Use of the nightwatchman

[Craig]

What is people's opinion on it?

IMO I wouldn't send one in if I were a captain in a Test match if one was required. My belief is that if you bat in the top order and the batsman that is in gets out with less then 5 or 6 overs left, and you can't go out there (unless injured) and face then it does say a lot about the batsman.

I mean if you bowled out a side or they declared and your openers had to face five or six overs, he (the captain) isn't excatly going to send numbers 9 and 10 into protect the openers when they probably do not want to go out there.

If you were to send one in, I would not send in the number 10 if he is just a bloker, while he can stay there and block which is fine, but what about the next day? Eventually you will have to get on with the match and give instrucations to get out or get the score moving that is by taking singles on a regular basis or give the nightwatchman the licenise to hit out.

Thoughts?

 

[Tim]

As far as im aware, Australia is the only team that doesn't like to use nightwatchmen...the batsmen are there to bat so therefore they should see out the days play.

 

[Sudeep]

As far as im aware, Australia is the only team that doesn't like to use nightwatchmen...the batsmen are there to bat so therefore they should see out the days play.

... and that's the way how it should be.

 

[Dark Hunter]

I would send one in but i agree that they should be someone who can hold the fort but also, if needed, get the game moving again. I'd want someone like Dominic Cork or a guy like Paul Reiffell, They can bat properly (I mean hell, Cork has a FC double Hundred) but can also defend their wicket if need be.

 

[AUST_HiTMaN]

Personally I think an ideal Nightwatchman would be Jason Gillespie, He has a solid defence and can push singles now and then to rotate the strike. When the next day comes he can also lash out and have a hit, he is a very competant batter down there in the tail for Australia.

But if I were captain I agree with Craig, not sending a nightwatchman would be the way to go. You want to know your batsmen are confident in different situations, and IMO its soft to send a nightwatchman in.

I doubt anyone else will agree :P

 

[Linda]

I agree
I wouldnt send on in, but if I did it would definately be someone like Gillespie. I must admit to having a good laugh everytime he plays his defensive shots. The ball just dies... *thump*

However, I still reckon being aggressive and confident with your batsman is the way to go. If they cant survive a few overs, they probably shouldnt be in the top order!

 

[Simon]

naa i dont agree with the use of one, tailenders belong in the tail, i dont see the thinking of an inferior batsman doing better against the bowling than a top order player.

 

[Nate]

personally i agree with the use of a nightwatchman... always helps. haha gillespie and his "dead bat".

 

[Craig]

I would send one in but i agree that they should be someone who can hold the fort but also, if needed, get the game moving again. I'd want someone like Dominic Cork or a guy like Paul Reiffell, They can bat properly (I mean hell, Cork has a FC double Hundred) but can also defend their wicket if need be.

Well South Africa have the likes of Shaun Pollock and Nicky Boje (if picked) as the perfect nightwatchmen.

I know Marc will tell me I probably know squat, but IMO if England send one in (nightwatchman) it should be Ashley Giles (depending on how many wickets lost) instead of Matthew Hoggard. Even though I think Giles is nothing special he is ideal to holding his own in the dying overs over the days play and get the game moving.

But Hoogard to me stills England's progress. While he has improved greatly and it is a great compliment by Michael Vaughan that he has have improved your batting to be trusted with an important role. Well he hangs in there and defends, I do think he does lack the ability to get regular ones, or get boundarys to keep the scoreboard moving rather then just stay in there and block and not progress the match.

 

[Mingster]

I like Aussie's way.

If you're good enough, you are good enough for any situation.

 

[bennyr]

As far as im aware, Australia is the only team that doesn't like to use nightwatchmen...the batsmen are there to bat so therefore they should see out the days play.

I think this might be the Steve Waugh approach rather than the Australian approach. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ponting use a nightwatchman in his first or second game as skipper?

I reckon it should be a decision made by the batsman and the captain - if one of your top order batsmen doesn't want to go in for a few overs only to have to get his eye in again the following day, I think a nightwatchman is a good idea.

 

[PY]

I know Marc will tell me I probably know squat, but IMO if England send one in (nightwatchman) it should be Ashley Giles (depending on how many wickets lost) instead of Matthew Hoggard. Even though I think Giles is nothing special he is ideal to holding his own in the dying overs over the days play and get the game moving.

But Hoogard to me stills England's progress. While he has improved greatly and it is a great compliment by Michael Vaughan that he has have improved your batting to be trusted with an important role. Well he hangs in there and defends, I do think he does lack the ability to get regular ones, or get boundarys to keep the scoreboard moving rather then just stay in there and block and not progress the match.

I, for one, agree with Craig.

I think Giles would be a good nightwatchman if he was used because he is no mug with the bat as his performance at Trent Bridge showed. He has the ability to defend resolutely (as his batting in Sri Lanka showed) if required but then, to coin a phrase, 'advance the game' in the morning with hitting and rotating the strike.

Having said this, in some conditions I agree with NWM because if there is heavy cloud cover and the ball is swinging a mile then it's been known for NWM not being able to get near the ball (edges) because it's swinging a lot and a better batsman might just edge it.

Although it is negative tactic so I guess it's upto the captain how he wants to be perceived....attacking or defensive.

 

[Jnr.]

I think this might be the Steve Waugh approach rather than the Australian approach. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ponting use a nightwatchman in his first or second game as skipper?

His third. Gillespie was sent out.

 

[marc71178]

If you were to send one in, I would not send in the number 10 if he is just a bloker, while he can stay there and block which is fine, but what about the next day?

Seeing as it's a 5 day game, I don't see the problem with a blocker.

One of the most crucial knocks played by an Englishman in the NZ series was Hoggards 90 minute effort as a nightwatchman IMO.

Frustrated the opposition when they were at their freshest.

 

[marc71178]

I know Marc will tell me I probably know squat, but IMO if England send one in (nightwatchman) it should be Ashley Giles (depending on how many wickets lost) instead of Matthew Hoggard. Even though I think Giles is nothing special he is ideal to holding his own in the dying overs over the days play and get the game moving.

Giles is consistently getting 20s and 30s - he bats at number 8 - If that's nothing special, what exactly do you want from your number 8 man Craig?

Also, he's by no means the most aggressive player, very rarely does he go after the bowling either.

Well he hangs in there and defends, I do think he does lack the ability to get regular ones, or get boundarys to keep the scoreboard moving rather then just stay in there and block and not progress the match.

What is this continual obsession by people on here with getting the board moving all the time? The game lasts for 5 days, so teams can take their time and build.

Having a blocker can blunt the oppositions first bowlers on the next morning, and they're usually the best bowlers, so it's surely good for a team to have a lesser player blocking and frustrating them?

 

[Craig]

Giles is consistently getting 20s and 30s - he bats at number 8 - If that's nothing special, what exactly do you want from your number 8 man Craig?

Well he is most certainly nothing special with the ball, but that is irrevelant. You telling me he is something special with the bat? IMO he is solid and a contributor that's all. He does what is required of a number 8. Hey I was saying he would make a good nightwatchman, not completely bagging him.

What is this continual obsession by people on here with getting the board moving all the time? The game lasts for 5 days, so teams can take their time and build.

Having a blocker can blunt the oppositions first bowlers on the next morning, and they're usually the best bowlers, so it's surely good for a team to have a lesser player blocking and frustrating them?

You have to remember I hate I losing. I get in a grumpy mood when I do.

If he wants to block fine, why not look for one more single an over even if that two off the over?

 

[marc71178]

You telling me he is something special with the bat?

Depends what you're looking for - for me, he is very good in the role he takes in the side.

 

[brockley]

From what i remember jason gillespie has succeeded 4 times out of 6 times used,in the last 18 months australia has moved away from the policy of using a nightwatchmen,but can't think of a more successful nightwatchmen in international cricket other than gillespie,he is tops.Srilanka using zoysa as the night watchman the other day he did not hang around and blunt the new ball bowlers and the team was bowled out for 97,a bad move to send him in i would have thought.

 

[Mingster]

Looking at it from the NZ perspective, it has suited us at times and not suited us. I remember last year when we were playing against PAK that we had Richardson and Tuffey at the crease when slowed our scoring down immensely. This eventuated in us collapsing for 100-odd all out the next morning. We could have sent the next man in instead, Scott Styris or Craig McMillan.

 

[tooextracool]

Looking at it from the NZ perspective, it has suited us at times and not suited us. I remember last year when we were playing against PAK that we had Richardson and Tuffey at the crease when slowed our scoring down immensely. This eventuated in us collapsing for 100-odd all out the next morning. We could have sent the next man in instead, Scott Styris or Craig McMillan.

the reason NZ collapsed for 100-odd all out lies far far from having tuffey and richardson at the crease. if they had stayed at the crease for a while in the morning session,surely batting would have been somewhat easier for the rest of the players, regardless of the number of runs they put on. nonetheless NZ were done in by an amazing spell of bowling so blaming richardson and tuffey for batting slowly would be ludicrous.