Didn't Chris cairns score 102* in a match in the 2002 VB series? Or did he score a hundred in the last ball of the innings? (I mean he scored the winning runs in the last over).
i think chetam sharma did it once.I don't remember the match.He hit a four to bring his maiden century on the last ball( Infact last ball was rebowled because it wasa wide)
Laxman's century is obviously very well deserved, but I find it apalling that it was the focus in the last over and if the commentators and journalists are right, Rohan Gavaskar took two singles to enable him to complete it. The focus, when playing against teams of the calibre of Australia has to be on scoring as many runs as possible. With two balls left, the batsmen should be focusing on hitting the maximum and not rotating the strike. What if Australia had won off the last ball and even one additional run would have mattered. Would Laxman's century have been praised then? I think it is high time the cricketers as well as the jornalists stopped focusing so much on centuries and more on team totals.
RE:Hundred of Last Ball
by Praveen on Jan 24, 2004 11:41 PM
It is good thinking by Rohan to give the strike to Lakshman for the last ball since he was timing the ball well. Lakshman was settled and was scoring his runs. Even if Lakshman had already scored his hundred, he would have given the strike to him. Moreover, if HUNDRED was Lakshman's target he would have hit a single off that last ball to get that comfortably..... Regards, Praveen.
