I have narrowed the list down to six particularly worthy worthies -- or, at least, those that I think will be the most popular among the voters.
Bradman's world record stands as a behemoth. It comprised almost sixty per cent of Australia's first innings, in which only two others surpassed fifty. The English attack wasn't half bad either, comprising such men as Hammond, Larwood, Geary and Tate. The fact that Bradman had his triple ton by the close of the opening day is also difficult to ignore.
Hammond's crusade was every bit as wondrous and magisterial as it has been made out to be, but, against an attack spearheaded by Badcock and Dunning, the task was far easier for him than for most of the others on the list. The bowling was wretched, the wicket a mattress and the fielding abysmal: he was dropped innumerable times.
Hanif Mohammad's triple-ton was not as dominating as the previous two, but a dominating innings would have been completely out of place in the context of a match in which his own team had been ruthlessly dominated. Of all the rearguards in Test history, this one stands sovereign. 970 minutes is just preposterous.
Lawrence Rowe's knock was a bona fide masterpiece, perhaps the beau idéal. It illustrated perfectly what could and should have been. It was not the fastest nor the most heroic, but, as a objet d'art, it is without equal. Never, perhaps, has an innings been more perfectly constructed. The opposition attack was stronger than most on this list, and the wicket was by no means a snooker table. That England's first innings was a footslog may be viewed as proof that run-making was not quite so easy as it usually is in matches containing triple centuries. Where none of his opponents managed a strike rate of even fifty, Rowe flew along at over seventy.
Lara's 375 was at once a patient, autocratic, skilful and imperishable exemplification of greatness. England's attack was decidedly limited, but not hopeless. The Antigua deck, however, was an aberrancy, just as it was when he outdid both himself and that Hayden pretender ten years later. Although it was obviously a great innings, it is obvious, from this abridged list alone, that there were numerous greater.
All of which leaves us with Sehwag's blitzkrieg. Granted, it was compiled on a bowlers' graveyard, but the South African attack was arguably stronger than that which any other triple-centurion had to counter. It was an innings with everything that made the others great and more: for a time, it was a rearguard effort; it was scored at more than a run a ball; the opposition was formidable; he never looked like getting out; there was not a single moment he was not dominating; and it entertained the pants off me.
Sehwag it is.
One of the least politically correct comments Ive seen on here
