Night watchmen

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Connolly_31

Guest
As a complete cricket novice can somebody explain the reasoning behind a 'night watchman'.... As I see it you select your batters, you select your bowlers and then let them do their job. Why feel th need to put a poor batsman in because the top of the order couldn't see out a few more overs?

I don't understand it. The bowler has just taken a wicket, then sees a number 10 or 11 come out, he must be licking his lips thinking heres another walking wicket.
 


So Jonathan Trott can protect his average of 50. Thats the only logical reason I can come to where England are concerned
 
Baffles me as well.

If its for 7 balls or something at the end of the day, I understand slightly.

But when there is 5/6 overs left, what is the point? If your batsman is good enough, he will see off the overs himself. How many times have we seen the night watchmen get out and the batsman have to come in anyway?

Must give a canny psychological edge to the opposition as well.
 
They are protecting the wicket of the better batter. It will be easier for the better player to come in at 11:30am rather than late on. Usually in the evening the light will not be as good etc.
 
SAFC2403 said:
They are protecting the wicket of the better batter. It will be easier for the better player to come in at 11:30am rather than late on. Usually in the evening the light will not be as good etc.
Click to expand...

But it's a bit silly. Not as if Alistair Cook is Bell on to bowl at 6:30 to protect the bowlers figures. As far as I see it, the night watchman is a sitting duck. It will increase the bowlers confidence. Surely you'd be better moving a defensive batsman up the order?!

Take today for example. Why put Anderson in when Bell is quite clearly a better defensive batsmen (I would have used Trott here, but he failed). I reckon in test matches the batsmen should be clever enough to see those overs out, why get a bowler to do a batsmens job? hardly protecting a wicket when there's a weaker batter in
 
Connolly_31 said:
Hardly his choice though bud. Surely comes down to Cook and Flower?
Click to expand...

I think if a batsman insisted on going in the management would agree to it.

If a batsman isn't good enough to see off four overs then he shouldn't be playing test cricket. The more I watch test cricket the more I hate the idea of a nightwatchman. Obviously its intended to preserve batsmen but I disagree with it in principle. It also causes problems the next morning in a lot of circumstances
 
Aberdeen Angus said:
I think if a batsman insisted on going in the management would agree to it.

If a batsman isn't good enough to see off four overs then he shouldn't be playing test cricket. The more I watch test cricket the more I hate the idea of a nightwatchman. Obviously its intended to preserve batsmen but I disagree with it in principle. It also causes problems the next morning in a lot of circumstances
Click to expand...

I'm almost so opposed to the Night Watchman that I'd rather go the other way. Throw Bresnan or Prior in there for the last 4/5 overs and tell them to slap the batsman about and make THEM defend. May backfire, but surely nothing is lost. Could actually score 20-30 runs in those overs and turn the game in your favour.

As I say and as you know, I'm a novice, but the thought of a nightwatchman is dull, defensive and detrimental to the game as a spectacle. (top class alliteration)
 
They only put Anderson in as watchman so Charlie boy could ask Willis & Butcher 50 times why they put Jimmy in as watchman.
 
Connolly_31 said:
I'm almost so opposed to the Night Watchman that I'd rather go the other way. Throw Bresnan or Prior in there for the last 4/5 overs and tell them to slap the batsman about and make THEM defend. May backfire, but surely nothing is lost. Could actually score 20-30 runs in those overs and turn the game in your favour.

As I say and as you know, I'm a novice, but the thought of a nightwatchman is dull, defensive and detrimental to the game as a spectacle. (top class alliteration)
Click to expand...

Agreeable analysis (alliteration again)
 
Basically Anderson (or whoever) is expendable.

It didn't happen today, but if a wicket fell in the last over and that was Anderson then they'd all walk off and not complete the over - thinking, so what, we've lost a No11.

But if that wicket was a No3 batsman - then they'd be thinking why didn't we send a night watchmen in to see out what was left of the day.

It's a bit like a spinner bowling the last over before lunch, just to see if anything happens - even if the seamers are doing well.

The mentality of players change just before a break, why - I don't know, but it does happen.
 
I can sort of understand the point of a night watchman, but why when they get out before the close of play, does the original batsman come out anyway? If they want to protect his wicket, send in another tail ender.
 
it was too long for anderson to play against spin, trott should have gone in as the pressure did build when the nightwatchman was out. but essentially its to take the strike from the other batsman as well

sorry, terrible alliteration
 
Connolly_31 said:
Hardly his choice though bud. Surely comes down to Cook and Flower?
Click to expand...

No. The batsman due in is asked if he wants one and the decision is his. I find it baffling in the modern day that nwm are needed.

I remember in the 80s when Gower was captain of England and two NWM were at the crease on one occasion.
 
SAFC2403 said:
They are protecting the wicket of the better batter. It will be easier for the better player to come in at 11:30am rather than late on. Usually in the evening the light will not be as good etc.
Click to expand...

But more often than not they get skittled quickly and the batsman has to come in anyway.

Andy.SAFC said:
I can sort of understand the point of a night watchman, but why when they get out before the close of play, does the original batsman come out anyway? If they want to protect his wicket, send in another tail ender.
Click to expand...

This.
 
dangermows said:
But more often than not they get skittled quickly and the batsman has to come in anyway.
Click to expand...

This is the thing that confuses me most about using a night watchman, if a batsman decides he needs one, why not use a tailender who can actually bat a bit and stands a better chance of staying there and adding a few runs the next morning rather than a specialist number 11 who only comes to the crease in the morning to get out as quickly as possible. Someone like Broad is much better than Anderson at blocking for a few overs in the evening before trying to add a few runs the next day, at the very least, he wouldn't be a walking wicket to give the bowlers an early boost.
 
I certainly see the argument of Broad being nightwatchmen, he can hold a bat atleast and has scored runs in the past. It could also very much unsettle the bowlers in the morning if they're trying to attack and some bloke is slogging you arl owa.

I don't like NWM at all personally, because the batsmen should front up to it IMO. Openers do, so why can't a number 3/4/5/6 etc?? You wouldn't send the number 10 and 11 to open if theres only 5/6 overs left in the day when your innings starts :confused:
 
Connolly_31 said:
But it's a bit silly. Not as if Alistair Cook is Bell on to bowl at 6:30 to protect the bowlers figures.
Click to expand...
Actually you often used to see joke bowlers like Boycott or Gooch hoyed on when the real bowlers were getting tonked. And they often used to pick up daft wickets too. Boycott has more Test wickets than Agnew.

dangermows said:
But more often than not they get skittled quickly and the batsman has to come in anyway.
Click to expand...
87% of nwm don't get out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top