Nightwatchmen - a mission statement?
With Jimmy Anderson acting as night watchman at Headingley today, and following on from Ed's recent Burble, it occurs to me that I'm not sure most of us have a definite idea about what the role of a night watchman actually is.
Is he meant to try to take the strike himself, or to try to let his more experienced batting partner shoulder the responsibility? The former sounds more logical for protecting the batsman at the crease, but the latter would be more logical for protecting the next man in!
I'm not sure there is a definitive answer on the subject...
6 comments:
Anderson's gallant innings this morning was entirely wasted by Pietersen's reckless, arrogant and selfish innings. Pietersen showed himself unworthy of being protected by a nightwatchman and should be dropped until he learns that test cricket is a team game and not an ego trip.
I'm consciouse that last time you criticised Pietersen, I defended him! I watched all 5 balls of Pietersen's innings.
Ball 1: inside edge for 4, it wasn't a reckless shot.
Ball 2: stood tall and punched the ball down the ground for four - good shot but a little risky given that he wasn't at the pitch if there had been any seam movement.
Ball 3: pushed for a single safely.
Ball 4: stupid shot - reached for a wide one that was swinging away, but got enough bat on it to get it along the ground for four past point.
Ball 5: good ball, looked to defend it and got out.
I thought it was interesting that all the commentators got on Pietersen's back after he'd got out, but weren't negative until that point. His 4th ball was a poor shot, and you could argue that his 2nd was a little risky, but the ball he got out to wasn't poor shot selection - Kallis should get a lot of credit.
His 1st innings dismissal was crucial and to me was something he should be criticised for far more for than yesterday's. But having said that there were plenty of ill-considered shots by England throughout the team in both innings, many of which didn't result in wickets.
I guess my burble is trying to say that we (public and media) should be wary of being overly critical based on the skill of the player - as Pietersen is more skillful he is getting a load of stick despite being out to a "sensible" shot. As England supporters we're incredibly disappointed that he couldn't dig the team out of a hole as he has done before, but our disappointment, and therefore criticism it seems to me, is heightened because he's our best player (something David Beckham has had to live with for years). Someone like Ambrose, of whom we (rightly) expect nothing, played a dreadful shot having got himself in, and yet there's barely a murmer of discontent about that one.
There needs to be a balance found between analysing shot selection and improving on it in future, and not making batsman afraid to play a shot - something that Graham Thorpe mentions in his autobiography paralysed England batsman in the 90s. I hope that Andy Flower can find that balance.
I think it is reasonable to allow those exceptionally talented strokeplayers a certain leeway for when their shots don't come off. On another day, when the shots come off, the result will be a match-changing innings that mere mortals wouldn't have been capable of (e.g. Pietersen at the Oval in 2005).
To my mind, however, the corollary of this is that, for every Pietersen, (on-form) Flintoff, Gower or Ed Lamb, you need three or four 'grafters' who are capable of hitting a scratchy century playing badly. In 2003-4 England had this in the forms of Butcher, Hussein and Thorpe, and it is predominantly to these guys that I would attribute the turnaround in fortunes of the national team at that time - every test that we won vs WI or NZ seemed too close to call at some stage until a critical, gritty partnership between two of those protagonists.
The only current England player with the same qualities seems to be Collingwood - so I'm a bit uneasy that he's been left out, despite his current form.
Anyway, back to my original burble - does anyone know whether night watchmen are told to take or avoid the strike...?!
I think these days, they don't turn down runs that are on offer so that the night watchman can take the strike rather than the real batsman at the other end, but I believe they once did - someone else a bit older might know about that!
That article I linked to the other day reckoned that 40% of night watchmen facing more than 30 balls was a success - I'd expect it to be more like 75% lasting until the next day to be considered successful, so I'm hesitant to support night watchmen given that they are often given too long to last out in my opinion.
My guess is that they do have their place very near the end of the day, but if the night watchman is going to have to face more than, say, 10 balls, then it seems very risky to put them in. Anderson only had to see out one ball on Sunday night and, but for an umpiring mistake, he would have failed (assuming that his "mission statement" was simply "do not lose another wicket tonight"). But his innings yesterday morning was a very gutsy effort.
p.s. there is an erroneous mention of Ed Lamb in your post above Dave!
Just testing if you ever read my comments! :-)
Post a Comment