Should the concept of nightwatchman be scrapped?

[Ram]

This whole idea of sending in a tail-ender in the dying moments of the day to protect a tail-ender seems really flawed, because, most of the times, it’s a lose—lose situation. Most times, the tail-ender actually gets out before close of play, bringing in the middle order batsman anyway, like what happened today. That not makes the scoreboard look really bad, but it also provides a massive lift to the fielding team. When they see a tail-ender walking in, their hopes rise dramatically, their intensity shoots up because they know a wicket can fall anytime. Unfortunately, the proper batsman at the other end also has to cope with this increased intensity from the fielding side, which may result in his wicket too. But the really strange part is that there seems to be a lot of confusion over the role of a tail-ender. His role is to not only shielding the remaining batsman from the bowling side, he also has to shield the batsman at the other end from the strike, but that hardly happens. If anything, it’s the batsman who ends up facing most of the balls and tail-ender spends most of his time at the non-striker’s end, which is counterproductive And lets assume the tail-ender tactic works and he survives till close of play. The next morning, when he comes into bat, he completely screws up the momentum of the game. He stymies scoring, distorts all team plans and once again, lifts the bowling side who are able to isolate him, keep him at the striker’s end and reduce scoring rate and increase pressure. And most times, this leads to a fall of wickets at the other end. But my biggest grouse at this concept is that fundamentally, its based on weak grounds. When you send in a tail-ender, you’re essentially saying that you don’t back your top-order batsman to survive till close of play. That’s a very negative mindset. If anyone should be backed to survive the last few overs of the day, it should be the top-order batsman and not a lower order bowler. It’s a complete no-brainer.

[DomainK]

I agree fully. The very idea of promoting a 'tail-ender' to protect a middle order batsman is flawed because of the reasons mentioned by you. I can still understand if a Dan Vettori is promoted up the order. He is a good batsman who can play this part. But Ishant is a tail-ender. What made Swhwag think that Ishant can protect Sachin? If at all he wanted to protect Sachin from those annoying last few overs, it should have been Karthik or Yuvraj- someone who is a batsman. To Shuffle the batting order a bit to protect your best batsman is okay. But to send in a tail-ender is dumb.

[Sachinism]

If the batsman coming in next wasn't worried about getting out, the tailender probably wouldn't be sent out

[jf1gp_1]

i am fine with the nightwatch concept but one needs to identify the right nightwatchman. Zaheer Khan would have been an ideal person. not only would he have held his end but he could have also got some runs tomorrow morning. Ishant sharma was a wrong choice ofcourse not as bad as Ashish Nehra in England

[cowboysfan]

you need somebody better than ishant sharma to do it-other its useless.

[Sachinism]

i am fine with the nightwatch concept but one needs to identify the right nightwatchman. Zaheer Khan would have been an ideal person. not only would he have held his end but he could have also got some runs tomorrow morning. Ishant sharma was a wrong choice ofcourse not as bad as Ashish Nehra in England

True, Sharma can barely hold a bat, its pointless sending him out as a night watchman

[Ram]

The point about the night-watchman being a reasonably capable batsman to begin with is an excellent one.

[veer]

How does one scrap a concept? :dontknow:

:cantstop::cantstop: it is true.. sending sharma was bad choice for night watchman.. it gotta be either bhajji or khan.. even karthick.. plus, when you talk about momentum.. concept of night watchman is not loose momentum further at the end of the day.. imagine if SRT got out last night... concept is here to stay..