Message Board Archives

Cost Jamaica a wicket

With 2 balls left in the day he hit a ball close to the boundary. Easy 2 runs…refused to run back for the 2nd..forced Gilzene to face. Gilzene chopped on to the next delivery

In reply to FanAttick
could easily turn out to be 2 very likely he may not last long.
deserves a drop to understand responsibility

In reply to FanAttick

So……Gilzene cyah fend for himself?

Or he was the night watchman?

In reply to imusic

Have a lil common sense nah!!!!

He faced the first 4 balls of the over and the innings so he had his eyes set, you don't hide and have your partner face the last ball of the day.

As a Trini I glad but more importantly as WI cricket supporter, I want to see all our players play properly.

In reply to FanAttick

What an unfair representation of what transpired

In reply to imusic


I like your sense of humor
Suds is a Lugg Hugger

In reply to Emir

So if he had tickled his first ball down the leg side to fine leg for one….wouldn’t his partner have to face anyway?

His partner is not a night watchman. I don’t buy the hiding argument. And even if he did hide……his partner is an opening batsman. If he can’t negotiate 2 balls in the over, that’s an indictment of him, or teststament to the bowler.

Either way….unfair characterization of Lugg IMO

Now if the partner was the night watchman…I could better understand that POV. But he’s not.

If Lugg doesn’t make at least the century that Gilzene was going to make then he definitely deserves to be dropped.

In reply to imusic
Can you believe this thread, Gilzene must be a Night watchman or someone late in the inning that need shielding from the bowling.
I had to look at the scoreboard.

In reply to FanAttick

For a minute you had me thinking, Lugg pulled a Shiv on Gilzene

In reply to imusic

Hogwash, stick to the facts only. your poor analogy is useless to this debate. He did not "tickled his first ball down the leg side to fine leg for one….wouldn’t his partner have to face anyway" That did not happen or we would not have this post.

In reply to Emir

You jes lookin for argument. Carry on

In reply to openning

But isn't the nightwatchman's job to protect the top order bstter?

In reply to imusic
We often mistake the ROLE OF THE NIGHTWATCHMAN.He/ She is not only protecting the incoming batsman but also the batting partner.
Sonce in red ball cricket an avg 30 balls are faced the hope is that the watchman faces that many and in the interim ensures 2 top bats are still available next day

In reply to imusic

Here is the sequence of events in the final over of the day

You decide…

In reply to Brerzerk

That makes absolutely no sense

You’re correct when you say that “we” mistake the role of the night watchman.

By your post, the “we” really means you.

The night watchman’s role is a tactic used by batting teams after the fall of a top order batsman with minimal deliveries left in a days play.

His primary job is to try and not get out and survive till ent end of play. That’s the first job. Not to protect anyone.

And if the night watchman were to get out, at least the batting team doesn’t lose a top order batsman in the process. And given that it’s minimal deliveries left, that would also motivate the umpires to end the days play.

So essentially, the role is a sacrificial one. And if in that sacrifice, it protects a top order bat in the process, that tactic or strategy is successful.

It certainly is NOT to take the majority of the strike when out there.

In reply to Brerzerk

That makes absolutely no sense

You’re correct when you say that “we” mistake the role of the night watchman.

By your post, the “we” really means you.

The night watchman’s role is a tactic used by batting teams in test match cricket after the fall of a top order batsman with minimal deliveries/ time left in a days play.

His primary job is to try and not get out and survive till the end of play. That’s the first job. Not to protect anyone.

And if the night watchman were to get out, at least the batting team doesn’t lose a top order batsman in the process. And given that it’s minimal deliveries left, that COULD also motivate the umpires to end the days play.

So essentially, the role is a sacrificial one. And if in that sacrifice, it protects a top order bat in the process, that tactic or strategy is successful.

It certainly is NOT to take the majority of the strike when out there.

In reply to FanAttick

I get what happened now.

You are influenced by the commentator

In reply to imusic

I was watching live bro..the moment he refused the 2nd run I could anticipate what was going to happen next…

The way to play those tricky last overs is to play normal cricket and rotate the strike…refusing easy runs is a no no

In reply to FanAttick

That’s fair.

Can’t say I blame gilzean either. He tried to leave alone and do the responsible thing.

Unlucky

In reply to FanAttick

That was a mere invitation to treat

Obviously Leroy did not believe the contract could be fulfilled so he refused

Leroy demonstrated he is fully conversant with the laws governing running with a partner during the last over of the day’s play

In reply to sudden

He better make runs for both himself and Gilzene

In reply to FanAttick

Some years ago I saw Danza Hyatt selfishly cause Bonner to get run out in a T20 match.

Bonner must have called his relative in St. Thomas because Hyatt's cricket career faded fast thereafter.

In reply to Headley

“Dancer’s” cricket career was over from the time Taddy dialed the shoephone

In reply to FanAttick
With 2 balls left in the day he hit a ball close to the boundary. Easy 2 runs…refused to run back for the 2nd..forced Gilzene to face. Gilzene chopped on to the next delivery

Why blame Lugg its the selectors fault that useless *** should not be on the team

In reply to FanAttick

What a SOB. He deserves a drop but, to where. No more FC cricket anytime soon. I was looking to see Gilzene bat .

In reply to imusic
No, its different. Facing the 2nd ball is far different from facing the 5th and 2nd to last as your 1st. By the way opening it is the job of the nightwatchman to soak up as many deliveries possible before stumps

In reply to imusic

Then you do not know cricket! Night watchman is supposed to take
as much of the strike as posssible. It is ideal if the top bat can take a single early in the over and put him on strike. That is playing the law of avg. That is why a tailender with basic defensive skill rather than an aggresive one is sent out. You do not want the "batsman" at the wicket to get out nor the one in the pavilliin to come out either

In reply to Brerzerk

Lugg goes for 5
God doesn’t like ugly

In reply to Brerzerk

Night watchman is supposed to take
as much of the strike as posssible. It is ideal if the top bat can take a single early in the over and put him on strike. That is playing the law of avg. That is why a tailender with basic defensive skill rather than an aggresive one is sent out. You do not want the "batsman" at the wicket to get out nor the one in the pavilliin to come out either

Point taken.

The argument has been made over recent years though that the entrenched batsman is in a better position to face more of the remaining deliveries than the nightwatchman since it's the incoming batsman you want to protect not the incumbent one. He having been there ought to be able to see himself through. Of course without having his nightman run him out :

That is why India had Jadeja, Ashwin and Patel work at their batting to make them more useful nightwatchmen.

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy It is to block so that no more wickets fall through to the last ball

In reply to Brerzerk Methinks it is more so that a new specialist batsman wont have to bat till next day. Like when a true 'Watchie' does sit at the gate all night and when morning come hand over the keys to the day workers



Btw a Team ever send in 2 night watchmen before?