littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Lots. Often you have to declare if you want to win.
The Ashes 2010/11
- Thread starter strung out
- Start date
Lots. Often you have to declare if you want to win.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I have a mate who is a physio and works at Lord's. He watched on with dismay as Flintoff was trained into the ground day after day at Lord's gym before the last Ashes series. It is his professional opinion that Flintoff's coaches basically crippled him for life by pushing him too hard.
Not the first time you bat though. At that point, what are you -- three days in? If both teams have racked up decent scores and you are 4 days in then I can see the point of a vain attempt at getting the opposition out quickly on the last day. But I keep hearing people call for declarations in the second innings after 2.5 days!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ah, by second innings, you mean first innings. Ok, I see now. Yes, in that case, I agree, and I remember vividly thinking that Flintoff was making a big mistake declaring at Adelaide in 2006 (although this was the first first innings). This isn't with the benefit of hindsight – I genuinely had a feeling of foreboding at the time.
The only time I think it is fine to declare, assuming that time isn't yet an issue, is if there are two tailenders in and they can't score. No point wasting time in that situation.
The only time I think it is fine to declare, assuming that time isn't yet an issue, is if there are two tailenders in and they can't score. No point wasting time in that situation.
Sorry for the terminology -- I agree it is confusing. But I've seen it officially referred to a second innings declaration as opposed to a third innings declaration. There is indeed also such a rare beast as a first innings declaration, as per Flintoff -- something really dumb IMO.
So hurrah -- we are in agreement about item 1. Now to persuade you and all others that night watchmen should be consigned to the dustbin of history...
So hurrah -- we are in agreement about item 1. Now to persuade you and all others that night watchmen should be consigned to the dustbin of history...
Sometimes you need to declare in the first innings to avoid needing to enforce the follow-on to bowl them out twice. No point in being 900-3 on a flat track with only two days left to take 20 wickets.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
There is a rationale behind n/wmen. All batsmen are at their most vulnerable when they first come in (possibly Shane Watson excepted!). Being not out at the beginning of the day is basically coming in new. So if you have 3 or 4 overs to bat in the evening, you don't have time to get yourself in, but you are exposed to the most vulnerable time of your innings, only to have to do the same thing the next morning. In such circumstances, it is better to send in a lower-order blocker for those 3-4 overs.
I know the theory. I just think it stinks.
The problem is the way it upsets the order of the batsmen. For a start, it means that your #6 and #7 batsmen suddenly even have less of a tail to bat with. And it means that when you should be attacking with your #3 and #4 (for example), you might be stuck with a #10 blocker at one end.
I'm much more ambivalent about it than I am about second inning declarations and follow-ons but something in my gut says that it isn't the good idea it first appears.
As an opener I agree that the night watchman idea is bizarre. Openers never get the choice they just have to go out and face the quicks with the new ball regardless of the time of day.
Why would a number 11 have a better defensive technique than a top 5 batsman?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is why the n/wman has to start playing strokes the next day, as Anderson did yesterday. Nothing more annoying to the opposition than a quick 40 from him that morning, but if he gets out quickly, it's not big deal.
On balance, I think the nightwatchman is a sensible idea, so long as he actually tries to take the strike on the evening in question (Jimmy in Perth, what were you doing?).
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
They don't, but that isn't the rationale, as I explained a few posts ago.
Essentially, that means you are throwing away one of your tail enders. Because he has to play like a proper batsman, otherwise he is holding up the scoring. But he can't play like a proper batsman, so he ends up getting out for 7 at a time you don't need him. Whereas he COULD have been partnering the #6 or #7 at the end of the order instead.
And Teaboy IS right about the defensive technique. You are relying on the night watchman being able to survive until the end of the evening, otherwise he is pointless. But why rely on a #10 or #11 for a job that should be meat and drink for a #4 or #5?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Because said 4 or 5 then only has to start an innings once rather than twice, as I explained above.
That's the whole point – that until he's got his feet moving properly, such a job isn't meat and drink. Most batsmen get out for under 10 much more often than they get out for, say, between 10 and 30. There's a reason for that.
That's the whole point – that until he's got his feet moving properly, such a job isn't meat and drink. Most batsmen get out for under 10 much more often than they get out for, say, between 10 and 30. There's a reason for that.
So what? They have to restart their innings EVERY session. In many ways, they have to do it twice per session, with tea breaks holding things up too. If they're good enough to score a century then they shouldn't need to be mollycoddled.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
I wonder if any London-based posters fancy going for a drink in a bar known to be frequented by our colonial convict-descended cousins tomorrow evening, just to wallow in their misery?
I know, but its a bit suss. As I said as someone whos always opened I find the whole thing a bit cowardly. You're a batsman its your job to go out and bat not send a bowler out because you don't like the time of day.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's a fair point of view too. I don't have strong opinion either way. I know Steve Waugh never believed in nightwatchmen for the reason you give.
Changing the subject back to the ashes, what the fuck is wrong with Watson? I've just seen that run out on the highlights and its just bizarre. It's Hughes' call and you clearly hear him say 'no', but Watson head down just carries on trotting to the other end and then looks surprised when Hughes is stood next to him.
Is Watson deaf or just completly stupid? Do the shackles make it difficult for an aussie to turn around once they start running?
Is Watson deaf or just completly stupid? Do the shackles make it difficult for an aussie to turn around once they start running?
True, but I'm not sure he could have captained this aussie team to a series win. He'd averaged more than 15, mind.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Speaking as someone who was run out more than once in his short and inauspicious cricket career, I can empathise completely with him. You can guarantee that he doesn't know why he does it either.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I see the SCG has pretty similar looking floodlights to our beloved Olympic Stadium - utter shite looking, Gary Glitter stage accessories.
Idaho
blah blah blah
I wonder if any London-based posters fancy going for a drink in a bar known to be frequented by our colonial convict-descended cousins tomorrow evening, just to wallow in their misery?
Ooh.. good idea. There is a walkabout here. I wouldn't normally touch the place with a bargepole, but it might be worth a chuckle.
mattie
missing in inaction
I'm not sure it's being mollycoddled, it's a tactical decision. There's a world of difference between restarting after 40mins max break and overnight - the weather and pitch condition won't have changed much, for a start - so any method of avoiding restarting is worth some consideration. It's really nothing to do with pandering to batsman, it's deciding how the team wants to risk its available resources, and I find it a bit baffling that it's been expressed in that manner.
I'm ambivalent on nightwatchmen, I get the idea but can see the demerits of using them. As has been highlighted by you and others, the fact that the nightwatchman is generally the best defensive batsman means you'd use up a potentially useful wicket to the marginal benefit of slightly protecting a higher-order batsman. I'd be inclined to only use them when there's so few overs left that a golden duck for the nightwatchmen would be stumps, and send in the no 11. Eta: And tell them to lash at everything if they're so inclined.
kabbes, it is your job - no, your DUTY, to cricket, to posterity and to science - to do a statistical analysis on the use of nightwatchpersons to determine whether the tactic is a sound one. We will need to agree various definitions before analysis is undertaken. I suggest a new thread.
