• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Does it help to send in a night-watchman?

thirdslip

Cricket Spectator
This is the question that first got us thinking about the 'batting position' research I posted earlier. But it all got a bit cumbersome, so we decided to separate the other 'batting position' elements from the analysis of night-watchmen themselves. The latter bit is at Third Slip online, but the link setting here seems to have changed, so I can't post that right.

Comments welcome, as always.

- TS
 
Last edited:

Bookie

U19 12th Man
Certainly. Whether the nigh****chman plays well or not is another matter. But I think whenever a openeing partnership lays a good foundation, a NW is a must (ask Queensland and Andy Bichel). As for tests, a NW must be sent in if there is less than an hour to go.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
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".
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
Bookie said:
I dont think tw@t is worth asterisking.
Lol, something to exclude from the filters?

Personally, I think night-watchmen are worth employing on most occasions late in the day when a side has lost an early wicket at the top of the innings. As long as they've got a defence that is capable of keeping out the oppostition men who are licking their lips at the prospect of bowling to a tail-ender, it's worth sending one out in my opinion.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I do remember a coupla years back that Oz declared their policy was to do away with night-watchmen (note careful use of hyphen!) when SRW was skip. Is this still the case or are they using them again now?

From an English point of view Hoggy is a pretty decent night-watch. He's pretty shotless, but has a solid defence so can certainly block an end up to protect more proficient batters' wickets.

I'd reckon an hour's play left is too early to send one in tho, more like 20-30 minutes would be my shout or the overs-left equivalent (5-6 I guess).
 

JASON

Cricketer Of The Year
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. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

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

Black Thunder

School Boy/Girl Captain
I've never been a fan of night-watchman (unless i'm the one being used, giving me a rare chance to bat in the top 7).

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.

I see the thoery that "losing a tailender late in the day isn't as painful as losing a top order batsmen" but i just don't agree with it. Some people like them, some don't, and i'm one in the latter category.
 

The Baconator

International Vice-Captain
BoyBrumby said:
I do remember a coupla years back that Oz declared their policy was to do away with night-watchmen (note careful use of hyphen!) when SRW was skip. Is this still the case or are they using them again now?
.
I think the Aussies use Gillespie now, he's not bad.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Neil Pickup said:
I think it is. Still, need to do something about "Caddick syndrome"...
At least ***le has been avoided now, thank God. 8-)

Nigh****chman, nigh****chman, nigh****chman, nigh****chman, nigh****chman, nigh****chman, nigh****chman, nigh****chman, nigh****chman, nigh****chman. :laugh::lol::laugh::lol::laugh::lol:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
BoyBrumby said:
I do remember a coupla years back that Oz declared their policy was to do away with night-watchmen (note careful use of hyphen!) when SRW was skip. Is this still the case or are they using them again now?
It was only ever Stephen Waugh who used that policy - Ponting used a nigh****chman (ha ha!! :laugh: ) in his first Test as captain.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
_Ed_ said:
:laugh:
that is one of the funniest things I've seen today.
It was genuinely funny, yeah - as you can see by my reaction above.
But it really p*ssed me off, frankly, when ***le happened.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
LongHopCassidy said:
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

Cricket Web Staff Member
Black Thunder said:
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

School Boy/Girl Captain
Richard said:
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

Englishman
JASON said:
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. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Boy Brumby, this is a classic piece of writing worthy of Hall of fame !! :D
Quality, isn't it? :D

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

Cricket Spectator
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
 

Top