Does it help to send in a night-watchman?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

the defense ones like Gillespie and Boje

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

 

[Richard]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Richard]

That's the problem with sims - they can simulate some stuff, but every now and then it's stumped - because some things you just can't compute.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

It can turn a loss into defeat.

Was that deliberate?

 

[Richard]

It can turn a loss into defeat.

 

[Jamee999]

Defeat for the opposition. Yeah. Yeah for the Opponents. Yeah.

*Goes off sulking*

 

[chaminda_00]

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.

And that makes him such a good batsmen doesn't it. In Test Cricket the five innigs to date that he has been used as nigh****chaman he has scored 15,5,1,23,5. The guy averages less then 10 with the bat and hasn't scored a Test 50. He really looks like a good batsmen. If a captian is going to use a nigh***chman then they are better of using some who has the ability to score a Test 100. The only exception to the rule is probably Dizzy as the guy has a great defence.

 

[Richard]

And if you'd examined Hoggard you'd probably see he's also got a very, very sound defence. Not, quite, as good as Gillespie's, but not too far behind.
Hoggard has played significant parts with the bat in several Test-matches - most notably the one at Bridgetown, Barbados in 2003\04.
And he's never, ever going to score a Test-half-century batting at nine - he's just far too slow. The only chance would be if he came in up the order - probably as a night-watchman.
And no, he's not so good that you'd expect him to get a half-century every 5 innings - it'll probably take him about 10 or 15 goes.
But if he keeps getting the chances he'll get there eventually, I'm confident of that.

 

[Richard]

*Goes off sulking*

And just when you were about to reach 2,500 posts, too.

 

[marc71178]

As for tests, a NW must be sent in if there is less than an hour to go.

An hour?!!!

 

[marc71178]

England - Hoggard (useless)

Hoggard does the perfect NWM role.