Australia v India
-
-
-
@Chris-B said in Australia v India:
@NTA said in Australia v India:
Send another Night Watchman, you cowards
That's the third or fourth time in recent times, I've seen a team send out a nightwatchman with about 20 minutes to play.
I don't think any of them have survived.
I don't know what they're thinking! A nightwatchman (MAYBE!) if there's ten balls or less left in the day. Because you don't want a specialist batsman to get out facing three or four balls. But four or five overs - that's ridiculous.
And even worse, the commentary teams appear to have invented a new role, where the nightwatchman is also apparently supposed to dominate the strike and protect the set batsman. That's bollocks IMO. The one thing you don't want is for the nightwatchman to get out and have to have your new batsman come out anyway - so if anything I'd want the set specialist batsman to farm the strike. After all, you don't trust your bunnies at the end of the innings.
And in Akash Deep's case - following this theory, he came out with five overs to play so ideally he faces all 30 balls.
Problem being he's had 8 innings in test cricket and faced 138 balls - so on average he only lasts 17 balls.
Edit: Maybe in the last over of the day, when a new batsmen doesn't have to come out anyway - the nightie might turn down a single to protect the set batsman.
I reckon.
Someone supposedly in the team as a batsman gets protected from actually batting by a guy who is very likely tired from bowling heaps earlier on. It’s pretty ridiculous
As @NTA alludes to if it comes to it Australia might not enforce the follow on and instead bat again and set a huge 4th innings total.
It’s the modern way it seems
-
@NTA said in Australia v India:
@Chris-B like the follow-on, I don't think it's a thing any more unless it's the circumstances you describe
Shouldn't be - but, India and NZ are both still using it - and both guilty of sending in early nighties.
Steve Waugh got rid of it altogether and I think was probably correct - except in exceptional circumstances.
-
-
Think I want this tail to wag to ensure follow on is out of the equation purely from my own selfish wish to watch Konstas have another bat
-
@Rapido Indians have probably made four or five errors that will cost them this test.
Picking Rohit instead of Shubman - but, a bit like Timmy that was always happening. No country for old men, Rohit.
Not finding a quick solution for Konstas.
Jaiswal runout. Which probably cost them Kohli, as well.
Nightwatchman - which might have contributed to Kohli.
Pant!
-
-
@Cyclops said in Australia v India:
Yeah I'm on Steve Waugh's side on the nightwatcher. The best case scenario is you get through to stumps without another wicket and then have an awkward start the next morning as a tail ender tries to hang around.
Ricky Ponting obviously disagreed with Tugga, I reckon that made Jason Gillespie pretty happy.
-
I remember Flem sending in Kyle Mills as a 'new ball watchman' when we were getting thumped by the South Africans. What else could we do? 'Lunchwatcher'? 'Drinkswatcher'? Maybe Crawley needed a Henrywatcher?
How spoiled are batsmen? Only expected to participate in half the game (if we're being generous you could say 2/3rds counting fielding). And even then they get to say 'nah, bit tricky' some of the time.
-
@Cyclops said in Australia v India:
I remember Flem sending in Kyle Mills as a 'new ball watchman' when we were getting thumped by the South Africans. What else could we do? 'Lunchwatcher'? 'Drinkswatcher'? Maybe Crawley needed a Henrywatcher?
How spoiled are batsmen? Only expected to participate in half the game (if we're being generous you could say 2/3rds counting fielding). And even then they get to say 'nah, bit tricky' some of the time.
….and it’s not like Fleming evened the ledger by turning the arm over when his seamers were a bit tired.
Didn’t bowl a single ball in 111 tests.
Jadeja playing a bit of a sheet anchor role, if Oz get him the rest should crumble pretty quick I reckon.
-
@MN5 said in Australia v India:
@Cyclops said in Australia v India:
I remember Flem sending in Kyle Mills as a 'new ball watchman' when we were getting thumped by the South Africans. What else could we do? 'Lunchwatcher'? 'Drinkswatcher'? Maybe Crawley needed a Henrywatcher?
How spoiled are batsmen? Only expected to participate in half the game (if we're being generous you could say 2/3rds counting fielding). And even then they get to say 'nah, bit tricky' some of the time.
….and it’s not like Fleming evened the ledger by turning the arm over when his seamers were a bit tired.
Didn’t bowl a single ball in 111 tests.
Jadeja playing a bit of a sheet anchor role, if Oz get him the rest should crumble pretty quick I reckon.
Although looking at the ODIs he bowled in, it looks a bit like they said 'we're getting thrashed, Flem bowl a couple of overs to save the real bowlers averages'.
-
-
@Cyclops said in Australia v India:
Yeah I'm on Steve Waugh's side on the nightwatcher. The best case scenario is you get through to stumps without another wicket and then have an awkward start the next morning as a tail ender tries to hang around.
A tail ender hanging around while the best bowlers and the pitch are at their freshest in the morning is part of the point.
-
@Damo said in Australia v India:
@Cyclops said in Australia v India:
Yeah I'm on Steve Waugh's side on the nightwatcher. The best case scenario is you get through to stumps without another wicket and then have an awkward start the next morning as a tail ender tries to hang around.
A tail ender hanging around while the best bowlers and the pitch are at their freshest in the morning is part of the point.
So then why not open with 10 and 11 to 'see off the new ball'? (Although it's worth acknowledging that in the days of uncovered pitches there are examples of batting orders being reversed to try to give the pitch time to dry before the batters come in).
My feeling is that if a nightwatcher actually hangs around, then conditions are probably pretty good for batting and having a top order bat in inside would probably be more productive anyway.
I think both arguments are pretty marginal, I don't think using or not using one makes much difference in the scheme of things.
-
@Damo said in Australia v India:
I am going to go against the trend and argue that generally the night Watchman is a good idea.
This 2018 piece argues that 70% of Test night watchmen innings over the years have been successful so it is a percentage option, although not without risk.
Who is the best nightwatchman of all time?
The Bradman of nightwatchmen scored 327 runs in that role at an average of 40.9 and faced 1040 balls, averaging 116 balls per innings
It's also a role you can train an experienced player to be bloody good at. Jason Gillespie and Stuart Broad ("the night hawk") has two seasoned practitioners that spring to mind.
-
Back to the test, nice little twist happening with this partnership, draw certainly becomes more possible the longer they bat on
