... after avoiding a duck seven consecutive times/seven times in a row

[thehammer]

Which one is correct?

1- Ajit Agarkar celebrated in joy after avoiding a duck seven consecutive times.
2- Ajit Agarkar celebrated in joy after avoiding a duck for the seventh consecutive time.
3- Ajit Agarkar celebrated in joy after avoiding a duck seven times in a row.

 

[5jj]

All are OK, though I'd say joyfully rather than in joy..

 

[Tarheel]

Celebrating is something we only do when we're happy about something. We almost always omit the "joy" part. Why? When we said "celebrate" we have in a sense already said that.

 

[Barque]

This is based on a real-life incident that you haven't described correctly. None of those sentences mean what you want them to mean.

An Indian cricketer called Ajit Agarkar was dismissed seven consecutive times without scoring (a 'duck' in informal cricket terms), in matches against Australia. On the eighth occasion, he managed to score, and celebrated.

Ajit Agarkar celebrated [joyfully/in joy] after avoiding an eighth consecutive duck.

Your sentences mean something completely different. They mean he didn't score a duck seven consecutive times. For anyone with reasonable batting ability, that's quite normal.

 

[Tarheel]

Let me put this in baseball terms. Seven times in a row the player made an out. (No reason to celebrate.) On the next at bat he homered. (Celebration!) Do I have that right?

 

[Barque]

On the next at bat he homered.

In cricket terms, he didn't strike a home run. He just scored a single run (which I think is the equivalent of getting to first base), after which he celebrated, and then scored a few more.

 

[emsr2d2]

@thehammer I have spent a considerable amount of time improving many of your thread titles but you don't seem to have got the hint. Please make sure you use at least part of one of the sentence you are asking us about as your title. Look at the changes I've made to your last few titles and you should get an idea of what you ought to be doing.

 

[Tarheel]

In cricket terms, he didn't hit a home run. He just scored a single run (which I think is the equivalent of getting to first base), after which he celebrated, and then scored a few more.

OK. A "run" in baseball and a "run" in cricket are not equivalent terms. I have a lot to learn.

 

[emsr2d2]

You can't equate getting a run in cricket to getting to first base in baseball. In cricket, once both batsmen have run to the other end of the wicket safely, that run is complete. It's more akin to a home run.

 

[Barque]

In terms of scoring, they may be similar. In terms of effort or skill, I'm not so sure.

Scoring a single in cricket is a relatively simple thing--you hit the ball out of reach of the fielders long enough that you can run about 20 yards (which I believe is less than the distance between bases). You can get a single off a mistimed shot or an edge too.
But when you hit the ball out of the field, you get six runs.

 

[emsr2d2]

In terms of scoring, they may be similar. In terms of effort or skill, I'm not so sure.

Scoring a single in cricket is a relatively simple thing--you hit the ball out of reach of the fielders long enough that you can run about 20 yards (which I believe is less than the distance between bases). You can get a single off a mistimed shot or an edge too.
But when you hit the ball out of the field, you get six runs.

Try telling the England cricket team that getting a single is relatively simple!!

The distance between the two wickets is certainly shorter than that between the home plate and first base. As long as the bat connects with the ball and you're not caught out, you can run (if you want to) so yes, a mistimed shot or an edge is fine.

If the ball crosses the boundary without bouncing first, it's worth six runs (and the batsmen don't have to run at all).
If the ball crosses the boundary but has touched the ground beforehand, it's worth four runs (and the batsmen don't have to run at all).

It's a cricket pitch, not field, by the way.

 

[Barque]

Try telling the England cricket team that getting a single is relatively simple!!

The England men's team has been doing better than any other for the last year or so.

It's a cricket pitch, not field, by the way.

In cricket, unlike soccer, the pitch isn't the entire playing area, but only the narrow 22 yard strip between the wickets. The entire playing area is the ground or field.

 

[emsr2d2]

In cricket, unlike soccer, the pitch isn't the entire playing area, but only the narrow 22 yard strip between the wickets. The entire playing area is the ground or field.

I stand partly corrected. Our local cricket team do play at XXX Cricket Ground. Whatever it might say on Wikipedia, general members of the public don't refer to it as a cricket field - despite the non-batting team's players being called "fielders"!

 

[Skrej]

I once had a deer hit my vehicle, so I was envisioning an avian version of something like than when I read this thread title. I was rather disappointed to learn it's just a sporting term.

No, I didn't type that wrong. I did not hit the deer. It hit me. I was stopped. The deer was not.

I had stopped because I saw the herd coming full tilt across the field towards the road and wanted to avoid a collision. (I was going slow on a gravel road anyway). Most jumped the ditch and safely crossed well ahead of me. One navigated less well, and jumped the ditch straight into me.

We made eye contact through the windshield. It gave me a dirty look and swore at me before storming off. I think it may have insulted my mother as well, but I don't speak the language adequately. Context and gist was enough that I expected at least a lawsuit later on, but I guess the buck stopped there.

It may have been a doe, though. I saw nostrils, not genitals.

 

[Barque]

3- Ajit Agarkar celebrated in joy after avoiding a duck seven times in a row

This is ambiguous. It could also mean that he avoided a seventh consecutive duck. But most people wouldn't understand it that way. It sounds as if he avoided a duck seven times, which isn't what actually happened.

 

[probus]

You can't equate getting a run in cricket to getting to first base in baseball. In cricket, once both batsmen have run to the other end of the wicket safely, that run is complete. It's more akin to a home run.

This displays an ignorance of baseball (though that is quite forgivable in an English person). A home run in baseball is like a six in cricket: the batter has knocked the ball right out of the field of play on the fly.

 

[Barque]

A home run in baseball is like a six in cricket: t

Good to come across a North American who understands cricket!

 

[Tarheel]

Good to come across a North American who understands cricket!

That must be a rarity.

 

[emsr2d2]

This displays an ignorance of baseball (though that is quite forgivable in an English person). A home run in baseball is like a six in cricket: the batter has knocked the ball right out of the field of play on the fly.

I'm fairly familiar with baseball and have been to several games in the US. I said it wasn't the same as getting to first base (which is what another user suggested). As far as I'm aware, a home run is any situation in which the batter hits the ball in a way that allows them to reach the home plate. It doesn't have to be hit clear out of the field of play (although that's normally what happens).

 

[Tarheel]

@emsr2d2 Yep. That's called an inside the park home run, and it's a rarity. Why is it a rarity? Well, if the ball stays in play the odds are they will either get the batter out or hold him to a single. (Doubles and triples are also possible but less likely.)