nightwatchmen....answer me this

[The Maestro]

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

 

[Zinzan]

Probably because at the stage both openers go out to face say 5 overs at the end of the day, the team hasn't lost any wickets at that point. So the plan would be to survive the last few overs without losing a wicket.

\Where-as if they do lose a wicket with a few overs to go, they are then at risk of losing 2 specialist batsmen - thus the nightwatchmen.

 

[The Maestro]

No offence.....but do you really think that explaination cuts it?

"The plan" I understand that, but plans are always going to be targeted and disrupted by the opposition. Especially a plan as obvious as that one, doesnt even deserve to be called "a plan" really

Is losing two batsmen 3 times as bad as losing 1? Not really......hence your other explanation doesnt really hold water either

Or does it? Maybe Im being obtuse, thanks for your reply :-)

I look at it as pure as this

"We dont want to lose a specialist batsmen by the end of play, so we are going to send in a nightwatchman. But only after we've lost a specialist batsmen"

lol see how silly is sounds?

 

[Zinzan]

No offence.....but do you really think that explaination cuts it?

"The plan" I understand that, but plans are always going to be targeted and disrupted by the opposition. Especially a plan as obvious as that one, doesnt even deserve to be called "a plan" really

Is losing two batsmen 3 times as bad as losing 1? Not really......hence your other explanation doesnt really hold water either

Or does it? Maybe Im being obtuse, thanks for your reply :-)

I look at it as pure as this

"We dont want to lose a specialist batsmen by the end of play, so we are going to send in a nightwatchman. But only after we've lost a specialist batsmen"

lol see how silly is sounds?

okay I will put it in to more simple terms for you........

It is simply intended to protect the wicket of a specialist batsmen at a time difficult for batting when the team concerned has already been set back losing an early wicket.

It is a calculated risk with the belief that the given night watchmen may be able to see it out that night , and in some cases see off a bit more of the new ball early the next morning and it is then thought the specialist batsmen is of more value to the team coming out to bat in better conditions.

You could argue for or against the use of the nightwatchman and there are valid arguments either way depending on the situation. But the above explains the rational for the use of it

 

[cameeel]

If the batsmen are good enough, they shouldnt need to send in tailenders, fading light or not they should be good enough to stay in for 5 overs

 

[cameeel]

You''d never win if you sent in an opener and a tailender first up, you need to be able to rely on your specalist batsmen to make runs

 

[The Maestro]

okay I will put it in to more simple terms for you........

It is simply intended to protect the wicket of a specialist batsmen at a time difficult for batting when the team concerned has already been set back losing an early wicket.

It is a calculated risk with the belief that the given night watchmen may be able to see it out that night , and in some cases see off a bit more of the new ball early the next morning and it is then thought the specialist batsmen is of more value to the team coming out to bat in better conditions.

You could argue for or against the use of the nightwatchman and there are valid arguments either way depending on the situation. But the above explains the rational for the use of it

errrrr dude your original explanation didnt go over my head ,so all you have done here is repeat yourself, and you fail to answer the questions I asked

The best you have done is "already set back by losing a wicket" to me that doesnt wash, because surely the primary role of the NWM is to PROTECT specialist batsmen, if an opener ISN'T a specialist batsman then JASON makes intelligent posts

 

[Zinzan]

errrrr dude your original explanation didnt go over my head ,so all you have done here is repeat yourself, and you fail to answer the questions I asked

The best you have done is "already set back by losing a wicket" to me that doesnt wash, because surely the primary role of the NWM is to PROTECT specialist batsmen, if an opener ISN'T a specialist batsman then JASON makes intelligent posts

Its was clear from your insane opening post that you couldn't grasp the concept of why teams use a nightwatchman, thus my simple explaination.

Also, no need to be a baby and run down other members of cricketweb. Jason hasn't even entered this thread.

Poor performance allround

 

[The Maestro]

Reading and comprehension not your strong points? Have another go at reading the thread

Blithely ignoring what I say and repeating yourself is the domain of 5 year olds and JASON can hack it anyway

man ..... I dont think Ive ever come across boards where individuals are so namby pamby about a few insults

 

[Zinzan]

Reading and comprehension not your strong points? Have another go at reading the thread

Blithely ignoring what I say and repeating yourself is the domain of 5 year olds and JASON can hack it anyway

man ..... I dont think Ive ever come across boards where individuals are so namby pamby about a few insults

Have another read of your opening post Sherlock, I never heard such rubbish.

Suggesting the likes of Gillispie opening with Langer because there are 5 overs to go in the day is the domain of 5 year old.

 

[The Maestro]

Perhaps you could explain why not?

*waits for zinzan to repeat himself again*

 

[Zinzan]

Perhaps you could explain why not?

*waits for zinzan to repeat himself again*

No point. Due to your struggle to understand basic cricket concepts I have neither the time or patience.

Perhaps you could visit your local library. You will find in the children's section some nice easy to read books on understanding cricket. Maybe then you will understand to role of an opening batsmen.

 

[The Maestro]

Thats ok zinzan....... the inabilty to grasp and discuss the merits of an outside the square concept is relatively common. Its doesnt mean you are thick or anything, it just means you are rigid in your thinking and will work for the man the rest of your life

Read again.....engage a different part of your brain, its probably never been used so blow cobwebs first

 

[Top_Cat]

Geez are you both right? Tone it down because you're both acting like children right now. I notice you guys are virtually the only participants in the thread; that's instructive in some ways.

 

[Zinzan]

Thats where your wrong. I'm a big fan of clever innovative thinking. I just happen to think your suggestion of a no.10 opening an innings instead of an opener is ridiculous.

 

[The Maestro]

Agree TopCat sheesh I was just starting a thread on an alternative concept. Its pretty obvious who got fired up and abusive

No offence.....

Maybe Im being obtuse, thanks for your reply :-)

okay I will put it in to more simple terms for you........_SARCASM_

 

[Zinzan]

Very selective with our quotes aren't we

fair enough Top cat

 

[deeps]

zin zan you haven't really answered the question properly. The question is asking why an night watchman and an opener go out to bat initially as opposed to 2 openers, followed by the nightwatchman.

You are merely telling him WHY ppl use nightwatchman, and from his initial post, it's obvious he knows why.

As to answer the question, i think it could be because a nightwatchman (a tail end batsman) would not last very long at all against a brand new ball, with a super agressive field set and two fast bowlers on the hunt for wickets. The openers will hopefully play out the initial onslaught at least. and then the tail ender can hopefully finish the day. cant think of anythign else

 

[howardj]

Looking at it philosophically, I think openers are seen in cricket as guys whose job it is - at least in part - to protect the middle-order from the new ball. Therefore, if it's 5 overs til stumps, it's still their actual job to go out there and protect the middle order for five overs. By contrast, and in keeping with that protection of the middle order philosophy, the number three, four, five or six should be protected before stumps by a night watchman.

 

[deeps]

another reason is probably that the number 3,4,5 are considered the best batsman in the team. The openers are most expendible than the middle order.

in most cases