Skip to content
CricketTaken

India Test most ducks: All-Time Records

By CricketTaken EditorialPublished Cricket in India9 min read

How this is written and checkedReport an error

Ishant Sharma was out for nought 34 times in Test cricket for India, from 142 innings. That is the most by any India player, and it is very nearly one innings in four. Zaheer Khan is second on 29, Jasprit Bumrah third on 28 from only 78 innings, and the pattern of the list is established immediately: this is a leaderboard of fast bowlers.

There is nothing surprising in that, and the page would be dull if it stopped there. A number eleven who plays a hundred Tests will collect ducks in volume because he faces good bowlers with the field up and has never been picked to bat. The duck count for a tail-ender is closer to a measure of longevity than of failure.

The names worth stopping on are the ones that do not fit. Virender Sehwag is tenth with 16, Virat Kohli fourteenth with 15, Sachin Tendulkar eighteenth with 14 and Sunil Gavaskar twenty-fifth with 12. Those are top-order batters with long careers, and their positions on this list say something quite different from Ishant's.

Most Test ducks for India

Rank Player Span Matches Innings Runs Batting average Ducks Ducks per innings
1 Ishant Sharma 2007-2021 105 142 785 8.26 34 24%
2 Zaheer Khan 2000-2014 92 127 1231 11.95 29 23%
3 Jasprit Bumrah 2018-2025 52 78 348 6.56 28 36%
4 Bhagwath Chandrasekhar 1964-1979 58 80 167 4.07 23 29%
5 Bishan Bedi 1966-1979 67 101 656 8.98 20 20%
6 Harbhajan Singh 1998-2015 103 145 2224 18.22 19 13%
7 Mohammed Shami 2013-2023 64 89 750 12.09 18 20%
=8 Anil Kumble 1990-2008 132 173 2506 17.77 17 10%
=8 Mohammed Siraj 2020-2026 48 65 192 5.05 17 26%
=10 Virender Sehwag 2001-2013 103 178 8503 49.43 16 9%
=10 Kapil Dev 1978-1994 131 184 5248 31.05 16 9%
=12 Erapalli Prasanna 1962-1978 49 84 735 11.48 15 18%
=12 Dilip Vengsarkar 1976-1992 116 185 6868 42.13 15 8%
=12 Virat Kohli 2011-2025 123 210 9230 46.85 15 7%
=15 Dilip Doshi 1979-1983 33 38 129 4.60 14 37%
=15 Pankaj Roy 1951-1960 43 79 2442 32.56 14 18%
=15 VVS Laxman 1996-2012 134 225 8781 45.97 14 6%
=15 Sachin Tendulkar 1989-2013 200 329 15921 53.78 14 4%
=19 Srinivas Venkataraghavan 1965-1983 57 76 748 11.68 13 17%
=19 Javagal Srinath 1991-2002 67 92 1009 14.21 13 14%
=19 Chandu Borde 1958-1969 55 97 3061 35.59 13 13%
=19 Sourav Ganguly 1996-2008 113 188 7212 42.17 13 7%
=23 Mohinder Amarnath 1969-1988 69 113 4378 42.50 12 11%
=23 Cheteshwar Pujara 2010-2023 103 176 7195 43.60 12 7%
=23 Sunil Gavaskar 1971-1987 125 214 10122 51.12 12 6%
=26 Maninder Singh 1982-1993 35 38 99 3.80 11 29%
=26 Vijay Manjrekar 1951-1965 55 92 3208 39.12 11 12%
=26 Ashish Nehra 1999-2004 17 25 77 5.50 11 44%
=29 MS Dhoni 2005-2014 90 144 4876 38.09 10 7%
=29 Ajinkya Rahane 2013-2023 85 144 5077 38.46 10 7%

Ducks per innings is rounded to the nearest whole percentage point and is calculated on total innings, including not-outs.

Rate, not total: who was actually dismissed for nought most often

Player Innings Ducks Ducks per innings
Ashish Nehra 25 11 44%
Dilip Doshi 38 14 37%
Jasprit Bumrah 78 28 36%
Bhagwath Chandrasekhar 80 23 29%
Maninder Singh 38 11 29%
Mohammed Siraj 65 17 26%
Ishant Sharma 142 34 24%
Zaheer Khan 127 29 23%

This table uses a twenty-five innings minimum, because a duck rate over a handful of innings tells you nothing. Even so, every name in it is a specialist bowler, and the ordering is close to a ranking of who batted lowest for longest.

Ashish Nehra's 44 per cent is the highest rate in Indian Test cricket among players with a meaningful sample: he was dismissed without scoring in nearly half his innings. Jasprit Bumrah's 36 per cent is the highest among players with more than fifty innings, and his career is still running.

Bhagwath Chandrasekhar is a special case even among bowlers. He finished with 167 runs from 80 innings at 4.07, having been born with a right arm affected by polio, and his batting was never any part of why India picked one of the finest wrist-spinners the game has produced.

The batters on the list

Batter Innings Ducks Rate Career average
Virender Sehwag 178 16 9% 49.43
Dilip Vengsarkar 185 15 8% 42.13
Virat Kohli 210 15 7% 46.85
Pankaj Roy 79 14 18% 32.56
VVS Laxman 225 14 6% 45.97
Sachin Tendulkar 329 14 4% 53.78
Sourav Ganguly 188 13 7% 42.17
Cheteshwar Pujara 176 12 7% 43.60
Sunil Gavaskar 214 12 6% 51.12

Virender Sehwag's nine per cent is the highest among India's great batters and is entirely consistent with how he played. An opener who attacks the new ball from the first over will be dismissed for nought more often than one who does not, and the same method produced two triple-hundreds. The ducks and the triple-centuries are the same decision seen from two ends.

Sachin Tendulkar's 14 from 329 innings, a rate of four per cent, is the lowest of any India batter with more than 200 innings. Pankaj Roy's 18 per cent is by some distance the highest of any specialist batter here, from a career opening the batting for a weak India side in the 1950s against Lindwall, Miller, Trueman and Statham.

What a duck actually costs

A duck is the most visible failure in cricket and one of the least informative. A batter dismissed for nought in the first over of a Test has failed once; a batter who makes 12 has also failed, and the difference between them is almost nothing in the match. India lost Tests in the 1950s with three ducks in an innings and won Tests in the 2000s with two.

The figure that would matter more is where the ducks cluster — whether they fell overseas against the moving ball or at home, in first innings or fourth. That split is not visible from career totals, and this page does not claim to compute it. Anyone drawing conclusions about a batter's temperament from a duck column alone is reading more than the number contains.

Three observations

Nine of the top ten by total are bowlers, and the one exception, Virender Sehwag, is there because he faced more new balls than almost anyone. Read the total column as an index of how many innings a player batted low in the order, not as a record of failure.

The rate column reverses the ranking almost completely. Ishant leads on total with 34 but sits seventh on rate; Nehra has a third as many ducks and the highest rate in Indian cricket. Both figures are true, and they answer different questions — one about a career's length, the other about a player's batting.

India's modern tail is dismissed for nought more often than its historical one, on this evidence. Bumrah at 36 per cent and Mohammed Siraj at 26 sit above Bedi's 20 and Prasanna's 18. Spinners of the 1970s batted more and faced the new ball less, and the shift toward four-seamer attacks has changed what a number ten and eleven are asked to do. The bowling careers behind these figures are ranked at India Test most wickets, and the fast-bowling story is on the fast bowling evolution page.

The batting counterpart to this page is India Test best batting average, and the spin tradition that produced Chandrasekhar and Bedi is covered on the spin bowling tradition page. Careers are indexed at the player directory, and the wider setting is at the cricket in India hub.

Sources and method

All duck totals come from ESPNcricinfo's Statsguru career records for India men's Test cricket, read in August 2026 and covering matches to that date. Only Tests played for India count.

A duck is a completed innings of nought. An innings in which a batter is not out without scoring is not a duck and is not counted, which is the standard convention. Ducks per innings divides ducks by total innings including not-outs, so the rate slightly understates the proportion of completed dismissals that were ducks; it is presented this way because innings is the figure Statsguru publishes alongside the duck count.

The rate table applies a twenty-five innings minimum. Below that threshold a duck rate is dominated by sample size — a bowler with four innings and two ducks would head the list — and the ranking would be meaningless. Where this page attributes a duck rate to batting position or era, that is an interpretation offered to explain the number rather than something the figures themselves establish.