LONDON: One of cricket’s complexities for those unfamiliar with the game is its use of language.

Over the years everyday words have assumed a new identity in the hands of lawmakers and administrators. These words have been perpetuated by players, spectators and reporters to create a mystique. Their origins may appear to be unfathomable, even inexplicable. One of those words — duck — has developed as a perfect example of cricket’s penchant for euphemism.

Any player, at any level, in any format, lives in fear of the ignominy of being dismissed without scoring a single run off his or her own bat. In such an event it feels like a long walk back to the pavilion, a walk that is usually accompanied, at best, by complete silence and, at worst, by jeers and the sound of a quacking duck.

The sight of the dreaded zero against one’s name on the scoresheet is unwelcome for the batter, although the bowler and fielders will have a different perspective. It is believed that scorers in cricket’s early days referred to zero as a duck’s egg, because of its resemblance in shape. Around 1863, the shortened version was adopted. This is probably as well because, since that time, 10 different types of duck have evolved.

A dismissal off the first, second or third delivery faced, without scoring a run, is termed, respectively, a golden, silver or bronze duck. This evokes synonymy with Olympic-level awards, although there is no kudos associated with a duck compared with an Olympic medal.

However, a duck can sometimes invoke pathos. In his final Test match innings at The Oval, London, Donald Bradman required four runs to secure a Test average of 100. Allegedly with tears in his eyes after being applauded to the wicket, he missed the second delivery from leg spinner Eric Hollies and was bowled without scoring. His Test career average was stuck forever on 99.94.

Although Bradman’s dismissal is classed as a silver duck, the term is rarely used. The same applies to bronze duck, but golden duck is in common usage throughout the cricketing world. Numerous examples abound. In men’s Test match history, Muttiah Muralitharan holds the record for the most golden ducks, 14 out of his total of 33 ducks. 

Courtney Walsh of the West Indies achieved the highest number of ducks in Tests, 43, of which 10 were golden.

England’s recently retired fast bowling duo of Stuart Broad and James Anderson made 39 and 34 ducks in their Test careers, of which 19 were golden.

Unsurprisingly, 60 percent of players with the highest number of ducks are primarily bowlers. There are some exceptions: the Waugh brothers, Steve and Mark, who scored 52 centuries between them, notched up 22 and 19 ducks, respectively. Even the great Sachin Tendulkar suffered 14 in his 200 Tests. In Mark Waugh’s case he suffered four consecutive ducks against Sri Lanka in 1991/92. His teammates awarded him a temporary nickname — Audi — based on the car producer’s four-ring logo. If Waugh had suffered a fifth consecutive duck, the nickname Olympic awaited. It did not happen to him, but it has to three players.

When a player scores a duck in both innings of a match, it is termed a pair, as two zeros resemble a pair of spectacles. Graham Gooch, who went on to be England’s leading run scorer and captain, scored a pair in his first Test match and was dropped. Ian Botham, one of England’s greatest players, was dismissed for a pair at Lord’s in July 1981 when captaining the team. When he left the field after his second dismissal, I can vouch that it was to the sound of silence. How different to the acclaim he received at Headingley two weeks later after scoring an unbeaten 149 and having resigned the captaincy.

If both dismissals are off the first ball of the innings, the outcome is termed a king pair, a fate which has befallen 24 players in Test cricket. Surprisingly, the most recent was the prolific Travis Head of Australia against the West Indies at Brisbane in January 2024.

One of the most remarkable cricketers to have suffered a king pair must be Robert (Bob) Crisp for South Africa at Durban in February 1936 against Australia. Some 35 years ago I attended a football match between Colchester United and Aldershot FC. A conversation was struck up with the Colchester chairman who seemed more interested in talking about cricket than football. Trivial questions were swapped, culminating in him asking me if I knew the identity of the only person to have a Test match king pair, who had climbed Mount Kilimanjaro twice, been awarded a Military Cross, a Distinguished Service Order and mentioned in dispatches for tank warfare. It was his father, Bob Crisp.

Another type of duck is a diamond, used to describe the unfortunate situation when the batter is dismissed without facing a ball. The name reflects its rarity. Angelo Mathews of Sri Lanka was timed out during an ODI World Cup match against Bangladesh last November. Although he was at the wicket to face his first delivery, he was denied the opportunity, a very rare event. A more likely diamond dismissal is where the new batter is the non-striker, is called for a run and fails to make ground at the other end, thus being run out.

A variation on diamond is titanium when the batter is dismissed for zero on the first ball of the team’s innings without facing a delivery, most likely run out. A royal duck occurs when a batter is dismissed without scoring from the first ball of their team’s innings. Conversely, a laughing duck occurs when a batter is dismissed for nought on the very last ball of the innings.

When I first started playing cricket I do not recall a duck having variations. Dates when the variations were introduced are hard to identify. It is reasonable to assume that some have been applied retrospectively to records. However, it remains the case that whenever a batter fails to score a run at any point in the innings, it is an unpalatable experience, whatever its name.

LONDON: English county side Essex have been fined £100,000 ($131,000) after admitting a failure to address “systemic” racist language and conduct at the cricket club between 2001 and 2010.
Half of Essex’s fine is suspended for two years and the county have also been cautioned over their future conduct after being reprimanded by the Cricket Regulator (CR).
The CR panel said the length of time covered by the charge and the systemic use of racist and discriminatory language suggested a culture that was “embedded” across most levels of the club.
The panel added: “This conduct continued without meaningful challenge from either Essex’s management or other senior playing members of the club even when it was brought to their attention.”
The panel accepted in mitigation Essex’s early admission of the charge and the punishments handed to individuals arising from the separate independent review commissioned by the club.
The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB)’s own investigation had been prompted by allegations of racism made by former players Jahid Ali, Maurice Chambers and Zoheb Sharif.
ECB chief executive Richard Gould said: “Racism has no place in our sport. I’m appalled by what those who experienced racism at Essex have been through, and the way this behavior could become normalized.
“It is vital that as a sport we listen and learn from their experiences, and ensure that no one suffers like that again.
“I welcome the action Essex has taken in recent years to address these issues and become a more inclusive club, and the commitment it has shown to make further progress.”