Talk:Duck (cricket)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] King Pair
I moved (and slightly altered) the king pair definition to the most common usage. A king pair was originally first ball of the team innings only but that is so very rare that a golden duck in both innings by any batsman (as opposed to only the number 1) is often referred to as a king pair - I suppose mainly to differentiate it from from a normal pair. Wisden and cricinfo have many references to lower order batsmen getting a king pair.
[edit] Sapphire duck and other sundries
I've often heard being run out without facing a ball referred to as a "sapphire duck". My brother vehemently insists this is true and refuses to accept "diamond duck" as a term. Which is correct?
Re: King pair. Is it just going out for a golden duck in each innings? I've also heard that it's something to do with getting dismissed by the same bowler for a duck in each.
Is there a term for longer sequences of ducks? For a while Mark Waugh was nicknamed "Audi" because he scored four consecutive ducks. I wonder if there's grounds for borrowing from ten pin bowling and calling three ducks a "turkey"?
-- Bricks J. Winzer 08:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I just saw someone posted a comment on the main article about the Turkey of ducks. Then I saw my old comment here... surprised to see someone added Turkey to the article! I'd only made it as a discussion point on this talk page, not as fact :) - Bricks J. Winzer 03:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then take it out before it misleads people! How about calling five consecutive ducks an Olympic, after the symbol? - AG, Stockport.
-
- I believe Mark Waugh earned the nickname Audi after scoring four consecutive Test ducks on a tour of the sub-continent. Dannow 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Esoteric ducks
I've played village cricket and watched English county and Test cricket for 30 years, and read many books on the game in winters, and I've not heard of the more esoteric ducks mentioned here. They are not named in the Laws of the game, and their use in cricketing tradition must be so sparse that I am not sure they should appear in Wikipedia. I support ducks, golden ducks, pairs and king pairs, but should we go beyond that? Do others feel the same way but perhaps are reluctant to admit ignorance? Ultimately this is about authority - in differences of opinion like that between the two brothers, above, who decides who is right, and on what grounds? - AG, Stockport.
- I think there is space for it... perhaps they should all be clarified as "Irregular ducks" and a note made that they're local names applied to them, and are not canon with laws of the game and such... different places may or may not recognise diamond/sapphire ducks or silver ducks.
-
- I'd say that duck/golden duck and pair/king pair are common usage. Diamond duck though rare is something I've heard of and has a cite. The other more esoteric ones really need to be cited I think so I've added the tags as appropriate. As to which ones we should include beyond the obvious its really not up to us.... its down to wether they have been used in context by a reputable source. --LiamE 10:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Famous ducks
Mention the most significant examples? The key duck in cricket history was Don Bradman's last Test innings, dragging his Test batting average below 100 (though almost 40 more than any other batsman). Graham Gooch got a pair in his first Test. The ultimate duck is to get out to the first ball you face in first-class cricket. Has anybody done this, and what might be an appropriate term? - AG, Stockport.
40 more than any other batsman? Leave it out, Hussey has an average of 86 (100-86=14, not 40!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.81.216 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's not forget opener Marvan Atapattu, dropped after his first three tests for boasting an average of 0.17 : five ducks and a 1 from six innings. Aspirex 10:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources?
As things stand, this article is completely unverified, which is not a good state of affairs. "Duck" itself, "golden duck", "pair" and "king pair" shouldn't be too hard, but some of the others seem dubious to say the least. "Sapphire duck", for example, records no appropriate Google hits that aren't from Wikipedia or its mirrors, and having "often heard" it referred to (see above) isn't going to cut it. Unless someone can find an acceptable source, it should go, and that refers also to "black duck" and the like. Verifiability is an absolute policy requirement. Loganberry (Talk) 01:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've added the {{unreferenced}} tag for now, but I'm very much inclined to cut this article down quite a bit, leaving only the types of duck for which references can be found. I can't see any justification for leaving in the likes of "sapphire duck" which are, at best, extremely rarely used. Loganberry (Talk) 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Right, I think three-and-a-bit months is long enough to wait. Unless some verifiable sources are given for things like "sapphire duck", then I'm going to be bold and have a go at rewriting the whole article, including only those facts which can be backed up with references. Loganberry (Talk) 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rewrite now complete. Loganberry (Talk) 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right, I think three-and-a-bit months is long enough to wait. Unless some verifiable sources are given for things like "sapphire duck", then I'm going to be bold and have a go at rewriting the whole article, including only those facts which can be backed up with references. Loganberry (Talk) 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ducks column
Could we perhaps create a column inside a cricketers stats on their page displaying how many ducks they've scored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.69.113 (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)