Nightwatchmen

[zaremba]

What is the purpose of the nightwatchman?

There is a general perception that his role is to protect the batsman whom he goes out to join near the end of the day's play. Seems to me this is just plain wrong. His role is not to protect the batsman who's already batting (except perhaps in the very last over of the day) - the not out batsman should be well capable of looking after himself. The nightwatchman's role is to protect the batsman sitting in the dressing room who have yet to bat.

Not sure if anyone agrees with me, or gives a toss about this, but I just have to vent.

 

[kingkallis]

You are right!

I too think the real role of the nightwatchmen is to stay there for the day (stumps!) and not lose the wicket. He is saving the next player from coming and losing the wicket at the close of play.

 

[weeman27bob]

What is the purpose of the nightwatchman?

There is a general perception that his role is to protect the batsman whom he goes out to join near the end of the day's play. Seems to me this is just plain wrong. His role is not to protect the batsman who's already batting (except perhaps in the very last over of the day) - the not out batsman should be well capable of looking after himself. The nightwatchman's role is to protect the batsman sitting in the dressing room who have yet to bat.

Not sure if anyone agrees with me, or gives a toss about this, but I just have to vent.

Does anyone actually think that?

 

[Howe_zat]

It's bloody annoying either way.

 

[fredfertang]

It's bloody annoying either way.

Quite - this evening was just plain daft, and a major reason why I'll probably never rate Strauss's captaincy as highly as I should

 

[zaremba]

Does anyone actually think that?

Yeah you get commentators all the time criticising nightwatchmen for not taking the strike. No! No! No! Their job is not to steal the strike, it's just Not To Get Out.

 

[zaremba]

Quite - this evening was just plain daft, and a major reason why I'll probably never rate Strauss's captaincy as highly as I should

Today was one of the most asinine examples that I can think of. It means that Swann will bat at 11 and so if we get that far, a capable batsman will be left stranded not out. Plus, in the morning, Jimmy will either waste time blocking, or try to hit out and get out - either way giving a boost to the opposition.

 

[NasserFan207]

I mantain that there is a time and a place for a nightwatchman. Its all about batting conditions. Sending in tailenders to eat up time untill things get easier can be a useful tactic.

 

[fredfertang]

I mantain that there is a time and a place for a nightwatchman. Its all about batting conditions. Sending in tailenders to eat up time untill things get easier can be a useful tactic.

I'd agree with that but surely 447-3 with two sessions lost to the weather isn't one of them?

 

[zaremba]

I don't see why, in this particular situation and others like it, Swann doesn't get sent in. If so minded he could defend as well as Jimmy, and if he's not out overnight he could play a genuinely destructive innings (I'm talking a century off 70 balls) next morning. And if it does't come off, what's been lost?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

The purpose of the nightwatchman is adequately explained by the letters five through eight

 

[weeman27bob]

I don't see why, in this particular situation and others like it, Swann doesn't get sent in. If so minded he could defend as well as Jimmy, and if he's not out overnight he could play a genuinely destructive innings (I'm talking a century off 70 balls) next morning. And if it does't come off, what's been lost?

Yeah, but if Jimmy scored a hundred, that would really rub it in their faces...

Obviously this is a significant counter-claim.

 

[zaremba]

The purpose of the nightwatchman is adequately explained by the letters five through eight

I'm a little relieved that The Filter hasn't brought this thread to an incomprehensible close.

S****horpe.

There, I said it.

 

[GIMH]

Jimmy will never get a better chance to pass his HS, and then ton up

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I'm a little relieved that The Filter hasn't brought this thread to an incomprehensible close.

S****horpe.

There, I said it.

****mere

 

[Woodster]

Yes the use of the nightwatchman today seemed a daft move, and it would be interesting who actually makes the call to use one, in today's example, would it have been Eoin Morgan that said that he wanted one, or would Flower and Strauss have made the decision ?

I think in general the nightwatchman protects both the not out batsman and those with the pads on in the shed, certainly more a case of the latter today however, as Ian Bell seemed to be coping just about ok. The stage the game was at today didn't really qualify for a sensible use of the nightwatchman, we are in an excellent position, and while Anderson will be perceived as doing his job, we don't want him pushing and prodding for an hour tomorrow morning. Not that I think that will be the case, he should have the freedom to play his shots and if he's out, so what.

 

[GIMH]

****mere

I didn't know CW was so intolerant of gender issues

 

[Agent Nationaux]

They should have sent Bopara in as the Nightwatchman.

 

[Goughy]

I can understand the frustration with the tactic but I disagree with the point in the OP that the nightwatchman shouldnt protect the established batsman.

They are their to mitigate the risk of losing two specialist batsmen in a short period of play before the close. They do this in two ways-- farming the strike and preventing a top order batsman from having to come in and start their innings twice.

It strikes me as a sensible tactic.

Personally I would prefer someone in a situation like this who could go and bat long in the morning-- Bresnan would have been ideal-- but I guess Jimmy has the job and if it his his team role then it is his responsibility. Defined roles are essential for success so even though I wouldnt have chosen him in this situation I would rather consistency of policy than chopping and changing.

It isnt super ***y cricket but it is, IMO, good cricketing fundamentals.

 

[Woodster]

I can understand the frustration with the tactic but I disagree with the point in the OP that the nightwatchman shouldnt protect the established batsman.

They are their to mitigate the risk of losing two specialist batsmen in a short period of play before the close. They do this in two ways-- farming the strike and preventing a top order batsman from having to come in and start their innings twice.

It strikes me as a sensible tactic.

Personally I would prefer someone in a situation like this who could go and bat long in the morning-- Bresnan would have been ideal-- but I guess Jimmy has the job and if it his his team role then it is his responsibility. Defined roles are essential for success so even though I wouldnt have chosen him in this situation I would rather consistency of policy than chopping and changing.

It isnt super ***y cricket but it is, IMO, good cricketing fundamentals.

I agree in general circumstances of the need to protect the established batsman, not sure that particular tactic was essential today with Bell well passed 150 and looking in next zero trouble.

I don't strongly disagree with the nightwatchman strategy being employed when the situation dictates, but today it didn't, at 447-3 we are already in an extremely good position, it seemed an unnecessary move to me.