nightwatchmen....answer me this

[The Maestro]

hmmm I guess that would def be the case in the number of teams

I'll tell you why I thought of this, a few weeks ago I was reading Glenn Turners book and he stated how much he HATED having to bat for a few overs before close of play

For some odd reason i remembered a game vs SL (kin years ago obviously) where he had to do this. He came out to bat.... and looking annoyed ......starting tonking it. After a couple of well hit fours he steepled a catch to cover and was out. (I idolised Turner at this stage and was mortified, hence my memory of it)

It occured to me that he had suggested my theory to the captain and been rejected

anyway ....../tangent

Turner was in those days far and away the best batsman in the team (if Crowe was there he was young)......so maybe the theory has some merit in this and other cases, where an opener is your best bat

yet....to the best of my knowledge it has NEVER been applied

A new ball is still a new ball after 5 or so overs?

Im not saying my theory is groundbreaking/100% correct, but if you are confident there is only a few overs in the day....... and one of your opening bats in a loose but devasting type and one a technically sound grafter........maybe holding back Sehwag and sending in Kumble is worth a look

 

[howardj]

When Matt Hayden was making his comeback to Test Cricket, in the 3rd Test in New Zealand in March/April 2000, there was about 30 minutes that Australia had to negotiate before stumps on Day 1. Anyway, Steve Waugh actually said that he offered Hayden a night-watchman, but Hayden declined. Shatteringly for Hayden, he got dismissed before the close of play.

 

[Zinzan]

hmmm I guess that would def be the case in the number of teams

I'll tell you why I thought of this, a few weeks ago I was reading Glenn Turners book and he stated how much he HATED having to bat for a few overs before close of play

For some odd reason i remembered a game vs SL (kin years ago obviously) where he had to do this. He came out to bat.... and looking annoyed ......starting tonking it. After a couple of well hit fours he steepled a catch to cover and was out. (I idolised Turner at this stage and was mortified, hence my memory of it)

It occured to me that he had suggested my theory to the captain and been rejected

anyway ....../tangent

Turner was in those days far and away the best batsman in the team (if Crowe was there he was young)......so maybe the theory has some merit in this and other cases, where an opener is your best bat

yet....to the best of my knowledge it has NEVER been applied

A new ball is still a new ball after 5 or so overs?

Im not saying my theory is groundbreaking/100% correct, but if you are confident there is only a few overs in the day....... and one of your opening bats in a loose but devasting type and one a technically sound grafter........maybe holding back Sehwag and sending in Kumble is worth a look

As you've said yourself....a new ball is still a new ball at the end of the day, so an opener should be the best equipped to handle it. Surely.

 

[cameeel]

You'd think so, but it doesnt seem to be the case

 

[psxpro]

If there's 5 overs to go then why not. If you are gonna have a nightwatchman to protect the no3 why not protect one opener as well?

But then I can see the other way as well, They don't want to send in a night watchman, but if you lose one early wicket, there is more pressure on the no3 batsman, so they send in a nightwatchman.

To be honest, if i had it my way I wouldn't send in a night watchman unless it was someone who could play big strokes the next morning and change the game.
Why send a nightwatchman? You have as much chance of getting out as of getting out next morning first ball, its the same thing. I don't buy this there's nothing to be gained argument either, you should bat the same way you normally would, If you hit a 4 off the last over of a day it counts as 4 runs, just as it would in the first over of the next day.

 

[The Maestro]

ha ha

yet....to the best of my knowledge it has NEVER been applied

and as soon as I read this

When Matt Hayden was making his comeback to Test Cricket, in the 3rd Test in New Zealand in March/April 2000, there was about 30 minutes that Australia had to negotiate before stumps on Day 1. Anyway, Steve Waugh actually said that he offered Hayden a night-watchman, but Hayden declined. Shatteringly for Hayden, he got dismissed before the close of play.

I remembered the Hayden incident.........vividly <--

Im sure that the primary theory of the nightwatchman is protect class with a.ss so Im thinking it probably has been applied this way in tests at some stage

 

[deeps]

A new ball is still a new ball after 5 or so overs?

yup that it is, but you will find the first 5-8 overs is when the ball is swinging wildly and doin alot of stuff... after that it dies down slowly

 

[Prince EWS]

I completely agree with The Maestro, and have wondered it myself.

If the number 3 batsman is worth protecting, then why not the opening batsman?

 

[SJS]

OK so we all (i hope) know the concept behind nightwatchmen right?

To protect the top order batsmen from getting out in the annoying 5-ish over period at the end of the day that the opposition captain or circumstances have dictated your team must bat in fading light

So what typically happens is, one of the openers gets out....and in trots the (for example)number 10 batsman

Kinda like a sacrifice right? Like saying "We'd rather you got this clumsy clown out now than our number 3"

Well then.........if this concept is so damn solid (Australias occasional attitude/statements to it notwithstanding) why the hell dont the batting team send out one opener........ and the clumsy number 10 to begin with?

Because sending in the number 10 after a wicket has fallen is a bit too late to avoid losing a wicket by the end of play dont you think?

I understand sending in 2 tailenders would be a bit folly for a number of reasons, but why not protect one batsmen IMMEDIATELY? ie leave the opener with the looser technique of the two in the dressing room

The Maestro...asking the hard questions on cricketweb since 13th Januray 2005

Its a bad concept.

The basic premise is wrong. If a non-recognised batsman is expected to survive, why wont a recognised batsman.

I can only think that the recognised batsman is likely to be more tense initially (just maybe) than a tailender who has nothing to lose really.

 

[Prince EWS]

Its a bad concept.

The basic premise is wrong. If a non-recognised batsman is expected to survive, why wont a recognised batsman.

I can only think that the recognised batsman is likely to be more tense initially (just maybe) than a tailender who has nothing to lose really.

Yes, but that only explains why you wouldnt have a nightwatchman at all!

It doesnt explain why you would bat one at number 3, but not open with one...

 

[howardj]

Its a bad concept.

The basic premise is wrong. If a non-recognised batsman is expected to survive, why wont a recognised batsman.

I can only think that the recognised batsman is likely to be more tense initially (just maybe) than a tailender who has nothing to lose really.

Yeah, but if you were the captain of the batting side, would you rather a non-recognised batsman be the victim of a possible absolute beauty of a delivery just before the close of play, or would you rather the non-recognised batsman have to deal with it?

 

[psxpro]

I would rather the Proper batsman deal with it, chances are he will receive the same tommorow morning.
Thats what batsmen are theere to do. it should have no difference how you bat if there is 2 overs left in the day or 85 overs left.

 

[howardj]

it should have no difference how you bat if there is 2 overs left in the day or 85 overs left.

But human instinct and psychology dictate that - for 95% of cricketers - it does.

 

[tassietiger]

Openers are used to facing out the new ball, which is different to facing an old ball. Nightwatchmen struggle with the new ball a bit more, hence they are best letting the openers do their job.

 

[SJS]

Yes, but that only explains why you wouldnt have a nightwatchman at all!

It doesnt explain why you would bat one at number 3, but not open with one...

Well when I say its a bad concept, I agree with the argument. So I cant defend this.

But if I had to, I would say that in the entire game of cricket if there one moment that is so different from the rest of the game(be it a five day test), it is as the batsman taking strike squares upto the first delivery. I have opened and against some really high class bowlers and how so often you have played them before, you have the same feeling before the first ball every time. Its not exactly the same in the second innings.

Having said that, I would still not consider it an adequate argument. The only time, I would agree to send a night watchman is with one ball to go

I have captained my side in three day tournaments and two day tournaments (not limited over) and I have never used a night watchman myself.

 

[Prince EWS]

Openers are used to facing out the new ball, which is different to facing an old ball. Nightwatchmen struggle with the new ball a bit more, hence they are best letting the openers do their job.

Yes but I have seen nightwatchmen sent out after an over or two with the new ball when a wicket falls....

 

[The Maestro]

Thank you Prince for at least making me feel slightly less like a raving lunatic that no one understands lol

I still think this question has remained unanswered

deeps made a good point that the new ball swing factor decreases slightly and there are some vague remarks about it "being the batsmans job" to see off the new ball but apart from that no answer really

 

[The Maestro]

As you've said yourself....a new ball is still a new ball at the end of the day, so an opener should be the best equipped to handle it. Surely.

You keep missing the point zinzan.........Yes we know that but why is the number 3 so precious then? They are often very similair types of batsmen to the openers

Im sure most teams start an innings planning-hoping one of their openers will stay in for a long time and get a 80-odd / a hundred so why not protect them as well?

 

[The Maestro]

Anyone?

One thing Ive learnt about this site is there are a number of posters with obscene amounts of cricketing knowledge

Wheres all the insight and lateral thinking?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Anyone?

One thing Ive learnt about this site is there are a number of posters with obscene amounts of cricketing knowledge

Wheres all the insight and lateral thinking?

The closest I can come to a justification is that an opening batsman is selected (or traditionally, was selected) because of his ability to handle the new ball, and there's a vastly increased chance of a night-watch-opener being dismissed compared to a traditional opener.

One scenario I remember this tactic being discussed in was the Third Test of the South African tour of England two summers ago. The last South African wicket, Shaun Pollock, fell in the penultimate over of the third day. The England openers thus had an over to see out before stumps, and Trescothick promptly looped Pollock's first ball up to Paul Adams at short leg.

With nothing at all to gain on a wearing fourth day pitch (England were bowled out for 118, and then South Africa followed for 131 chasing 202 to win), the option of Ashley Giles opening for England and facing the first over (if he were out, it would be stumps) was perhaps a trick missed by England - but it didn't matter.