Nightwatchman - An Unnecessary Role?

Whilst eating my Special K this morning I put the Australia-India Test match at the SCG on for five minutes, amidst a discussion between the commentators regarding the role of the nightwatchman. Similar debates have been held between the English commentators in the past few years, with the crux of the debate centering around the reasoning behind a lesser skilled batsmen trying to see off the last few overs of the day, when surely a greater skilled batsman would be more adept at doing so.

Michael Slater, I think it was, was of the opinion that it depended upon the mental state of the next batsman in. If he was still switched on, Slats suggested that he should come out to face those last few deliveries. The batsman in question was Michael Hussey, and whilst Australia would certainly want him ready to bat tomorrow, Hussey at the same time is a very solid and compact player that theoretically should be perfect for blocking out a few deliveries from tired bowlers. Of course, throwing in a tail ender can sometimes do its intended job, but there are times when they're in and back out again and suddenly you've wasted another wicket.

So, what are your thoughts on the role of the nightwatchman? Should the proper batsman come out to bat and just play in a defensive manner, using their greater technique and ability to do so, or should a lesser batsman whose loss wouldn't too much affect the team be put in to the firing line?

As a bit of an aside, what are the great nightwatchman innings, and who was a particularly good nightwatchman?

Over to you.

Alex Tudor's 99 comes to mind.

I to listened to that conversation and agreed with Healy who wanted to protect Hussey. Of course, if the next man in, demanded he went in then I would let him.

think it's quite sensible using a nightwatchman - there's nothing much for a top order batsman to gain by facing a few overs near the end of the day. I don't have stats but seem to recall Paul Harris being quite effective in this role, not making big scores but seeing out the day and hanging around a bit the next to take some shine off the ball. obviously depends on the top order batsman though - if he's up for it seems pointless overprotecting him.

Facing your first few overs is always a risk for any batsman, so it does seem a little daft to expose a key batsman to this testing period twice (should they survive the first one the night before).

James Anderson is a useful nightwatchman. Doesn't go on to get many runs, but often sees the job through and is brave in the face of any aggression from the opposition quicks. He also had the incredible run of innings without a duck which ended in 2009 I think, which always helps when trying to see out an over or two!

Like you say, mindset is key. If the batsman feels conifident and is willing then I see no problem, but any doubts and someone of less value should be sent out!

Of course, the nightwatchman also plays a role in the morning when there could be dew about and the opening bowlers are fresh.

In the 'olden' days, a wicket keeper use to play this role but now, the keepers are to good.

They play too many shots as well, Stella! Not many technically solid wicket keepers around these days, many of them are unorthodox and like to take the game to the opposition.

A bit different to the days of Paul Downton

I understand the role of the nightwatchman on the evening, but my biggest issue is when a team is trying to press - send in a night watchmen who then hangs around the following morning but not scoring. - and all impetus is lost.
Thus if it was england I would prefer if they are in the driving seat either to not use a nightwatchman, or use someone like Swann/Broad/Bresnan who are capable of scoring quickly come the next day, but someone you would sacrifice ahead of KP, Bell etc.


As to great innings by a nightwatchman - Dizzy against Bangladesh, only time a nightwatchman scored a double ton.

Thanks for clearing that up, LT, as I wasn't sure whether Akram was a night watchman when he made his double ton.

With regard to your main point, England have made such a move several times in the past, much to my frustration. If you are in a position whereby you're forcing the game then it either has to be your next best batsman or as you say and aggressive tailender who can bat well enough to have a go the next morning, should they survive.

Quote from Cricinfo profile on Robin Marlar, potentially the greatest ever nightwatchman: "Marlar's own batting - he averaged less than 10, and was once stumped second ball for 6 after going in as a nightwatchman - counted against him".

Ha, brilliant!

I agree with LT, the main problem in my opinion has always been the morning after when a nightwatchman tends to slow down the impertus of the innings.
I understand there role, and uses but believe that only in certain situations should they be used.

was Jason Gillespe acting as a nightwatchmen for his double?

hodge wrote:was Jason Gillespe acting as a nightwatchmen for his double?

Looks like he was.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/238172.html

just looked at Hussey's innings in that 189 odd off of 203 balls ish, great strike rate over a long period for a test.

Never been a great fan of the Nightwatchman role. For every Alex Tudor with 99 not out, my perception is that there are lots of rabbits falling quickly and cheaply. This acts as an extra morale booster to the bowlers either at the end of play or early the next day and also often results in the last recognised batsmen having one less potential partner to help him extend his innings.

I can understand a batsman not wanting to walk out to the crease at 6.20 with 3 overs left. However, I think he has to take the rough with the smooth. He should be there to bat at all times and in all circumstances, not just when the fancy takes him.

Nightwatchmans always seemed unnecessary in my eyes, why bring in a batsman with less ability and technique when you have a top order batsman with exactly that waiting in the wings. Only necessary if a Batsmans lacking confidence and feels a Nightwatchmans needed, in my opinion it should be up to the Batsman.

Welcome back Liam

I support the judicious use of night watchmen. Especially as there are front line batsman who get lots of big scores but who are poor starters and so their successes are interspersed with plenty of low scores. But I agree not to force it on a top batsman who is happy to go out to bat near the close. If there is a problem the next morning with a slow scoring tail ender still in when you need to press for runs it surely should be possible to overcome that by ordering him to fling his bat at the ball.

Liam_Main wrote:Nightwatchmans always seemed unnecessary in my eyes, why bring in a batsman with less ability and technique when you have a top order batsman with exactly that waiting in the wings. Only necessary if a Batsmans lacking confidence and feels a Nightwatchmans needed, in my opinion it should be up to the Batsman.

That sums up my views on this completely. Plus come the morning session you have a walking wicket at one end rather than a top order batsman.

Liam_Main wrote:Nightwatchmans always seemed unnecessary in my eyes, why bring in a batsman with less ability and technique when you have a top order batsman with exactly that waiting in the wings. Only necessary if a Batsmans lacking confidence and feels a Nightwatchmans needed, in my opinion it should be up to the Batsman.

it is up to the batsman



(PS WELCOME BACK MATE)

End of the day it's ideal to have someone who will be completely defensively minded, and hopefully will protect your top batsmen in the most difficult time to bat, the last hour. However, in the morning where your looking to get a move on, more often than not you'll see the nightwatchmen trying to play like a batsmen, when really they should go out to play aggressively and try to get quick runs, so when the next batsmen comes out he's not under as much pressure if the scoreboard has been ticked over. This is all in an ideal situation however

I must say I was suprised (but pleased) when Sangakkara came out to bat in the second innings of the last Test after Dilshan was out. He only had to face a few balls before the umps took them off. But not many teams would have been so inclined to have risked him.
I do see the reasoning for nightwatchmen, but I am in the camp of it is the batsmans jobs to bat, and I would like them to do so in almost all scenarios.

Reaction to the use of nightwatchmen range from "Good idea. It saves a top batsman from being out" to "Why are they sending in an inferior player who could easily get out?"
Well of course the secret - if you're going down the nightwatchman road - is to send in a not too inferior player. Anderson, who sometimes bats at number 11 could do it but not Malcolm, Tufnell or Mulalley (spelling).
I was at Lord's when England used two nightwatchmen against Australia in 1985 and Gatting was left high and dry with the tail. I reckon if the n'watchman gets out, then send in a top batsman. The ruse has failed and the normal order should be restored.

I think recently too many teams have used the night watchman almost without thinking.

I can see the point if you've been given a tricky 10 over session at the end of a day and lose a wicket to fresh bowlers and the relatively new ball - send in your #9 or 10 if they are competent defenders so that they can see out the day and a bit of the freshness and hardness of the ball the following morning so that life is easier for your main batsmen.

However, if you're at 200-2 against an old ball and tiring attack, I'd be very disappointed if my number 4 wasn't raring to go.

OK, so I've picked two somewhat extreme cases, but to be honest I think night watchmen probably are somewhat over-used now (especially Engalnd a few years ago, when Hoggard batted almost as often in the top 5 as he did in the low order).

sirfred
The concept of Tuffers coming in as a night watchman has just brightened my day

I think sending out a nightwatchman sends the wrong message. It basically says "our number (whatever) batsman isn't capable of seeing off a few overs and we're afraid of losing another wicket. Frankly I love nothing more than seeing our next due in batsman going out to face a few tricky overs at the end of the day if for no other reason than to show we're not afraid and it's all business as usual.

i like the nightwatchman role.....and they can bat..for example Jason Gillespie's double hundred was as a night watchman.

Does anyone remember when we sent out Yardy as a "nightwatchman" kinda thing in an ODI?

Here it is: http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-australia-2010/engine/match/426391.html

Tait was looking ominous and had just pouched Strauss in his third over, but we knew he couldn't bowl more than 4 over spells (not fit enough) so we sent out Yardy to see him off. 2 balls later he was bowled. Poor all round!

yh i remeber that, it was awful lol.