latest score of cricket
What are your views on cricket nightwatchmen?
A nightwatchman is sent in when a wicket falls late in the day, to protect a recognised batsman until the next morning.
Yesterday at the MCG, we saw Nathan Hauritz bat for over 3 hours to make 75. Was this good for the team, or should Hauritz have got out quickly, to allow a proper batsman to score more quickly?
What do you feel is the role of a nightwatchman?
I’m all for nightwatchmen, I advocate the use of them wholeheartedly under the right circumstances (i.e. if the batting team are in a precarious position near the close of play and have lost one wicket too many) but I think in this instance Australia using a nightwatchman was, perhaps, pretty pointless, for several reasons.
Hauritz (promoted to number 5) came into protect a player, Michael Clarke (who ended up not out on 28), when there were still so many overs in the day left to play (well over 6 I think). What’s the point? Surely a nigthwatchman’s role is to maintain most of the strike until the close of play while protecting a more capable batsmen from getting out cheaply. But with so many overs left to play, and with so much time left, they might as well have not bothered because the tactic seems especially meaningless. I mean, who is Hauritz actually protecting by coming in so early? No one as more established batsmen then have to protect him (more on this in a minute).
And it could have been extremely ineffectual if Hauritz hadn’t survived. It was simple luck that he did but I think Australia’s tactic actually compromised Hussey somewhat in his effort to get a much deserved hundred. Hussey was noticeably under more pressure while having to look after Hauritz as well as his own game and he got out later (for 82) loosely sweeping a shot that ended in LBW. It ended up wasting a batsman.
Their tactic becomes even more pointless as Australia were already in such a dominant and commanding position (294 odd for 3), the pitch was playing far too well to be worrying about protecting batsmen, and sending in an unnecessary nightwatchman seemed like an avocation too far (especially if you look at the way Australia are losing wickets in their second innings. As I type this they are currently 161/6 and Pakistan might end up in a position where they could push for a win). They could have used a specialist batsman (Hussey in combination with Clarke for example) to press forward and up the run rate (beyond the meandering) and score some runs that might turn out to be vital to their cause later (or they could have even utilised the nightwatchman a little better by using him at the end of the day and then getting him to retire [rather than just throwing his wicket away] as soon as the next day’s play started up).
Yes Hauritz’s innings was commendable and he played well for his 75 (although he struggled initially) but he’s not a great batsman and he’s generally not going to get masses of runs (nightwatchmen generally don’t, there have, after all, only been about 6 nightwatchment in the history of Test cricket to score centuries. And they’re usually slow ones) and he was at the crease for far too long. It was, therefore, not a good move by Australia.
