Posted by Ollie Pope made a jaunty hundred, so you’re supposed to talk about that. It’s just that Ollie Pope doesn’t open the batting the way Ben Duckett opens the batting.
Ben Duckett at times talks such A-grade bollocks that it can be easy to forget that opening the batting like an insane person is absolutely 100% working out for him.
Today England lost Zak Crawley in the very first over of the match. As Crawley’s opening partner, what Duckett is supposed to do when that happens is dig in, be watchful, weigh up conditions and see off the new ball.
Digging in for Ben Duckett means hitting the second, third, fourth and fifth balls you face for four.
When an opening batter gets to 16 off five balls, the obvious question is, “Why didn’t you leather the other one to the fence as well?”
The answer is that it was out of reach. Ben Duckett is quite possibly the most ball-hitful opener in the history of Test cricket (the stats say he leaves only around 1% of deliveries), so the ball being literally out of his reach is pretty much the only scenario where he won’t hit it.
Further reading: In Ben Duckett and Zak Crawley England finally have an opening partnership that doesn’t play each ball on its merits
Future reading: Our email
Similar deliveries:
In Ben Duckett and Zak Crawley England finally have an opening partnership that doesn’t play each ball on its merits
If Ben Duckett tipped a drink over someone’s head, here’s what England should do…
Is it possible to bat with the conviction of Ben Duckett yet talk with the bleak defeatism of the average England fan?
I have just noticed that your comments section, KC, encourages the reader to “Leave a Reply”.
That might explain why Ben Duckett has never commented on this site…
…he doesn’t know the meaning of the word “leave”.
I think it’s only seeing Duckett next to Pope that really rams home that the former is genuinely quite short. When he’s stood next to Crawley he looks tiny but that’s an unfair benchmark (although of course one of the joys of sport, as in many other fields of human endeavour, is seeing a tall person stood next to or interacting with a short person, of course).
I think you’ve mistakenly posted the wrong link, AP. It should be this one:
http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/how-tall-is-james-taylor/2012/08/01/
There are so many great examples to choose from, Sam, but obviously for pure artistry that one is hard to beat.
Why is England cricket in England so unwatchable outside England? I mean I’m able to watch all sorts of cricket around the world by ‘certain means’ when I’m outside their respective countries, but to try and watch or listen to England playing in England is impossible.
…although by the sounds or it, it would make me sad seeing West Indies not really giving England a run for their money, at all.
Will have to stick to the Kenya vs Nigeria ODI, or maybe watch the Tour de France as they’re going uphill today which is more interesting than along a flat bit, and difficult to beat Phil Liggett’s observations of wildlife and oddly arranged haystacks.
We cannot answer that, but feel your frustration.
Haven’t watched any of it but the scorecards suggest Kenya-Nigeria has been a really good series so I hope you enjoyed it! The fact that it’s now such an even match-up between them is positive news in terms of the growth of cricket in Nigeria… but a bit of a kicker for anyone who’d love to see Kenya in another World Cup semi-final.
Nigeria were a little short by a mere 197 runs, but it’s always pleasant to watch a match in another country, particularly in Africa.
Was following the Scotland vs Namibia ODI game, but am somewhat losing interest now that Namibia are 9 for 3 at the time of typing.
Calypso collapso! That was a cracking Test Match.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/22/very-strange-speed-dating-ecb-aims-to-accelerate-hundred-investment
Yes, what cricket needs is more people involved who aren’t really sure what it is but have a strong interest in making money out of (one very specific part of) it. That should help.
I worry about the incentives created if investors have a stake in the success of one particular competition rather than, say, domestic cricket overall. Seems to encourage a land-grab/’cannibalisation’ approach that would be in tension with the long-term sustainability of English (and Welsh) cricket as a whole.
Yep. the ECB director of business operations was just on the radio saying how encouraged he was by the interest in the 100 from investors around the world. And simultaneously saying no the competition didn’t need the money, but yes the “landscape” of international cricket leagues “will shift” in the next few years and so actually the 100 does need more money and new tactics to survive. So it sounds like they are comitted to keeping the 100 going. There were stats about what % of ticket are bought by “females” and families, but no comparison given to e.g. T20 Blast, Tests, etc
The tone of the whole conversation seems to be the ECB going “these guys are just queueing up to give us money, this is ace!” without putting any thought into what the consequences of taking said money would be.
Also, the idea that the investment is needed because it’s a boom time for T20 leagues around the world does slightly suggest some kind of crunch time coming along at some point.
I’ve pretty much made my peace with the hundred eating up a chunk of the summer and now just enjoy having cricket on free to air TV, but this is only going to make it all way more annoying.