What was that all about !!?? How effing unprofessional was that ?? Its almost as if they've all sat in the dressing room playing cards, and someone has just shouted out...NEXT. Absolutely unbelievable that they have just 'given' a key wicket away. Its almost as if they really don't care.
All a bit predictable. A massive chance for Moeen to redeem himself tomorrow morning, but I'm not expecting it. Australia blow out the tail, we'll make less than 300 then finish the day - tomorrow should be an excellent day for batting - on 190-1
No night watchman unprofessional? Don't quite understand that, in fact I don't and never have understood the whole night watchman theory, especially when you see them get out before close of play. The whole thing is negative and pathetic and Steve Waugh agrees with me.
No night watchman unprofessional? Don't quite understand that, in fact I don't and never have understood the whole night watchman theory, especially when you see them get out before close of play. The whole thing is negative and pathetic and Steve Waugh agrees with me.
I never thought you would agree Riv. Pathetic is bit strong, especially as its been used for as long as Cricket . So, Bairstow out is better than Crane being out then ??
No night watchman unprofessional? Don't quite understand that, in fact I don't and never have understood the whole night watchman theory, especially when you see them get out before close of play. The whole thing is negative and pathetic and Steve Waugh agrees with me.
I never thought you would agree Riv. Pathetic is bit strong, especially as its been used for as long as Cricket . So, Bairstow out is better than Crane being out then ??
I'm not usually a fan of a nightwatchman, but in this case, with only a couple of overs to go & not much batting left then Crane or Anderson sacrificing their wicket would have been better than Bairstow getting out. I heard from TMS that it was Bairstow's choice but who knows ?
No night watchman unprofessional? Don't quite understand that, in fact I don't and never have understood the whole night watchman theory, especially when you see them get out before close of play. The whole thing is negative and pathetic and Steve Waugh agrees with me.
I never thought you would agree Riv. Pathetic is bit strong, especially as its been used for as long as Cricket . So, Bairstow out is better than Crane being out then ??
I'm not usually a fan of a nightwatchman, but in this case, with only a couple of overs to go & not much batting left then Crane or Anderson sacrificing their wicket would have been better than Bairstow getting out. I heard from TMS that it was Bairstow's choice but who knows ?
In this situation, with 3 overs left, new ball just taken, it was downright pathetic stupidity- just another example of Team Management having no guts to manage the team and tell Bairstow, no, youre not going out there , or saying to Root, no, you're going to bat at 3 not 4.
Plain common sense. Used as long as Cricket has been around. Only stubborn Yorkies, Steve Waugh (coz he had a team that he knew could blow away any team anyway) and Riv don't believe in it.
Plain common sense. Used as long as Cricket has been around. Only stubborn Yorkies, Steve Waugh (coz he had a team that he knew could blow away any team anyway) and Riv don't believe in it.
That link's a decent explanation. Could be an argument that these days (with light meters) the players are more likely to go off if the light is poor so perhaps a nightwatchman isn't needed. It also seems that these days when sides do use one they don't seem to make much of an effort to farm the strike and protect the recognised batsman which kind of defeats the object. That of course means the nightwatchman should have a certain amount of defensive ability with the bat to perform the role competently - not sure that applies to any of our current tail?
why is the recognized batsman more likely to get out in those three overs, rather than the first three overs when he comes in next day ?
He isn't usually more likely to be out in the last three overs than the first three overs unless there are other circumstances - such as bad light, long day in the field etc. It does mean, however, that the recognised batsmen has to bat twice at times when he is most vulnerable. The downside of a nightwatchman can be that it pushes the recognised batsmen one further down the order thus increasing the risk that they are stranded without a partner.
why is the recognized batsman more likely to get out in those three overs, rather than the first three overs when he comes in next day ?
He isn't usually more likely to be out in the last three overs than the first three overs unless there are other circumstances - such as bad light, long day in the field etc. It does mean, however, that the recognised batsmen has to bat twice at times when he is most vulnerable. The downside of a nightwatchman can be that it pushes the recognised batsmen one further down the order thus increasing the risk that they are stranded without a partner.
Thank you TMA, primarily the new batsman has to play himself in twice instead of once in the morning.
If Bairstow had asked for a nightwatchman, he'd have been given one. He obviously didn't ask. So he should take any flak going.
However, I would have more faith in a batsman that was prepared to put his hand up and tell his team-mates he was prepared to eschew a nightwatchman and give it a go himself. After all, it's his job to bat.
I think Bairstow deserves some credit for deciding against using a nightwatchman. But deserves more criticism for getting out.
If Bairstow had asked for a nightwatchman, he'd have been given one. He obviously didn't ask. So he should take any flak going.
However, I would have more faith in a batsman that was prepared to put his hand up and tell his team-mates he was prepared to eschew a nightwatchman and give it a go himself. After all, it's his job to bat.
I think Bairstow deserves some credit for deciding against using a nightwatchman. But deserves more criticism for getting out.
The scorecard says it was a shit decision. Even Malan said he was surprised and that he would take one every time in that situation- makes absolutely no sense not to - why put yourself in a situation of possibly allowing Ozzie ascendancy when there was no reason to.
If Bairstow had asked for a nightwatchman, he'd have been given one. He obviously didn't ask. So he should take any flak going.
However, I would have more faith in a batsman that was prepared to put his hand up and tell his team-mates he was prepared to eschew a nightwatchman and give it a go himself. After all, it's his job to bat.
I think Bairstow deserves some credit for deciding against using a nightwatchman. But deserves more criticism for getting out.
The kind of decision that is justified if you make it through to the close but looks very very silly if you get out.
The Aussies had just taken the new ball and Starc was swinging it around corners - he almost bowled Root twice before getting him third ball. If the ball was 60 overs old and doing nothing as it was mid session then I understand it more. The sensible option in this situation was to sacrifice Crane or Anderson.
If Bairstow had asked for a nightwatchman, he'd have been given one. He obviously didn't ask. So he should take any flak going.
However, I would have more faith in a batsman that was prepared to put his hand up and tell his team-mates he was prepared to eschew a nightwatchman and give it a go himself. After all, it's his job to bat.
I think Bairstow deserves some credit for deciding against using a nightwatchman. But deserves more criticism for getting out.
The kind of decision that is justified if you make it through to the close but looks very very silly if you get out.
The Aussies had just taken the new ball and Starc was swinging it around corners - he almost bowled Root twice before getting him third ball. If the ball was 60 overs old and doing nothing as it was mid session then I understand it more. The sensible option in this situation was to sacrifice Crane or Anderson.
I think you're part-way to agreeing with me. The thing Bairstow got wrong was to get out. If he hadn't, no-one would be discussing it.
If Bairstow had asked for a nightwatchman, he'd have been given one. He obviously didn't ask. So he should take any flak going.
However, I would have more faith in a batsman that was prepared to put his hand up and tell his team-mates he was prepared to eschew a nightwatchman and give it a go himself. After all, it's his job to bat.
I think Bairstow deserves some credit for deciding against using a nightwatchman. But deserves more criticism for getting out.
The kind of decision that is justified if you make it through to the close but looks very very silly if you get out.
The Aussies had just taken the new ball and Starc was swinging it around corners - he almost bowled Root twice before getting him third ball. If the ball was 60 overs old and doing nothing as it was mid session then I understand it more. The sensible option in this situation was to sacrifice Crane or Anderson.
I think you're part-way to agreeing with me. The thing Bairstow got wrong was to get out. If he hadn't, no-one would be discussing it.
You're missing the point - he wouldnt have got out if he wasnt there in the first place !
If Bairstow had asked for a nightwatchman, he'd have been given one. He obviously didn't ask. So he should take any flak going.
However, I would have more faith in a batsman that was prepared to put his hand up and tell his team-mates he was prepared to eschew a nightwatchman and give it a go himself. After all, it's his job to bat.
I think Bairstow deserves some credit for deciding against using a nightwatchman. But deserves more criticism for getting out.
The scorecard says it was a shit decision. Even Malan said he was surprised and that he would take one every time in that situation- makes absolutely no sense not to - why put yourself in a situation of possibly allowing Ozzie ascendancy when there was no reason to.
In retrospect, he probably should have made a different decision and sent Anderson ahead of him. There are plenty of reasons why he might not have wanted to, but by getting out, those will be ignored.
But the scorecard doesn't show who, why or whether there was a nightwatchman. It just shows that Bairstow was out. That's what he got wrong.
Let me put my argument in a slightly different way - I would be happier to have batsman who didn't get out, but made bad decisions about nightwatchmen; than batsmen who always made the "right" call with regards to sending in an alternate, but didn't hang around when it came to their turn to bat.
If Bairstow had asked for a nightwatchman, he'd have been given one. He obviously didn't ask. So he should take any flak going.
However, I would have more faith in a batsman that was prepared to put his hand up and tell his team-mates he was prepared to eschew a nightwatchman and give it a go himself. After all, it's his job to bat.
I think Bairstow deserves some credit for deciding against using a nightwatchman. But deserves more criticism for getting out.
The scorecard says it was a shit decision. Even Malan said he was surprised and that he would take one every time in that situation- makes absolutely no sense not to - why put yourself in a situation of possibly allowing Ozzie ascendancy when there was no reason to.
In retrospect, he probably should have made a different decision and sent Anderson ahead of him. There are plenty of reasons why he might not have wanted to, but by getting out, those will be ignored.
But the scorecard doesn't show who, why or whether there was a nightwatchman. It just shows that Bairstow was out. That's what he got wrong.
Let me put my argument in a slightly different way - I would be happier to have batsman who didn't get out, but made bad decisions about nightwatchmen; than batsmen who always made the "right" call with regards to sending in an alternate, but didn't hang around when it came to their turn to bat.
Bloody hell, think i preferred the original, at least i understood it
tbh, after seeing the Bairstow dismissal, its a good bet that we would still be only 4 down at end of day if there had been a night watchman coz Crane would likely have missed it.
Anyway, George Dobell thinks its not the problem, but thats ok , coz he's only a 'prick' according to Riv..
Comments
300 won't be anywhere near enough and we'll struggle to get to that with our tail.
Not sure why I'm surprised though....
Its almost as if they've all sat in the dressing room playing cards, and someone has just shouted out...NEXT. Absolutely unbelievable that they have just 'given' a key wicket away.
Its almost as if they really don't care.
So, Bairstow out is better than Crane being out then ??
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-cricket-teams-use-night-watchmen
Plain common sense. Used as long as Cricket has been around.
Only stubborn Yorkies, Steve Waugh (coz he had a team that he knew could blow away any team anyway) and Riv don't believe in it.
However, I would have more faith in a batsman that was prepared to put his hand up and tell his team-mates he was prepared to eschew a nightwatchman and give it a go himself. After all, it's his job to bat.
I think Bairstow deserves some credit for deciding against using a nightwatchman. But deserves more criticism for getting out.
Even Malan said he was surprised and that he would take one every time in that situation- makes absolutely no sense not to - why put yourself in a situation of possibly allowing Ozzie ascendancy when there was no reason to.
The Aussies had just taken the new ball and Starc was swinging it around corners - he almost bowled Root twice before getting him third ball. If the ball was 60 overs old and doing nothing as it was mid session then I understand it more. The sensible option in this situation was to sacrifice Crane or Anderson.
But the scorecard doesn't show who, why or whether there was a nightwatchman. It just shows that Bairstow was out. That's what he got wrong.
Let me put my argument in a slightly different way - I would be happier to have batsman who didn't get out, but made bad decisions about nightwatchmen; than batsmen who always made the "right" call with regards to sending in an alternate, but didn't hang around when it came to their turn to bat.
Anyway, George Dobell thinks its not the problem, but thats ok , coz he's only a 'prick' according to Riv..
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21957731/nightwatchman-not-halted-england-crime-wave