Nightwatchmen

[Jacknife]

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

Do you really think it was Strauss' decision to use a nighwatchman? from everything I've ever read and heard it's down to the individual batsman, in this case Morgan didn't fancy it.

 

[fredfertang]

Do you really think it was Strauss' decision to use a nighwatchman? from everything I've ever read and heard it's down to the individual batsman, in this case Morgan didn't fancy it.

I certainly believe it should be the captain's decision - which in many situations might reasonably be to run with what the individual batsmen wants - but in my view this wasn't one of those situations

 

[Goughy]

I certainly believe it should be the captain's decision - which in many situations might reasonably be to run with what the individual batsmen wants - but in my view this wasn't one of those situations

I am not privy to the inner workings of the English dressing room but I, like you, would not think that this is anything other than a management decision. It is a tactical decision and, IMO, would not be delegated down to an individual player.

 

[Uppercut]

Ed Smith mentions in his diaries that he was asked whether he wanted a night watchman or not when playing for England- entirely different management back then of course but it would appear that that's how it worked under Vaughan.

 

[Jacknife]

It's something that's been spoken about in the comms box quite a lot in the last couple of tests, it was originally mentioned around ST's compulsive use of them and Nasser and Atherton, I think it was said that nearly always it was the choice of the incoming batsmen.
Personally in today's case, I would have preferred to send in Bresnan, who could in all possibility have moved the game on in those last few overs as well as tucking in to the bowling from the start of play in the morning, rather than Jimmy's scratching around.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I can understand when there are times and places for nightwatchmen. Today, when you are facesitting on your opposition, is not one of them.

 

[Spark]

Surely if you're going to use a nightwatchman, send in Broad/Swann who can seriously put a dent in the bowling the following morning, even play a big innings?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I agree that today's score makes the use of a nightwatchman look a bit overcautious (because, frankly, it is), but I do have some sympathy with Morgan tho. He'd been sitting there for about seven hours padded up, so to have come out for a ticklish fifteen mins was the sort of situation where he could only fail. At best he'd score a dozen or so and have to start again on the third day.

There's an argument for sending in another batsman ahead of Jimmeh, but all the remaining chaps have at least some pretensions with the bat*.

*Lesser men might've said "Except Ravi, obvz" but I rise above such cheap shots.

 

[zaremba]

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.

Well that is certainly the received wisdom. But I don't get it. There are two big problems with it. First, why does the established batsman already at the crease need protecting at all? Seems to me the time of day makes no difference in that respect. And second, if the nightwatchman farms the strike he increases the risk of a wicket falling, with the result that a specialist batsman has to come out and bat anyway. After all, however determined the nightwatchman is, his chances of getting out to any given delivery are higher than those of his established partner because (a) he's new to the crease and (b) he's not as good a batsman.

I see the logic in protecting the batsmen still in the shed, of course. But it makes less sense when you have a very long order - Swann batting at 11 means that he, or an even more accomplished batsman, will inevitably be left stranded not out, which is a real waste.

 

[Goughy]

Well that is certainly the received wisdom. But I don't get it. There are two big problems with it. First, why does the established batsman already at the crease need protecting at all? Seems to me the time of day makes no difference in that respect. And second, if the nightwatchman farms the strike he increases the risk of a wicket falling, with the result that a specialist batsman has to come out and bat anyway. After all, however determined the nightwatchman is, his chances of getting out to any given delivery are higher than those of his established partner because (a) he's new to the crease and (b) he's not as good a batsman.

I see the logic in protecting the batsmen still in the shed, of course. But it makes less sense when you have a very long order - Swann batting at 11 means that he, or an even more accomplished batsman, will inevitably be left stranded not out, which is a real waste.

I dont get your first point. The logic is that an established batsman has been lost close to the end of play and the batting team doesnt want to lose two main batsmen and want to maximise the chances that the 'in' can resume their innings in the morning. It is basically shutting up shop until morning to allow them to continue the next day. Time of day clearly makes a difference.

Regarding the second point, it is obviously a calculated risk based on the fact that all wickets do not carry equal value. It is deemed worth the occasional risk of losing the nightwatchman to gain the value of preserving the batting stcks for the next day. Of course, by its very nature, the nightwatchman isnt as good a batsman as the player they are protecting but one assumes they know how to do their job and their defensive batting skills make the risk of losing their wicket small. Their job is not to play a rounded inning like a specialist would but they have a very one dimensional role which is far easier to perform.

 

[zaremba]

I dont get your first point. The logic is that an established batsman has been lost close to the end of play and the batting team doesnt want to lose two main batsmen and want to maximise the chances that the 'in' can resume their innings in the morning. It is basically shutting up shop until morning to allow them to continue the next day. Time of day clearly makes a difference.

Regarding the second point, it is obviously a calculated risk based on the fact that all wickets do not carry equal value. It is deemed worth the occasional risk of losing the nightwatchman to gain the value of preserving the batting stcks for the next day. Of course, by its very nature, the nightwatchman isnt as good a batsman as the player they are protecting but one assumes they know how to do their job and their defensive batting skills make the risk of losing their wicket small. Their job is not to play a rounded inning like a specialist would but they have a very one dimensional role which is far easier to perform.

As to the first point, I don't understand why the established batsman needs any protection. Of course he doesn't want to get out, but that goes for any time of day. And while I understand the merit of shutting up shop for the day, the established batsman - a better player than the nightwatchman, and probably with his eye in - is in a better position to achieve that result than the nightwatchman. And if the nightwatchman gets out, objective A - the protection of the batsmen still in the dressing room - is scuppered. I take your point, to a degree, about one-dimensional batsmanship.

Two other minor benefits of Anderson coming in last night - I've no idea if they've featured in the England camp's thinking:

First, it encourages the entire team to take pride in their batting - even the sole non-recognised batsman is encouraged to believe that he has a valuable role with the bat. That is a very healthy thing, albeit that it doesn't fully explain his appearance in these particular circumstances.

Second, England's plan is to bat just once in this game, which means that there will be a lot of work for the bowlers - not least Jimmy - tonight and on days 4 and 5. So getting his innings out of the way will allow him to get rested and ready for his forthcoming bowling marathon.

 

[GIMH]

Ishant Sharma is my favourite nightwatchman

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The use of nightwatchmen can be right but sending in Anderson the other day was pointless. If you are 10-1 at the end of a day then I can understand it as losing another top order player that night could change the match but it wasn't as though we would have been sending out Bopara who was on a hiding to nothing, Morgan has his winter tour place and should have been sent out.

 

[GIMH]

I imagine Morgan probably regrets not going out there now, given what happened when he did come out to bat