Addressing this question precisely as posed, and in consideration of the historical perspective of the 9th century Anglo-Saxons (who were quite active in transcribing their history and literature, during this period), I would say the answer has to be no in that particular case, simply because the notion of centuries as meaningful historical units which connote the passing of a particular age was not one familiar to them.

Calendar years are used regularly, of course, to describe the passing of time (signified as pl. wintra more often than pl. geara, actually). They are transcribed in Roman numerals, or (more often) fully represented in words. And Old English numerical reckoning is perfectly capable of describing numbers into the hundreds of thousands (as necessitated by biblical purposes). So that is no impediment.

But the idea of the century as a clever way to round off a time period into a discrete era with historical significance seems to have had no appeal at all. As much as usage supports and attests the description of time periods constituting exact multiples of one hundred years perfectly well (þreo hund geara = "three hundred years", and what have you), where there is any opportunity to offer greater precision, this is offered. Furthermore, most attestation of year multiples of one hundred comes via translation of religious texts, which consequently imply nothing with respect to the Anglo-Saxon perspective on historical reckoning.

The idea of counting centuries in terms of their proximity to the present is even further off the mark, as far as what was practised. We see the years of the reigns of kings used as demarcations along the way. And of course years of the conventional (Anno Domini) sort. But "before our present century" is not a concept familiar to the Anglo-Saxon historiographical culture.

Well, some people must have felt relief. The 8th century saw some attempts to calculate when the world would end and people like [Beatus of Liébana] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ovuao/la_reconquista_was_reconquest_a_term_used_at_the/d4huyxo) came to the conclusion the Sixth Age of Man would end in the year 838 of the Spanish era, that is 800 AD. At some point Beatus became so convinced the world was ending that he is said to have gathered all the parishioners in a church for the Easter service in 800 and suggested they start praying and preparing to die. They spent a day and a half in there until someone cried out 'Well, let us eat and drink. When the world ends, at least we'll die on a full belly'. (The story is told by Eliprandus of Toledo who was the archenemy of Beatus so is highly unlikely to be true, though.)

Looking at the work of Carolingian historians, and particularly at the Annales, there seem to have been little interest in calculating time as we do today, i.e. from the birth of Christ. They marked the years more for convenience, but besides dating from the Jesus' birth, they seemed to have equal attention to indictions, that is fiscal periods of fifteen years. Documents recorded again the Christian year, besides the year of the reign of the local monarch. One gets the feeling that the average Joe had little grasp of these calculations and was more interested in the time within the year, i.e. seasons and festivities. Besides that, there was a lot of disagreement even on the start of the year: some had it begin on the Calendae of September (1st day), others on the Day of Announcement (March 25th).

Again, looking at the Annales, the big divides to mark Ages were considered mostly deaths and coronations of monarchs, battles or invasions. When centuries turned, there were no comments from the authors and all attention was on the events. On the other hands, it was often recorded in any year where monarchs spent Easter or Christmas, such was the priority in Medieval minds.