Hitting 300 in a test match isn't as impressive as it used to be

 
Whilst the Reverse Sweeps sends hearty congratulations to Chris Gayle for hitting his second test score of 300+ against Sri Lanka last week and for consequently joining an exclusive club with only three other members - Bradman, Lara and Sehwag, who have scored two test triple hundreds, we believe the achievement is somewhat diminished in the modern era.

The fact that three members of this club have achieved their feats in the last 20 years points to conditions being more conducive to batsmen today then at any time in cricket history. Indeed 13 of the 24 test triple hundreds made since the first ever test match in 1877 - see list here - have been made since 1990 and nine since 2000.

That is pretty staggering. 11 in 113 years and 13 in the 20 years since. Even when you factor in the increased frequency of test matches since 1990 that is a pretty damning statistic. It could have been worse too. AB De Villiers probably would have become the 25th on Sunday if Graeme Smith hadn't declared with De Villiers unbeaten on 278.

Is it not now time for the ICC and cricket authorities worldwide to start levelling up the balance again between bat and ball?

Where next?

All-time West Indies XI

10 reasons why Don Bradman is the greatest of them all

Comments

[Vim]

Would you be writing this if an English player made 2 300's instead of Chris Gayle?

[The Reverse Sweep]

Yes Vim, although the chances of an English batsman even hitting one 300 are pretty low.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to diminish Gayle's achievement - it is fantastic - it's just that with the number of scores of 300+ getting more and more frequent, it is not such a special feat any more.

For once, I am siding with the bowlers!