MITCHELL JOHNSON: Ben Duckett’s decision to sit out the IPL to focus on England should be applauded

Ben Duckett’s decision to pull out of the Indian Premier League next month won’t grab headlines the way a hundred or a match-winning innings does, but it should.

In a time where franchise cricket continues to grow and the money attached to it keeps climbing, this is the kind of call that tells you a lot about a player.

Duckett didn’t dance around it either. He said exactly what you’d want to hear: representing England is something he’s dreamed of since he was a kid, and he wants to give everything to that.

For England fans that will mean a lot with Duckett coming off a disappointing maiden Ashes tour where he failed to fire in at the top of the order and only averaged 20.20.

That’s not just a line for the media. The important part is that he backed it up with action. Walking away from an IPL contract isn’t easy. It’s not just money, it’s exposure, it’s opportunity, and in many cases, big financial gains off the pitch as well.

We’ve seen this before with players such as Mitchell Starc. He’s made similar decisions around prioritising Test cricket for Australia.

Fans notice that. They want to see the best players available for their country, especially in Test cricket.

Not every player will go down that path, and that’s fine. The modern game gives players options we never had before. But when someone does make that call, it stands out.

Because let’s be honest, the perception now is that money drives the game. Franchise leagues, particularly the IPL, have changed the landscape. They’ve created financial security and opportunities that are hard to ignore. So when a player openly says, “I’m putting my country first,” and then follows through, it’s reassuring.

As a former player, and even just as someone who still cares deeply about the game, you want to see that. You want to know that wearing your country’s colours still means something. That it’s not just another fixture in a packed schedule.

What makes Duckett’s decision even more interesting is the potential fallout. There’s always talk about players being blacklisted or overlooked in the future by franchises if they pull out. And if that is the case, then it raises bigger questions about the power these leagues hold.

While I understand auctions take place and there are strategies and planning involved, there should be an understanding when a player makes an important decision like this.

Duckett has done everything right. He’s been upfront, he’s been respectful, and he’s even apologised to his Delhi franchise. That tells you he understands both sides. He’s not dismissing the IPL, he’s just making a choice about what matters most to him right now.

And that’s the key point. This isn’t about saying one format or competition is better than the other. It’s about priorities.

Every player will have their own. Some will chase the financial security that franchise cricket offers. Others will chase the legacy that comes with representing their country over a long period. Neither is wrong. But the balance is shifting, and decisions like this bring that into focus.

It also puts a spotlight back on what’s happening at home in Australia. When you see players such as Duckett or Starc making these calls, it naturally leads to questions around our own system.

We’ve seen situations where players are unavailable for Australia but then appear in the IPL shortly after such as Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood (both affected by injury ofcourse). Sometimes it’s timing, sometimes it’s injury management, but from the outside, it can be hard to understand.

Fans notice that. They want to see the best players available for their country, especially in Test cricket.

Maybe this is where the conversation needs to shift toward the contract system. The current model might not be keeping up with where the game is heading. If players are making decisions based on availability and workload that lean toward franchise cricket, then perhaps it’s time to look at how we incentivise playing for Australia.

One idea, and it’s a simple one in theory, is moving toward a pay-per-game model. Make each appearance for Australia significant financially. Reward players directly for being on the park, across formats, based on the calendar.

It wouldn’t be straightforward, and it would need to be structured properly, but it’s the kind of thinking that might be required. Or Cricket Australia needs to stand firm on their contracted players. You sign a contract for Australia or not. Because the game is changing, whether we like it or not.

What Duckett has done is remind everyone that, despite all of that, playing for your country can still be the top priority.