan had their backs against the wall. Aamer had a stiff neck and hence came in at no. 7 and shared a 196-run stand with Saleem Malik to save the match (and the series) for Pakistan
[[
If these are your selections, pl form a single line of 4 selections as done by Boll, Yogesh et al.
Ananth:
]]

When are you going to do a similar one for bowlers?
[[
Will do soon. Let us say, before the end of the year.
Ananth:
]]

Another excellent analysis. It is always the special hundreds that fans remember- not the boring ones in tall scoring matches where even the 3rd innings does not get completed. Lara's 400 does not find a place in any list and just as well, as it had no impact on the match.
[[
I differ slightly. If you see the scorecards carefully, the 375 was a no-value innings while the 400 match was almost won, but for Lara's own dropping of Vaughan at 23.
Ananth:
]]

Btw how about another selection criteria- hundreds that resurrected careers. You could include top batsmen whose careers were on a downward spiral with no tons in more than a year, and then, one ton propels their career forward. Mark Taylor's ton against England and Lara'a 213 which preceded his unforgettable 153 agaianst Australia come to mind.

Lovely article once again!

As much as statistics are part of the context of an innings or a game, I think they can't form the whole of it. It is difficult to pick *only* four great centuries, and as an Indian born in the eighties, I fear my choices will seem too obvious. Lara 153*, Laxman 281, Tendulkar 103* and Botham 149.

Yet, I think cricket's two most significant centuries are may not seem so obvious statistically, but they are significant because of what happened next: Basil D'Oliveira's 158 (at the Oval) and Kapil Dev's 175 (at Tunbridge Wells). Without that century, D'Oliveira's case to be included in the team on pure cricketing terms could possibly not have been made, and without Kapil's century, 1983 would never have happened.

Perhaps a column on centuries that changed the game, and maybe, the world as we know it? (:
[[
Unfortunately, a very subjective term of reference.
Ananth:
]]

May I strike a personal note? I work on a newspaper desk and leave office around 3-4am, which means I would ordinarily have entirely missed watching Lara's 153*. In late March 1999, however, I was laid low very badly with chicken pox. Amid the pain and fatigue, switched the TV on in the evening meaning to watch for an hour or so. Lara kept me awake till the early hours --- to my family's consternation. Even today I am thankful to the virus.
[[
I too stayed up and watched every ball. Died a thousand (okay, 120) deaths during the last 20 overs. I gave up when Ambrose was dismissed. How Walsh survived those 5 balls, is still the greatest miracle.
Ananth:
]]

Bannerman shouldn't be included in table 4: he retired hurt at seven down and didn't resume his innings.
[[
Thanks, David. This is similar to Greenidge's case, as pointed out by Arijit and Gavaskar's as pointed out by Gerry. I have since removed all three innings.
Ananth:
]]

Ananth, what a fantastic article. This one brings out some real batting gems.
Do the following qualify?
Ponting 120&143* vs SAF 2006 [#1780]
Ponting 103&116* vs SAF 2006 [#1792]
Ponting 149&104* vs WI 2006 [#1769]
Inzamam 109&100* vs Eng 2005 [#1772]
Dravid 110&135 vs Pak 2005 [#1741]
[[
Ravi, these are all two hundreds in a match. These do not meet the 300-run cut-off. If you want to send your selections, those should be individul hundreds.
Ananth:
]]

Great Article, many thanks. Been watching Test cricket since the early 90's. My top four hundreds are:

1. Lara 153* v Australia
2. Trescothick 180 v S. Africa
3. S. Waugh v England (forgot the score - got the hundred in the last over of the day - Sydney I think).
4. KP v Australia '05 - 158.
[[
At Sydney, during 2003, Steve Waugh scored 102 when Gilchrist also scored a 133 in 121 balls. Pl confirm whether you mean that. For the time being I will keep S Waugh and leave the score yet to be filled.
Ananth:
]]

..

Nice work again, Ananth!

Since a few others are going to mention, I'm gonna "ignore" Harvey's 151* against South Africa in 4th innings and Bradman's 270 in the 3rd Test against England when they were 0-2 in the series! Scorecards should explain the brilliance of both innings. But, it'd be interesting note that that was the only series in which Australia lost a Test match (or two) under Bradman's captaincy when batsGOD himself managed to bat at least once in the Test! ;)

Best 4 amongst the ones that aren't listed so far (tough, but just going with the ones that came to my mind):

Bradman 103*, Hughes 100*, Border 100*, Walters 104*

1. Bradman's 103* vs Eng @ MCG (during bodyline)
2. Kim Hughes' 100* vs WI @ MCG, in 1981
3. Allan Border's 100* (& 98*) vs WI @ Port of Spain, in 1984
4. Doug Walters 104* vs NZ @ Auckland, in 1974

Brief description for each innings is to follow:

Ananth, yet another wonderful analysis.
My comments/suggestions:
1. Filter out dead rubber centuries (for example laxmans 167). With very little at stake, these should not be rated.
2. Surprised to see so little of Kallis. You might want to include a category that gives special weightage to the context of the century. For eg: Kallis's hundred to practically save the series single handedly on a very difficult pitch after his side was effectively 60-5 on day 4 against #1 team India early in 2011 should have been in the list. (Which was also his second century of the match).
[[
Amit, this is not a Innings Ratings analysis. It is a collection of tables containing special hundreds. As and when I do an Innings Ratings work all these factors will come in. Anyhow what is a dead rubber. If you saw the last Tests of the Eng-Ind and Ind-Win series the last Tests had something at stake.
Ananth:
]]
3. Tendulkars 118 at Melbourne in 1999 was against possibly one of the best quality of bowling ever (Mcgrath, Fleming, Warne and Lee, who was lethal on his debut).Not sure why this didn't make it.
Thanks
Amit
[[
The Australian attack was very good and came in with a BQI of 24.89, just above the cut-off. Lee's debut Test so he gets his career avge which is 30.82. This pulls down the BQI. The other three were 25.41, 23.77 and 22.90.
Ananth:
]]

Good to see my boyhood idol Mark Waugh featuring in these tables.
A very underrated player who probably hit as many match-winning hundreds as anybody else during the 90s, generally against better attacks.

There was a commonly held belief in those days that when Mark Waugh hits a test century, Australia cannot lose. And they seldom did!

If only he had the hunger to make big hundreds (which he never did), he'd have a much better average.
[[
The casual manner of batting camouflaged the inside which had as much steel as his elder brother.
Ananth:
]]

A great 3rd innings hundred that's not there on the list is Ranji's 154* on debut at Old Trafford in 1896. Agree it doesn't satisfy your criteria. But it's worth a mention given that he had little support at the other end and the follow-on rules were different then.

Must've been a great innings under pressure. There was a lot of racial opposition to his playing in that test. It's too amazing for words really that a colored Indian man was allowed to play for the mother country when Queen Victoria was still enthroned!
[[
Yes, I can see where this comes from. Following on 181 behind, scoring more than 50% of the team's total and almost setting up an England win. Unfortunately this selection will require complex multi-factor work which I have stayed away from.
Ananth:
]]

..

1. Bradman's 103* vs Eng @ MCG (during bodyline)

40 wickets for 727 runs in a match involving Bradman, Hammond, Sutcliffe, McCabe should tell enough about the pitch!

Bradman was up against 4 of the 5 best English bowlers of Bradman's era before the war! Verity didn't play only because the pitch was so bouncy and England wanted to see blood on the pitch and they did by breaking Oldfield's skull and Woodfull's chest.

Worth noting that Bradman was bowled for a (golden) duck in the first innings (for him) of the bodyline Test. Obviously, nobody else scored a 100! Only two innings of 35+ from both sides. Series-levelling 100 and was the only Test Australia won in that entire series!

2. Kim Hughes' 100* vs WI @ MCG, in 1981

This time, 782 runs for 40 wickets in a match involving Border, King Richards, Haynes, Lloyd! Walking in at 3 for 8, and soon 4 for 26! Forget all that!

Bowling attack of: Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft at bouncy and pacy MCG!

..

[continues]

When Aus were 9 for 155, Hughes was on 71. Kim played some marvellous strokes, reaching his hundred with a breath-taking square cut for 4 off Garner in the series opener. As always, DK Lillee captured the day by bowling King Richards off the last ball of Boxing day, leaving West Indies at 4 for 10 - before going on to break Lance Gibbs' Test record of 309 wickets by taking his last career 10-fer! Once again, only win for Australia in the series.

3. Allan Border's 100* (& 98*) vs WI @ Port of Spain, in 1984

If a career can be defined by one match, this was IT for AB!

98* and 100* in almost 600 balls spanning 11 hours against Marshall, Garner & Wayne Daniel in Port of Spain without offering a single chance to keep the series alive.

My selection are as following
1.Laxman 281
2.Lara 153*
3.Gooch 154*
4.Dravid 270
[[
I would be proud to own this selection.
Ananth:
]]

Laxman because he turned the Indian fortune to make it No.1 side 9 years later. Lara was simply great. Gooch did not watch it but since Wisden top-100 in 2001 had learned so much that cant keep it out.Dravid's 270 made sure that gates were shut on Pakistan for India's first series triumph on their soil.(Though his 148 at Headingley was much braver innings).

..

[continues]

4. Doug Walters 104* vs NZ @ Auckland, in 1974

To put that innings in perspective, 18 wickets fell on day 1 for 306 runs when Walters made that attacking 100 against Sir Richard's bowling on wet pitch after the curator let the watering of the pitch too late in its preparation!

Walters went in to bat at 4 for 37; and scored an unbeaten 104 off 138 balls with 15 FOURs. In the first two innings of the Test, only 3 other batsmen scored more than 13; and nobody else made even a 50!

Not to mention, series was leveled!

Honourary mention:

Bruce Laird's 122 against WSC West Indies (attack: Holding, Roberts, Croft & Collis Kind). Laird opened the batting and Australia were 5 for 32 at one stage with other 5 scoring: 1 (Ian), 7, 7 (Greg Chappell), 2, 3!!!!

..

My apologies about the "blood" part!

Woodfull got hit under the heart at MCG, but Oldfield's skull incident was Adelaide in the next Test!

@Ananth & shrikanthk: I don't understand why the readers are asked to contribute (if they want) at most 4 "best" innings. That is futile since it tough enough to choose 200 "best" innings. You had articles on the best 1st/2nd/3rd/4th innings, and each recd over 100 suggestions from the readers (I batted heavily for Ranji's 154* back then and it still did not make the cut). Those are very good suggestions and can help you revise the Wisden 100. So, I fail to understand why readers are now encouraged to nominate 4 "best" innings.
[[
For once, Alex, you are off the mark.
Where have I said that ereaders should nominate the four "best" innings. I have asked readers to come out with their own selections. That is all. Until now not one selection of four has been similar to someone else's. This is not a silly popularity poll from which I would do a compilation and nominate one as the best innings. I would have to have lose most of my marbles before contemplating such a process.
If your four are "Agarkar's 100, Redmond's 100, Symcox's 100 and AL Mann's 100", I would respect your selection as quirky but your own in terms of unlikely hundreds and publish the same.
Ananth:
]]

Great article Ananth..

I don't know if this is the right place to post this..but I was wondering if this is possible for Cricinfo..

Some people believe that in ODIs, Tendulkar slows down his innings when he approaches a century..is there a way to get some stats on his strike rate from 0-85 and 85-100 in his centurion innings?
[[
Not with my database. I do not have and do not have access to the ball-by-ball database. I will forward your request to Rajesh, the Stats Editor.
My gut feel is that the window of 85-100 is too narrow. Also it is the pattern for players to have a slower start and then speed up.
It may be a better idea to compare the scoring rates for hundreds, for the career and the non-100 innings, which I myself can do, will do and post the figures.
Ananth:
]]

My 4 are Gavaskar 121 in Delhi v/s 1983 West Indies; Sobers 132 in Brisbane, 1960; Fredericks 169 in Perth; Azhar Mehmood 132 v/s South Africa in Durban. All unique. These are some of the less famous knocks also. The first three were exceptionally fast centuries considering the bowling and the times (1960 century of Sobers was a game changer after a decade of slow scoring), and the last was a unique effort with the tail.
[[
When my Wisden-100 table rated Azhar Mehmood's 132 in the 7th position, this was the innings, along with Clem Hill's 188, which I had to explain to many people. One modern classic which many people were unaware of.
What happened to Azhar. He played 21 Tests and had three top quality hundreds, all against South Africa. Trust Pakistan to somehow squander away talent like Azhar's.
Ananth:
]]

Hi Ananth
1950 january-Durban SA 311(Eric Rowan 143).Australia 75 all out(Tayfield 7wkts) SA99 all out.Australia requiring 336 get it losing 5 wkts-Neil Harvey 156 not out against Tayfield,Mann and McCarthy-one of the finest hundreds and best 4th innings in test cricket.
Does it not qualify because they won by 5 wkts?
Raghunath
[[
Yes. If you look at the selection statement carefully, it reads "wkts>=6 || runs>349". In other words a tough chase either because 6 or more wickets had been lost or more than 350 runs had to be scored. This innings falls just below. But Harvey's innings deserves inclusion especially because the innings itself exceeds 150. I will include it.
Incidentally this Test bears a very close resemblance to the recently concluded first Test. Reasonable first and fourth innings and two sub-100 middle innings.
Ananth:
]]

Hi Ananth,

A fine piece to continue the thought process from the previous article. While table no. 4 (carrying the bat), by its own nature can only account for Opening batsmen, I have a concern about table -2 - hundreds scored at less than a run-a-ball. I believe figures for exact number of balls faced are not available for matches played before the 70s, with only no. of minutes at the crease accounted for. Did you consider such innings' (extrapolating minutes at the crease to balls faced) for table no.2? And if you did, did you find any innings that might have been worth a mention? It's just that I feel this table will obviously include names for whom records of number of balls faced is available.
(I believe once Charles Macartney once scored 151 in 172 minutes for England v Australia, Headingley in 1926, which might have taken less than Trescothik's 151 in 148 balls).
[[
This is an occupational hazard, the number of Tests for which the balls played information is not available.
Re Macartney, extrapolating, I can see nearly 120 overs bowled on the first day, during which 366 runs were scored. The 3-hour innings would have required about 60 overs and Macartney should have scored at or better than run-a-ball.
Ananth:
]]

My top 4 hundreds would be:-
Lara 153* vs Aus ,Atherton 185* vs SA, Hughes 100* vs WI, Laxman 281 vs Aus

my selection will be
sehwag vs Sl 201*
laxman vs aus 281
dravid vs pak 270
sehwag vs aus 151
top 2 match winning rest two match saving.
[[
India-centric, but a wonderful quartet neverthless.
Ananth:
]]

Bradman was up against 4 of the 5 best English bowlers of Bradman's era before the war! Verity didn't play only because the pitch was so bouncy and England wanted to see blood on the pitch and they did by breaking Oldfield's skull and Woodfull's chest

This is not entirely accurate.
The Melbourne pitch was pretty flat and favoured spin! Bill O'Reilly won the game for Australia with a 10 wicket haul.

England misjudged the pitch and thus left out Verity to play 4 quick bowlers. This was the only time Bradman faced a four-pronged pace attack in his career.

Also, Larwood had problems with his foot during this innings which reduced his effectiveness. Not to take away anything from Bradman though. A great innings. Period.

By the way, Woodfull and Oldfied were struck on the heart and head respectively during the Adeleide test which followed. Not in the Melbourne test.

I am puzzled as to why Greame Smith's 156 against England in 2008 to win a series away for the 1st time is 33 years is not included here against a good attack?? Anyway super article
[[
Almost similar to the Raghunath comment.
Smith exceeds 150 runs, the chase less than 300 runs and won with 5 wickets to spare. Probably like Harvey, deserves a special mention.
Ananth:
]]

my 4

1. Sachin's 136 India at chennai ... the greatness of the innings is often diminished by the fact that India lost ... but isin't that the real charm ... i find it amazing ... in most cases, greatness get magnified when other around you fail, but the opposite happened in this case ... this innings according to me has the same touch as bradman's almost 100 average, and at the risk of being killed, sachin ending his career at 99 hundrers ...
2. Gooch's 154 - possibly the highest quality innings, if not the best innings ever ...
3. lara's 213 (in the match preceding 153) .. in terms of sheer quality, this innings is almost equal to 153 ... and this came in the very next innings after they were shot out for 51 ... so the stakes were a little higher i guess ...
4. Laxman's 281 - takes the cake over botham's 149 ... people almost always think of the circumstances .. follow on and stuff ... but the boqling attack was almost invincible .. mcgrath, warne, gillespie at his peak ..
[[
Excellent collection.
Ananth:
]]