Nightwatchman theory ...

[GuyFromLancs]

Is that your standard response to someone who happens to share a different opinion to you?

GFL, I agree with you, hate the idea and always have. One of the first things Andrew Strauss wanted to address as captain was the use of nightwatchmen as he wasn't in favour either. He raised it at a team meeting and got shot down from all corners........apparently it's never been discussed since.

No doubt from self-interested batsmen

 

[zaremba]

@ Riggins -

A fair point - it's a reflection of the fact that he's being played out of position. The real reasons why it's (generally) a bad tactic are different and have already been touched on.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Yeah so a drop in average of 2 runs isn't a sign that it's a failure.

There are other reasons, as mentioned above

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Here we are

 

[Riggins]

@ Riggins -

A fair point - it's a reflection of the fact that he's being played out of position. The real reasons why it's (generally) a bad tactic are different and have already been touched on.

Yea I understand the arguments for both sides and I don't really have a concrete opinion either way, just play it by the situation. I was just pointing out that the tailender's batting average is in no way evidence against it, particularly when the nightwatchman making a duck the next morning would still be seen as a success.

 

[GIMH]

I think there are times when it's a worthy tactic but that we use it almost by default. I mean we used one for Broad in the summer ffs, and I think against New Zealand when we had a massive lead batting in the 3rd innings?

Personally agree with it being used in circumstances like the 1st innings here though it does leave the scorecard awfully lopsided the next day. Mind you, our batsmen do that for us anyway.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Yea I understand the arguments for both sides and I don't really have a concrete opinion either way, just play it by the situation. I was just pointing out that the tailender's batting average is in no way evidence against it, particularly when the nightwatchman making a duck the next morning would still be seen as a success.

A batsman's exact position in the order can be debated for months, only then for all discussions to be rendered redundant by sending in a nightwatchman

 

[Riggins]

What?

 

[GIMH]

What?

He's referring to the Bell at 3 debate presumably

 

[Riggins]

So the argument against night watchmen is that it makes it slightly less easy to assess players stats at a specific position?

 

[GIMH]

I dunno about you Riggins but I feel it's a debate we need to have

 

[wiff]

I'm not sure we should be looking at what the nightwatchmen's average is decreasing by,
but rather what the protected batter's average is increased by (if any).

I'm in favour of night-watchmen, it adds drama and comedy.
Has there ever been a nightwatchman before a lunch break?
Instead of nightwatchman, the sacrificial batsman who comes
in before lunch could be called the lamb sandwich (or such like).

 

[Jono]

People always talk about a nightwatchman when it fails but never when it works.

 

[zaremba]

I'm not sure we should be looking at what the nightwatchmen's average is decreasing by,
but rather what the protected batter's average is increased by (if any).

I'm in favour of night-watchmen, it adds drama and comedy.
Has there ever been a nightwatchman before a lunch break?
Instead of nightwatchman, the sacrificial batsman who comes
in before lunch could be called the lamb sandwich (or such like).

I think Middlesex under Brearley used to do this on occasion.

 

[zaremba]

People always talk about a nightwatchman when it fails but never when it works.

We're talking about it in this thread and I'm not aware of it having failed recently (other than the fact that it's always a fail, even when it works, if you see what I mean).

 

[fredfertang]

I think Middlesex under Brearley used to do this on occasion.

Reading Lawyers CC adopted this tactic once against Yattendon CC in the late 1980s when I was sent in at number three just before tea, rather than my usual place in the bottom three. Yattendon were noted for having two distinctly sharp bowlers, and also for producing the finest cricket teas in the area. The West Berkshire equivalent of Lillee and Thomson were known to be fond of their refreshment and the theory was that stuffed full of cake and ale they'd be about half pace afterwards - having got through the pre tea session and a few overs after I was able to confirm to our skipper that although he knew **** all about the game of cricket he had had that one spot on - they were about half speed after the break

 

[Jono]

We're talking about it in this thread and I'm not aware of it having failed recently (other than the fact that it's always a fail, even when it works, if you see what I mean).

True, Anderson survived in the most recent case so it didn't "fail" in that sense but it didn't prove to be a great move because Bell didn't score any runs the next day. So it didn't do anything or wasn't proved to be a success. Had Bell scored runs I doubt people would have credited Anderson going in as a good move though.

In any case, important to note a nightwatchman going out before the end of play doesn't mean it is a failure, unless a batsman comes in and then goes out afterwards. So long as the batsman on the other end and the batsman due to come in are not out from when the nightwatchman comes in, it works.

I think whether a nightwatchman is a sensible idea depends on the specific batsman due to come in, the time left in the day, the match situation, the ability and batting style of your tailenders etc.

I can see why people don't like it - its a bit of a contradiction in that you send your openers out there and risk their wickets with a few overs left but aren't willing to risk your number 3 or 4. It also goes against the whole "man up and take it to your opposition, don't hide etc" mantra people like to go on about. However personally for one I think there are times when it is the right move, so long as you have a tailender who has the game for it (Gillespie was perfect, and Morkel from 3-4 years ago also had the game for it).

The other aspect I love is it is a concept so unique to cricket, and has been used for so long. Its just one of the intricacies of the game we love.

 

[zaremba]

I suppose the ultimate example of this might be the old case where England (I think it was) played their batting order in reverse to soak up the tricky conditions. Fred to confirm details?

 

[benchmark00]

Jono's correct.

 

[fredfertang]

I suppose the ultimate example of this might be the old case where England (I think it was) played their batting order in reverse to soak up the tricky conditions. Fred to confirm details?

Do you mean this game?