Does it help to send in a night-watchman?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy

A night watchman gives batting practice to the tailender and lays a platform for the rest of the order the next day.

But as Kerry O' Keeffe puts it, "We've battled to dismiss 11 hulking West Indians, lactic acid at record levels, and some pretty-boy number 3 decides he's too valuable to risk".

Yep - hard life being a tail-ender, ain't it?
Hardly takes an extraordinary amount of effort to put-on the protective stuff and go out there for 20 minutes or so, does it? (Or, more often, not need to)

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Black Thunder

I just don't see how a tailender is more capable of keeping his wicket for the last half an hour then a recognised batsmen is.

No-one's ever claimed that - just that if a wicket is lost, it's better for it to be a tail-ender than a batsman.

[Black Thunder]

Originally Posted by Richard

No-one's ever claimed that - just that if a wicket is lost, it's better for it to be a tail-ender than a batsman.

could easily be claimed for the entire innings then?? I know i'd much rather lose a tailender then a recognised batsmen.

So why not have a lunch-watchman or tea-watchman, or even a drinks-watchman. Batsmen have been prone to getting out just before these partciular breaks......

I can see why night-watchman are used, but IMO they should only be used in extreme circmustances, i.e. been out in the field for 2 days, or it's 45+ degrees. Plus having a night-watchman can be detrimental to the next day as they're usually gone within the first five overs giving the bowling team a bit of momentum - particularly if they pick up the new batsmen and/or the overnight batsmen as well.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by JASON

This was a contest between two old men in a brothel, fighting over the last Viagra tablet. The Guardian's Richard Williams on England v France in the 6 Nations.

Boy Brumby, this is a classic piece of writing worthy of Hall of fame !!

Quality, isn't it?

Works on quite a few levels too: it's a well-turned phrase, works as a metaphor, is p*ss-funny & also (crucially) is an accurate description of the game!

Williams usually covers Football & Union, but occasionally writes about cricket too. He's up there with the very best sports writers IMO.

[thirdslip]

There are a couple of things about night-watchmen that makes me think captains aren't really making decisions right.

one, when the first night-watchman is out, they sometimes don't send in another night-watchman but bring on the regular fellow. To me, it seems if the first decision was prompted by rational thinking of any sort, then it makes sense to stick with it for at least a few minutes!

second, has anyone considered that it may be better to bat the players in reverse order? I mean, why not serve up the bunnies to blunt the new ball first in every innings, and thereafter bring on the rest of the gang to have a go? I'm planning to test this using our simulation software (since no captain is likely to actually conduct this experiment!); will post results here sometime.

- TS

[Dizzy #4]

LOL NIGH****CHMAN



Gillespie would be good Defense 1
Lee will be a very good ofense 1
Bitchel would be the best of the lot

[chaminda_00]

I never really liked the idea of nigh****ch, for most teams they don't work too well. If u look at all the top 8 test sides and their regular night watchman only India and Australia have any success:
Australia - Gillespie
England - Hoggard (useless)
India - Pathan
Pakistan - Sami (ok but they are probaly better using Karman)
Sri Lanka - Zoysa (hasn't got a good defence)
South Africa - can't think of one
New Zealand - can't think of one
West Indies - Best and Dillion (both have average defences)

In generally if a team is going to send out a night-watchmen they are better send out a keeper or lower batsmen like Pathan or Vaas. Someone who can contribute with the batting the next day.

[Dizzy #4]

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

I never really liked the idea of nigh****ch, for most teams they don't work too well. If u look at all the top 8 test sides and their regular night watchman only India and Australia have any success:
Australia - Gillespie
England - Hoggard (useless)
India - Pathan
Pakistan - Sami (ok but they are probaly better using Karman)
Sri Lanka - Zoysa (hasn't got a good defence)
South Africa - can't think of one
New Zealand - can't think of one
West Indies - Best and Dillion (both have average defences)

In generally if a team is going to send out a night-watchmen they are better send out a keeper or lower batsmen like Pathan or Vaas. Someone who can contribute with the batting the next day.

nz-wiseman or Vettori
saf-boje
SL-Vaas
England-Gilles or Caddick

Sometimes, they get sucess out of those top 8

Gillespie can make defenseful partherships and make 4's pretty often(these days)
Boje can come in and make a couple of runs
Pathan is a good one as well
Vaas can bat damn well
Sami canmake 50's
Vettori can make tons
Gilles can make quick runs too

[Dizzy #4]

Originally Posted by thirdslip

There are a couple of things about night-watchmen that makes me think captains aren't really making decisions right.

one, when the first night-watchman is out, they sometimes don't send in another night-watchman but bring on the regular fellow. To me, it seems if the first decision was prompted by rational thinking of any sort, then it makes sense to stick with it for at least a few minutes!

second, has anyone considered that it may be better to bat the players in reverse order? I mean, why not serve up the bunnies to blunt the new ball first in every innings, and thereafter bring on the rest of the gang to have a go? I'm planning to test this using our simulation software (since no captain is likely to actually conduct this experiment!); will post results here sometime.

- TS

they used to do this, it ended up producing not much runs,you'll still be stuck with the defense ones like Gillespie and Boje, meaning they might be a bit slow(unless they're in good form) by the time the best come out, you'll have to declare due to time

[chaminda_00]

Originally Posted by Dizzy #4

nz-wiseman or Vettori
saf-boje
SL-Vaas
England-Gilles or Caddick

Sometimes, they get sucess out of those top 8

Gillespie can make defenseful partherships and make 4's pretty often(these days)
Boje can come in and make a couple of runs
Pathan is a good one as well
Vaas can bat damn well
Sami canmake 50's
Vettori can make tons
Gilles can make quick runs too

Vaas doesn't get used by the Sri Lankan as a nigh****chmen, they used Zoysa, Dinusha or Mahroof recently. I don't see SA or NZ use night watchmen too often as they both bat down to 9 anyway, they don't need night watchmen. I've seen Hoggard been used as a night watchmen more then Caddick or Giles, but i do agree that Giles is a better options, as is Vaas over Zoysa/Dinusha/Mahroof

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Dizzy #4

the defense ones like Gillespie and Boje

Boje, defensive?!?!?!
No way, Jose!

[Richard]

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

England - Hoggard (useless)

Really? I'd have thought useless batsmen wouldn't be capable of scoring First-Class 88*s (as a nigh****chman [], incidentally), let alone scoring a few 30s in Test-cricket.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by thirdslip

There are a couple of things about night-watchmen that makes me think captains aren't really making decisions right.

one, when the first night-watchman is out, they sometimes don't send in another night-watchman but bring on the regular fellow. To me, it seems if the first decision was prompted by rational thinking of any sort, then it makes sense to stick with it for at least a few minutes!

second, has anyone considered that it may be better to bat the players in reverse order? I mean, why not serve up the bunnies to blunt the new ball first in every innings, and thereafter bring on the rest of the gang to have a go? I'm planning to test this using our simulation software (since no captain is likely to actually conduct this experiment!); will post results here sometime.

Certainly I've always thought that if you send in 1 nigh****chman ( ) you should send in 2, or even 3 (has happened every now and then).
I've never been a fan of the "bat-in-reverse-order" idea - Bradman used it once to negate a sticky, but mostly if you put tailenders in against the new-ball it'll be 10 for 4 more often than not.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Black Thunder

could easily be claimed for the entire innings then?? I know i'd much rather lose a tailender then a recognised batsmen.

So why not have a lunch-watchman or tea-watchman, or even a drinks-watchman. Batsmen have been prone to getting out just before these partciular breaks......

I can see why night-watchman are used, but IMO they should only be used in extreme circmustances, i.e. been out in the field for 2 days, or it's 45+ degrees. Plus having a night-watchman can be detrimental to the next day as they're usually gone within the first five overs giving the bowling team a bit of momentum - particularly if they pick up the new batsmen and/or the overnight batsmen as well.

Yet if the night-watchman scores 25 or so, you've then got an extended batting-order. And it cuts both ways - it's probably 50\50 between gifting early momentum and extending the batting-order.
I've often thought about the possibility of a Lunch-watchman, and even a Tea-watchman. I'm surprised no-one's ever used it.
As for the philosophy for the entire innings - all well and good if you have a team of useless batsmen! But you don't - you have hopefully seven or eight capable batters, all of whom are bigger losses at a time when loss is at a premium and also most likely.

[Jamee999]

I use it sometimes on International Cricket Captain 2002 (not real I know, but I'm just putting some ideas in the hat) by putting an expericenced bowler who averages about 20 with the bat above a new batsman who I'm not sure about yet in defensively by means of trying to secure to a rescuable total.
It can turn a loss into defeat.

I occasionly also open with big-hitting bowlers. I like the idea of opening with a pinch-hitter in ODI's.