In the sport of cricket, a batsman reaches his century when he scores 100 or more runs in the innings. It is regarded as a landmark score (the closest equivalent for bowlers would be either five wickets in an innings or ten wickets in a match) and recorded in players' statistics. However, scores much higher than 100 are regularly achieved. A double century (individual score of 200 or more) or triple century (300 or above) is highly prized, although they are not categorised seperately in a player's standard batting statistics and they do occur not infrequently in first class and Test cricket. The highest first class score is the only quintuple century ever achieved, 501*, and the highest Test score is the only instance of Test quadruble century, 400*, both of these scores being achieved by the West Indian batting legend Brian Lara.

Few batsmen of real talent end their international career without a century, although when it does occur it is regarded as a pity. Pointedly, several players have recorded a top score of 99 (e.g. the Kenyan-born New Zealander Dipak Patel ) or even 99* (e.g. the England bowling all-rounder Alex Tudor ) without ever completing a century. The controversial but brilliant Australian leg-spinner Shane Warne, normally considered an out-and-out bowler rather than an all-rounder, was dismissed for a top score of 99 in a Test, but still plays regular Test cricket. In theory he could still reach a century in future, but in practice this seems extremely unlikely, and he will probably have to make do with having set a world record number of Test wickets with his bowling instead.

It should be noted that most afficionados of the game believe that the quality of a batsman's innings can not really be judged by whether or not it crossed over an ultimately arbitrary numerical threshold, and the batting conditions, strength of the opposition bowling attack and state of the match ought to be taken into account. In particular, large scores on good pitches while facing substandard opposition are thought to be worth less than vital battling innings in low scoring matches in difficult conditions. Statistics may conceal as much as they convey. The number of centuries, supposedly the most prestigious of batting landmarks, scored by a batsman may be seen as far less important than the number of homeruns hit is in assessing a baseball batter.

No article on centuries in cricket would be complete without mentioning the record of Sir Don Bradman, the Australian almost universally regarded as the greatest batsman in the history of the game. His batting average in Test cricket was a monumental 99.94, and it would have been in three figures had he only scored four runs in his last innings. However, he fell second ball without scoring, which has only added to his mystique. Andy Ganteaume did manage to record a three-figure Test average — he played only one match for the West Indies, and only batted in one innings, yet in that innings he struck 112 runs.

The concept of the century usually has a psychological effect on batsmen that the captain of the fielding side is keen to exploit. Batsmen often slow down and take less risks as they approach their century (especially as they pass through what are known as the "nervous nineties"), so their opponents may set deliberately defensive fields to slow them down further, hoping that frustration and nerves will get the better of them and they'll take on an unnecessarily risky shot in order to try to pass the landmark. A batsman's troubles do not end there — cricketers are disproportionately likely to be dismissed shortly after making a century, presumably because they lose concentration. Considerable scorn is directed at those cricketers who consistently make this mistake (they are criticised for failing to convert their centuries into game-changing scores), but also at those cricketers who take extra defensive care when approaching their century without keeping in mind the context of the match situation, which may demand more urgent play. Such cricketers are regarded as playing for themselves (or their average) rather than the team. Critcisms of this sort have been made about batting greats such as Geoff Boycott and Jacques Kallis; they also help to explain why Andy Ganteaume, apparently so unluckily, was never asked to play Tests for the West Indies again.