Recent Posts

The Ashes 2009 news


Cricket news

2009 County Cricket


Matthew Hoggard




Is that a podcast in your pocket, Sunny?

By Will 3 years ago, mid-January Add your comment below

Apologies for the crude title. Apparently, Sunil Gavaskar is podcasting. I daren’t listen. Brave souls who venture further may report back here in the comments…

[via Rick (ta)]

Related posts:

  1. Let’s podcast - a cricket radio show

Tags: , , , , , |

10 Responses to “Is that a podcast in your pocket, Sunny?”

  • Hammy wrote:
    January 15th, 2006 at 10.47 pm

    Got a question for you Will - if a batsman, ala Jacques Kallis in the one-dayer against Australia, is run out for nought having faced only one ball, and the runout is not effected on the first ball faced, has he still scored a golden duck? Technically he wasn’t out first ball.

    I have played in a game where one batsman scored a platinum duck - run out without facing a ball.

  • Will wrote:
    January 16th, 2006 at 9.18 am

    Good one, Hammy..leave it with me

  • Wraye wrote:
    January 16th, 2006 at 12.04 pm

    Hi Hammy and Will, just had a chat with some of my scoring colleagues and the general consensus is that this would not be a Golden Duck. I know a player who was run out for 3 off the first ball and this was not a golden duck. The usual definition of a GD is that it should be out by the batsman’s fault. Furthermore, stumped off a wide first delivery is also not a GD as a wide is not a legal delivery, so the batsman hasn’t officially faced a ball - get it? Scorers don’t normally use the term “platinum duck”.
    The exception to this rules - including run-outs, probably only applies if you are a member off the Primary Club and wish to donate cash.

  • worma wrote:
    January 16th, 2006 at 1.23 pm

    Wraye : “The usual definition of a GD is that it should be out by the batsman’s fault.” - what if it was the batsman’s fault in the runout(as the non striker)? ;-)

  • Wraye wrote:
    January 16th, 2006 at 3.19 pm

    Ok Worma, you’re right, I did not phrase that properly. There is nothing in the Laws about Golden Ducks. They are a humorous invention to give us a laugh when a player does something dumb first ball and gets out. It’s not a technical thing. If you DO want to get technical though, my definition would be that the batsman on strike had failed to defend his wicket (been stupid) at the first legal instance for doing so.
    Stupidity is the main criterion, I believe. A batsman run out before he faces a ball is more to be pitied, than ridiculed.

  • worma wrote:
    January 16th, 2006 at 4.16 pm

    LOL..I get the point (although I can still go on about the level of ’stupidity’ invovled in getting out to a 150kph Lee yorker ;-) )

  • Zainub wrote:
    January 16th, 2006 at 7.48 pm

    I’ve never understood why it’s called a golden duck, I’m fine with duck, that’s a very ingenious terminology actually, but why golden, why not blue, red, green, or any other colour, why golden. I don’t like golden as a colour.

  • Hammy wrote:
    January 16th, 2006 at 9.44 pm

    Thanks fellas. That all makes sense.

  • Wraye wrote:
    January 16th, 2006 at 9.47 pm

    point taken, Worma :)

    Zany, you get the idea of a duck meaning 0 as in 50-love in tennis, right? Comes from the French l’oeuf for egg. Gold is a precious metal, so getting someone out for 0 first ball is pretty well precious for the bowler. That’s all I suppose.

  • Zainub wrote:
    January 17th, 2006 at 5.57 pm

    I knew the reasoning behind duck , but thanks for reminding anyway.

    Why Gold? Platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium, ruthenium, and silver are all precious metals.

  • Comments


    Receive email updates on new comments


    « Is Michael Hussey the new Michael Bevan? | Main | C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre »