Trivia - batting June 20, 2008

The best night-watchman in Tests - Part I

The night-watchman concept in Test cricket is a paradox
42

After a light-weight ODI related post last time around (The "Unfulfilled team innings in ODIs"), I am now reverting to Test matches and a considerably more complex analysis.

The night-watchman concept in Test cricket is a paradox. A batsman of far lesser ability is sent to bat in place of a far more accomplished batsman, in possibly inferior batting conditions. The better batsman is preserved to bat when conditions are better. But this is as much part of Test cricket as white clothing, follow-on, new ball after 80 overs et al and deserves an in-depth look.

This time I have taken a conscious decision to do this post in two parts. The first part will deal with the individual batsmen performances while the second one will analyse the whole night-watchman canvas by team and by period. In addition, I will take a view on whether the night-watchman concept has been successful. I will also incorporate relevant readers' suggestions.

This analysis is based on the earlier study I have made on the Test batting positions. In that analysis, we looked at batting positions as a measure. To summarize that analysis, I had looked at the career Batting Position Average (BPA) of Test batsmen, keeping the two opening positions as 1. That index is used to have an analytical look at the night-watchmen.

Using night-watchmen as a tactic has existed down the ages. The night-watchmen regularly padded up an hour before close, and would walk in at the fall of a wicket. If he survived, great. Else, send another one hoping that at least he would survive. I have seen matches in which two such night-watchmen had failed and the regularly scheduled player was forced to bat, this time with his team having lost two more wickets. However, there have been many cases where the night-watchman survived that day and for quite some time the next day.

The Australians, led by Steve Waugh, changed things. A top-order batsman was expected to bat whatever be the time of the day, be it 10.47am or 16.53pm. There is no denying that this worked. Overall this seems to me to be the correct approach. Most other teams, for that matter even the Australians now, take the nigt-watchmen approach.

Our interest here is analytical. Let us first define a night-watchman. This is very difficult especially as there is very little data available on things like the time of the day when a batsman came to the wicket. So we can only take an algorithmic approach using the BPA and the batting position the batsman batted in. We may get it right 95% of the time, but that is enough.

A simple starting definition may be that a night-watchman is one who bats (somewhat) higher than his intended position. But we have to take care of situations such as an accomplished batsman like Gilchrist opening for Australia or Wasim Akram/Dhoni coming in earlier to speed up the scoring. Gilchrist's Batting Position Index in Tests is 6.68, indicating that he is a batsman who has batted at No.7 most of his career. Wasim Akram, scorer of three Test centuries and a BPA of 8.1, batting at number 3 or 4, would have to be taken care of. In order to do a correct job of selecting true night-watchmen for our analysis, it is necessary to define a number of related parameters other than batting position alone.

1. First our knowledge, research and intuition lets us decide who is not a night-watchman. Any batsman whose career-to-date batting average is higher than 25.00 cannot be classified as a night-watchman. No captain is going to risk a batsman of the calibre of Vettori (ave 26.65) to protect Styris (36.05). His wicket is too valuable to risk losing. In this regard, we also have to take care of genuine batsmen like Wasim Akram (22.64), Benaud (24.46) etc who have batting averages between 20 and 25. A slight tweak takes care of such batsmen.

  • Career-to-date average rather than career average is taken since by now I have realised the importance of taking this value as against career figure in certain situations. I have also realised the readers' preferences and have anticipated their inputs. It is also true that I have developed the Career-to-date figures and incorporated in my data base because of suggestions relating to earier postings making my task that much easier.
  • In this case there is perfect justification. A player's cumulative measures keep on changing. A captain who decides to use a player as a night-watchman at a certain point in his career may not do so at another point depending on changes. For instance, in match 1486 against India, Nicky Boje was used as a night-watchman when the first wicket fell late in the day. His career-to-date batting average at that time was only 14.00. Hence we have treated this correctly as a night-watchman innings even though his end-career average was 25.23. If the career figure was used, this match-winning innings of 85 would have been missed out. This is just an example.

2. We should also ignore players whose BPA is less than 7.00. If a player normally bats in positions 1-6, and he moves up, he cannot be treated as a night-watchman. For instance a batsman with a batting average of 24 and BPA of 5.2 opens the batting, this is not an example of a night-watchman.

3. We have to look at it the other way as well: only innings in which tailenders have batted at positions 1-6 will qualify as night-watchmen innings. A no.10 batsman batting at no.8 is certainly not a night-watchman instance.

4. Finally, the key criterion. An innings will be considered as a night-watchmen innings if the difference between the batsman's BPA (rounded to nearest integer) and the one he actually bats in is greater than or equal to 3. Examples, a no.8 batsman batting at 5 or above, a no.10 batsman opening, a no.9 batsman sent at the fall of first wicket and so on.

  • A note on the need to round off BPA. A BPA value of 7.86 indicates a batsman who has batted at no.8 or below more often than at no.7 or above. Similarly a BPA value of 5.18 indicates a batsman who has batted at no.5 or above more often than at no.6 or below. It is necessary to round up 7.86 to 8.00 and round down 5.18 to 5.00. This is how the rounding off is effected.
  • The difference criteria of 3 was arrived at after many trials. If the difference was set up at 4, many a true night-watchman innings, such as a batsman with BPA of 9 batting at no.6, would be lost. A change to 2 would mean inclusion of many normal innings, such as a batsman with BPA of 7 batting at no.5.

5. There are situations when a batsmen such as Irfan Pathan or Derek Murray might genuinely have been asked to open a few times for strategic purposes. These are clearly non-night-watchman situations. However there is no way I can separate out these since their rounded BPA might be 7.0 and they have batted at no.1. The only way out seems to take a courageous decision that if a lower level batsman bats at the opening position, it is not a night-watchman situation. It is reasonable to expect that no captain would send his no.9 batsman to open, solely to protect his opening batsman, however late in the day the innings starts. This will also take out quite a few pre-WW1 batsmen such as Blackham who have opened at will. A total of 127 opening batsman innings have been handled by low order batsmen with BPA greater than or equal to 7.

It is true that many of the above criteria may seem arbitrary. However, before readers rush to comment after a 10-minute perusal of the article, I would like to remind them that I have been studying this fascinating aspect for over 2 years and have run programs with varying parameters many times before settling on the methodology. However, I am certain that by the time all readers' comments are received, the analysis would be improved considerably based on their feedback.

A. Analysis results

A total of 563 innings qualify under these criteria. It is possible that we might have missed a few genuine night-watchman innings and included a few non-night-watchman innings. I have aimed for 95% accuracy and am confident that I have achieved that. This works to slightly less than one in three tests. A perusal of the recent Test scorecards will indicate that this is a fairly accurate proportion.

These 563 innings are analysed in different ways below.

B. Runs scored

The top 10 individual scores are listed below.

Year MtNo Batsman            For Vs  Bat BPA Runs(BallsFaced) Batting Avge
Act  Calc   CTD*   Career
2006 1799 Gillespie J.N      Aus Bng  3  9.0 201*(425) (425) 15.69 [18.78]
1977 0811 Mann A.L           Aus Ind  3  7.0 105 (n/a) (214) 18.33 [23.62]
1999 1455 Tudor A.J          Eng Nzl  3  8.0  99*(119) (119) 22.33 [19.08]
1933 0224 Larwood H          Eng Aus  4  9.0  98 (n/a) (221) 16.12 [19.40]
1983 0944 Hemmings E.E       Eng Aus  3  9.0  95 (n/a) (174) 12.88 [22.53]
1978 0832 Wasim Bari         Pak Ind  3  9.0  85 (n/a) (125) 15.33 [15.88]
2000 1486 Boje N             Saf Ind  3  8.0  85 (198) (198) 14.00 [25.23]
1885 0018 Jarvis A.H         Aus Eng  5  8.0  82 (n/a) (322) 16.83 [16.83]
1948 0302 Bedser A.V         Eng Aus  4  9.0  79 (n/a) (183) 15.06 [12.75]
1959 0478 Nadkarni R.G       Ind Eng  4  7.0  76 (n/a) (223) 21.78 [25.71]

* Career-to-date average
  • The top innings has been the double-century scored by Gillespie. Coming in at 67 for 1, he lasted nearly 10 hours and remained unbeaten on 201 while 514 runs were scored, including a stand of 320 with Michael Clarke. This must be the leading contender for the most amazing innings in Test cricket history.

    But what about a few centuries which are being discussed as "Night-watchmen centuries". Let us look at all these.

  • Eknath Solkar scored his only century batting at no.3 against West Indies in 1975. However this innings gets ruled out since Solkar has scored over 1000 runs at an average of 25.43. It would be unfair to call him a night-watchman.
  • What about Nasim-ul-Ghani's 101. It is true that Nasim-ul-Ghani has come in as night-watchman in a few matches. However in the specific match against England he batted at No.6 and scored 101. His rounded BPA is 8. So this innings does not fall into the basket of night-watchman innings.
  • Consider the unbeaten 99 by A J Tudor playing for England against New Zealand. England, needing 210 to win, sent Tudor in as a night-watchman. He responded by remaining unbeaten on 99, just missing out on a unique achievement. A similarly stunning performance is that of Larwood, who, after going in at No.4 instead of his more customary No.9, scored 98 against Australia in the Bodyline series.
  • Kirmani scored a hundred batting at no.5. However, with a career batting average of 27.05 he surely does not qualify as a night-watchman by any standards. His career-todate batting average when he played the hundred was 26.44.
C. Balls faced

The top 10 innings, in terms of balls faced, are listed below.
Year MtNo Batsman            For Vs  Bat BPA Runs(BallsFaced) Batting Avge
Act  Calc   CTD   Career
2006 1799 Gillespie J.N      Aus Bng  3  9.0 201*(425) (425) 15.69 [18.78]
1885 0018 Jarvis A.H         Aus Eng  5  8.0  82 (n/a) (322) 16.83 [16.83]
1959 0478 Nadkarni R.G       Ind Eng  4  7.0  76 (n/a) (223) 21.78 [25.71]
1933 0224 Larwood H          Eng Aus  4  9.0  98 (n/a) (221) 16.12 [19.40]
1977 0811 Mann A.L           Aus Ind  3  7.0 105 (n/a) (214) 18.33 [23.62]
2000 1486 Boje N             Saf Ind  3  8.0  85 (198) (198) 14.00 [25.23]
2002 1597 Harris C.Z         Nzl Eng  4  7.0  71 (185) (185) 19.40 [20.45]
1948 0302 Bedser A.V         Eng Aus  4  9.0  79 (n/a) (183) 15.06 [12.75]
1983 0944 Hemmings E.E       Eng Aus  3  9.0  95 (n/a) (174) 12.88 [22.53]
1994 1246 de Villiers P.S    Saf Aus  5 10.0  30 (170) (170)  8.00 [18.89]
  • The "balls played" information is available only for 173 of the 563 innings. In order to a complete "balls played" analysis, I have done a pro-rata allocation of the "team balls" value to the 390 night-watchman who do not have the "balls played" information, based on batsman runs and team runs. It must be remembered that this calculation has been done for a limited purpose and I am ready to accept the possible variations. The zeros have a token 1 ball allocated. However this article is not to determine the best night-watchman zero, so I can live with that.
  • The maximum number of balls faced by a night-watchman, with no doubts whatsoever, is the 425 balls faced by Gillespie while scoring 201, against Bangladesh. It is safe to say that when the year 2100 dawns, Lara's record might have been broken, but not this record. It was a once-in-hundred-years innings.
  • The 201 by Gillespie is an extraordinary innings. Notwithstanding this innings, the most significant and arguably the best ever innings played by a night watchman in Test matches must be Gillespie's 4-hour vigil at Chennai last year when he played 165 balls while scoring 26. This was a vicious spinning track and the Indian bowlers included Harbhajan and Kumble. Gillespie played the way Gavaskar batted in his farewell innings against Pakistan at Bangalore during 1987, dropping the ball dead beyond the reach of the close cordon of fielders. The importance of the series, the significance of the result and what happened on the fifth day must surely make this the greatest night-watchman innings ever. I would go to the extent of placing this innings among the best 5 innings ever played on Indian soil. It was ironical that it is by an Australian batsman, and was also possible only because Gilchrist was the captain. A Steve Waugh might have sent Michael Clark or Lehmann the previous day.
D. The batsmen who have been the night-watchmen most often (Min 7 attempts):
Player           Inns    Runs     Balls       BpI

Saqlain (Pak) 11 98 384 34.9 Hoggard (Eng) 11 39 249 22.6 Gillespie (Aus) 9 327 1040 116.0 Warne (Aus) 7 34 92 12.9 Headley (Ind) 7 30 177 25.3 Prasanna (Ind) 7 61 Morrison (Nzl) 7 7 Venkat (Ind) 7 4

Saqlain Mushtaq (very effectively) and Hoggard (less effectively) lead the field, followed by Gillespie, the night-watchman par excellence. However Gillespie is way ahead of the others in the key indicator, Balls per innings. Warne just makes to the list, having batted in positions 3,4 and 5 few times. He is, surprisingly, a failure as a night-watchman, scoring zero in three of his seven inngs. Maybe he resented being sent as a night-watchman. Venkataraghavan is still worse, scoring only 4 runs in his 7 innings, including 5 zeros. Maybe he also felt offended.

Morrison was the biggest failure, scoring 7 runs in one innings and not opening his account in the six other innings. It is a miracle why the captains continued to use Morrison as the night-watchman. One possibility is that he lasted quite a few balls without opening his account. I wait to be enlightened. Prasanna was better, scoring 61 runs in 7 attempts. Headley was also quite good, scoring 30 runs and lasting 177 balls.

E. Conclusion

Who has been the best night-watchman in history. Easy to guess. Jason Gillespie, in 9 innings has scored a total of 327 runs at an average (no doubt aided by the unbeaten 201) of 40.87. More relevantly, he has faced a total of 1040 balls in these 9 innings, an average of 116 balls per innings. His two great innings total 590 balls. However, note his sequence, in terms of balls played: 425, 165, 145, 79, 73, 71, 43, 35 and 5. Only one failure. He sold his wicket dearly. He wins the title hands down.

What has been the best night-watchman innings played. No need to look beyond Gillespie's two classics, his match-saving effort at Chennai and the mammoth 201 against Bangladesh. As far as I am (and most people are) concerned, the Chennai innings is the best, by a mile. It was a watershed innings and changed the course of one of the most important series of recent times. If India had won on that fourth day, they might very well be sitting at the top of the ICC Test Rankings now.

The second part will follow in a week's time.

Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Sanjeet on July 20, 2008, 0:37 GMT

    Hi, geat artice, i reallly enjoyed it. I agree Jason Gillespie is a great night watch man. I only noticed one mistake. you said he had a 320 run stand with Michael Clarke, in fact it was Michael Hussey who has the partnership with Gillespie. Hussey was out for 182. Great Article Though!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Adeel Anwar on July 8, 2008, 4:32 GMT

    as far as i remember saqlain did make a century as a night watchman against newzealand in newzealand. i dont remember the year but i am pretty sure he scored one. Can you please verify that? Over all a great analysis and no doubt gellispie being the best nightwatchman even if you look at the way he batted apart from the stats. Mohammad sami has played some handful innings with bat as a night watchman as well. The morrison stats were funny. Shane warne used to play quiet well as a batsman later in his career in tests specially. [[Saqlain did make a century, but at batting position no 8, which was his assigned position.]]

  • Siva on June 30, 2008, 9:04 GMT

    Gillespie's nuisance value is not limited to the two amazing innings in Chennai and Bangladesh. His 47 of 145 balls in Sydney 2003/4 prevented a certain Australian home series defeat. With best opening bowlers and batsmen, thrown in a legendary leg-spinner, the best ever No 7 batsmen and wicketkeeper and finally the best night watchman!!! - Whew!!! All this takes to make the best ever test team. India didn't do too badly against them - Winning 2, drawing one in Australia and loosing 2. [[I fully agree with you. One correction. His 47 took only 113 balls. It was a non-Gillespie type innings, full of attacking strokes, including 10 fours. His century partnership with Katich certainly saved Australia. The other relevant fact is that he played this innings in his usual position of no.9,]]

  • Anuj on June 29, 2008, 18:15 GMT

    If Ananth doesn't know or wouldn't admit Kirmani's innings of 101* in 1979-80 against Australia was a nightwatchman innings, I can make only the following 2 comments: 1) FACT : Folks like me who listened to radio commentary in 1979 , would remember how Kirmani was sent as a NIGHTWATCHMAN by captain Gavaskar, as any transcript of the Radio commentary , or any newspaper cutting of papers on November 4 and 5 of 1979 will tell you. 2) LOGIC: If someone, who normally comes to bat at No.7 or 8, and in this innings came to bat at Number 5, ahead of batsmen like Mohinder Amarnath (avg over 40), and Yashpal Sharma (nearly 40), 2 overs before END of FIRST day's play of a test match, when Gavaskar's wkt falls at 231 (231 for 3), and India finishes the day at same score of 231 for 3, would that batsman be anything but a nightwatchman. Check out test # 860. http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1979-80/AUS_IN_IND/AUS_IND_T6_03-07NOV1979.html

    FACT & LOGIC over Ananth ANALYSIS. Admit it. [[I have sent a detailed response in view of the importance. 1. Determining whether an innings has been a night-watchman one is a very difficult task and I have set up criteria after years of study. These can be questioned (and have been) and I have made tweaks based on the comments. 2. Once I set up the criteria, it will be silly and ridiculous for me to tamper with the results based on my own knowledge and/or others' (often knowledgable) comments. 3. Today you question as to why Kirmani's innings was NOT INCLUDED. Tomorrow, someone , after perusing the complete list, might question as to why a particular innings WAS INCLUDED. What do I do then. 4. Kirmani's innings passed a major test. He batted at no.5 with a career BPA of 8.0. Kirmani himself failed on two major counts. His ctd batting average at that time was 26.74 and he had scored two Test centuries (the additional criteria I had used to exclude accomplished batsmen such as Richie Benaud, Wasim Akram from being considered as night-watchman). 5. By any chance, have I done Kirmani a disservice by excluding his innings. On the contrary I am standing up and saying that he was too good a batsman to be considered as a night-watchman. 5. I have also listened to the radio commentary. I also consider that innings, in my mind, as a night-watchman innings. However I am ready to accept that there will be variations, upto 5%, in my analysis. 6. I have treated all of Danny Morrison's innings as failures. But, there might have been a great zero tucked away somewhere there as pointed out by a couple of New Zealnd readers. Unfortunately I cannot do anything about it. I hope that my New Zealand friends appreciate this problem. 7. Comments should not be sent, deliberately ignoring facts presented. Explanations on this topic have been presented quite a few times. I have sent a detailed reply only because your earlier comments have showed that you appreciate the analysis work done and are aware of the inherent complexities.]]

  • Jeff on June 25, 2008, 15:25 GMT

    Interesting stuff as always.

    I’ve never believed in the benefit of night watchmen. As I understand it, they are there to guard against the possibility of an “unplayable” ball getting a proper batsman out at the end of a day. How often does this sort of thing happen? Is the % risk of this happening greater than the risk of the tail ender getting out to a ball that a proper batsmen would have defended?

    I’d love to see an analysis of all occasions when a night watchman MIGHT have been used (eg. if wicket 1,2,3 or 4 fell within 5 overs of the close) and the % of times a further wicket fell. How often did this happen? My guess is that the % would be very low (and hence why would you use a night watchman?)

    Then split the analysis between occasions when night watchmen were and weren’t used to see if there is a difference. My guess here is that night watchmen would increase the % but only because they would be worse batsmen and more likely to get out to a “normal” delivery. [[As I have mentioned before, there is a bit of useful data to be mined from the text scorecard files. If that can be done some of these questions can be answered. I should do this at a later date.]]

  • Jason on June 24, 2008, 21:29 GMT

    Some of these folks who are picking apart your methodology are, perhaps, missing the main point. This is very educational and helps to clarify a sketchy, somewhat undefined position in cricket. I for one, will not pick it apart, but will appreciate it for its value. Thank you for giving me a better understanding of the game. I was born in the United States, where I played university and club cricket, and now I play for Costa Rica. I have only played limited overs cricket. So for me, this has been very enlightening.

  • Andrew on June 24, 2008, 2:40 GMT

    Instead of attempting a round-about method of determining the night watchman, can't you get this information from the scorecards. I remnember seeing this information in scorecards. [[Andrew, this is a good idea. There is no denying that the end-of-the-day information is available for most of the matches. However for me to mine the data from the text scorecards and extract relevant data on day-end batsmen and link the same to the wickets and innings is a complex task. Multiple programs would have to be written and quite some time would be taken. While the final results would be very accurate, whether I can afford to get into it at this stage is doubtful. Maybe at a future date. Many thanks for the suggestion.]]

  • Anand on June 23, 2008, 17:42 GMT

    Excellent stuff again Ananth. Kudos to your efforts. I would like to go over the article a couple of more times before agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusions, but would definitely appreciate you whole heartedly for the efforts and your thought process itself. I mean it is well known that a lot can be donw with numbers and statistics, but I really liked your way of bringing in new insights using these data. When abstract things like a a team or an individual's ability are being quantified theare are bound to be errors and criticisms, but as someone who loves research and analysis myself, can appreciate what you are trying to come up with. I also appreciate the way you respond to some of the criticisms. Keep up the good work. Your article just gave rise to another thought. I request you to also analyze the best tail enders in tests again not just in terms of their batting averages but also in terms of the number of balls consumed by which they successfully frustrated the opponents

  • Don on June 22, 2008, 8:58 GMT

    Before knocking Dizzy's bash against Bangladesh, you should note that such famous bashers as Hayden and Ponting got out in that match for far less. Only Hussy's 182 compared (and he got out). Dizzy's SR of 47 is not too shabby by test standards (Kallis scores at career SR of 44, and is considered a pretty decent batsman by some people). I have no arguments at all with the presentation. However, I would ask to consider another factor. In early tests batting averages were low, very unlike modern results, and as a result batting positions were far less important or constant. Take the Aussie team of the 1909 Ashes series - some of my favourite players ever were on it. The entire squad averaged 12-39 (all XI players) at the time. Openers for the 1st test, 1st inning were Cotter and Bardsley. In the 2nd openers were Noble and Macartney. Armstrong batted at 3 in the 1st, 7th in the 2nd. Syd Gregory, opening in later tests, batted at 6 in the 1st. All these cases were hardly watchmen! [[That is a very good point. Probably my cut-off average of 25 is applicable to the current scene where bowlers like Vettori and Vaas have excellent averages. During pre-WW1 days, this was unheard of. Let me look at this. Pl also see my response to Jack's comment.]]

  • David Barry on June 22, 2008, 7:48 GMT

    Off-hand I don't know of any night-watchmen opening the innings in Test cricket recently, but there was definitely one in first-class cricket not too long ago - Ben Edmondson opened the batting for Western Australia against Queensland at the Gabba in 2003/4. There was only one over to face, and he was dimissed second ball, after which stumps were taken. [[David, The thought process might have been "If a wicket falls off even the first ball, there would not be time for the second batsman to come in. So let us send Ben and compensate by buying him the dinner". Ben obliged and probably saved the opening batsmen for the morrow. But can you imagine a Ponting or Vaughan or Kumble doing it. Imagine the flak they would face.]]

  • Sanjeet on July 20, 2008, 0:37 GMT

    Hi, geat artice, i reallly enjoyed it. I agree Jason Gillespie is a great night watch man. I only noticed one mistake. you said he had a 320 run stand with Michael Clarke, in fact it was Michael Hussey who has the partnership with Gillespie. Hussey was out for 182. Great Article Though!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Adeel Anwar on July 8, 2008, 4:32 GMT

    as far as i remember saqlain did make a century as a night watchman against newzealand in newzealand. i dont remember the year but i am pretty sure he scored one. Can you please verify that? Over all a great analysis and no doubt gellispie being the best nightwatchman even if you look at the way he batted apart from the stats. Mohammad sami has played some handful innings with bat as a night watchman as well. The morrison stats were funny. Shane warne used to play quiet well as a batsman later in his career in tests specially. [[Saqlain did make a century, but at batting position no 8, which was his assigned position.]]

  • Siva on June 30, 2008, 9:04 GMT

    Gillespie's nuisance value is not limited to the two amazing innings in Chennai and Bangladesh. His 47 of 145 balls in Sydney 2003/4 prevented a certain Australian home series defeat. With best opening bowlers and batsmen, thrown in a legendary leg-spinner, the best ever No 7 batsmen and wicketkeeper and finally the best night watchman!!! - Whew!!! All this takes to make the best ever test team. India didn't do too badly against them - Winning 2, drawing one in Australia and loosing 2. [[I fully agree with you. One correction. His 47 took only 113 balls. It was a non-Gillespie type innings, full of attacking strokes, including 10 fours. His century partnership with Katich certainly saved Australia. The other relevant fact is that he played this innings in his usual position of no.9,]]

  • Anuj on June 29, 2008, 18:15 GMT

    If Ananth doesn't know or wouldn't admit Kirmani's innings of 101* in 1979-80 against Australia was a nightwatchman innings, I can make only the following 2 comments: 1) FACT : Folks like me who listened to radio commentary in 1979 , would remember how Kirmani was sent as a NIGHTWATCHMAN by captain Gavaskar, as any transcript of the Radio commentary , or any newspaper cutting of papers on November 4 and 5 of 1979 will tell you. 2) LOGIC: If someone, who normally comes to bat at No.7 or 8, and in this innings came to bat at Number 5, ahead of batsmen like Mohinder Amarnath (avg over 40), and Yashpal Sharma (nearly 40), 2 overs before END of FIRST day's play of a test match, when Gavaskar's wkt falls at 231 (231 for 3), and India finishes the day at same score of 231 for 3, would that batsman be anything but a nightwatchman. Check out test # 860. http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1970S/1979-80/AUS_IN_IND/AUS_IND_T6_03-07NOV1979.html

    FACT & LOGIC over Ananth ANALYSIS. Admit it. [[I have sent a detailed response in view of the importance. 1. Determining whether an innings has been a night-watchman one is a very difficult task and I have set up criteria after years of study. These can be questioned (and have been) and I have made tweaks based on the comments. 2. Once I set up the criteria, it will be silly and ridiculous for me to tamper with the results based on my own knowledge and/or others' (often knowledgable) comments. 3. Today you question as to why Kirmani's innings was NOT INCLUDED. Tomorrow, someone , after perusing the complete list, might question as to why a particular innings WAS INCLUDED. What do I do then. 4. Kirmani's innings passed a major test. He batted at no.5 with a career BPA of 8.0. Kirmani himself failed on two major counts. His ctd batting average at that time was 26.74 and he had scored two Test centuries (the additional criteria I had used to exclude accomplished batsmen such as Richie Benaud, Wasim Akram from being considered as night-watchman). 5. By any chance, have I done Kirmani a disservice by excluding his innings. On the contrary I am standing up and saying that he was too good a batsman to be considered as a night-watchman. 5. I have also listened to the radio commentary. I also consider that innings, in my mind, as a night-watchman innings. However I am ready to accept that there will be variations, upto 5%, in my analysis. 6. I have treated all of Danny Morrison's innings as failures. But, there might have been a great zero tucked away somewhere there as pointed out by a couple of New Zealnd readers. Unfortunately I cannot do anything about it. I hope that my New Zealand friends appreciate this problem. 7. Comments should not be sent, deliberately ignoring facts presented. Explanations on this topic have been presented quite a few times. I have sent a detailed reply only because your earlier comments have showed that you appreciate the analysis work done and are aware of the inherent complexities.]]

  • Jeff on June 25, 2008, 15:25 GMT

    Interesting stuff as always.

    I’ve never believed in the benefit of night watchmen. As I understand it, they are there to guard against the possibility of an “unplayable” ball getting a proper batsman out at the end of a day. How often does this sort of thing happen? Is the % risk of this happening greater than the risk of the tail ender getting out to a ball that a proper batsmen would have defended?

    I’d love to see an analysis of all occasions when a night watchman MIGHT have been used (eg. if wicket 1,2,3 or 4 fell within 5 overs of the close) and the % of times a further wicket fell. How often did this happen? My guess is that the % would be very low (and hence why would you use a night watchman?)

    Then split the analysis between occasions when night watchmen were and weren’t used to see if there is a difference. My guess here is that night watchmen would increase the % but only because they would be worse batsmen and more likely to get out to a “normal” delivery. [[As I have mentioned before, there is a bit of useful data to be mined from the text scorecard files. If that can be done some of these questions can be answered. I should do this at a later date.]]

  • Jason on June 24, 2008, 21:29 GMT

    Some of these folks who are picking apart your methodology are, perhaps, missing the main point. This is very educational and helps to clarify a sketchy, somewhat undefined position in cricket. I for one, will not pick it apart, but will appreciate it for its value. Thank you for giving me a better understanding of the game. I was born in the United States, where I played university and club cricket, and now I play for Costa Rica. I have only played limited overs cricket. So for me, this has been very enlightening.

  • Andrew on June 24, 2008, 2:40 GMT

    Instead of attempting a round-about method of determining the night watchman, can't you get this information from the scorecards. I remnember seeing this information in scorecards. [[Andrew, this is a good idea. There is no denying that the end-of-the-day information is available for most of the matches. However for me to mine the data from the text scorecards and extract relevant data on day-end batsmen and link the same to the wickets and innings is a complex task. Multiple programs would have to be written and quite some time would be taken. While the final results would be very accurate, whether I can afford to get into it at this stage is doubtful. Maybe at a future date. Many thanks for the suggestion.]]

  • Anand on June 23, 2008, 17:42 GMT

    Excellent stuff again Ananth. Kudos to your efforts. I would like to go over the article a couple of more times before agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusions, but would definitely appreciate you whole heartedly for the efforts and your thought process itself. I mean it is well known that a lot can be donw with numbers and statistics, but I really liked your way of bringing in new insights using these data. When abstract things like a a team or an individual's ability are being quantified theare are bound to be errors and criticisms, but as someone who loves research and analysis myself, can appreciate what you are trying to come up with. I also appreciate the way you respond to some of the criticisms. Keep up the good work. Your article just gave rise to another thought. I request you to also analyze the best tail enders in tests again not just in terms of their batting averages but also in terms of the number of balls consumed by which they successfully frustrated the opponents

  • Don on June 22, 2008, 8:58 GMT

    Before knocking Dizzy's bash against Bangladesh, you should note that such famous bashers as Hayden and Ponting got out in that match for far less. Only Hussy's 182 compared (and he got out). Dizzy's SR of 47 is not too shabby by test standards (Kallis scores at career SR of 44, and is considered a pretty decent batsman by some people). I have no arguments at all with the presentation. However, I would ask to consider another factor. In early tests batting averages were low, very unlike modern results, and as a result batting positions were far less important or constant. Take the Aussie team of the 1909 Ashes series - some of my favourite players ever were on it. The entire squad averaged 12-39 (all XI players) at the time. Openers for the 1st test, 1st inning were Cotter and Bardsley. In the 2nd openers were Noble and Macartney. Armstrong batted at 3 in the 1st, 7th in the 2nd. Syd Gregory, opening in later tests, batted at 6 in the 1st. All these cases were hardly watchmen! [[That is a very good point. Probably my cut-off average of 25 is applicable to the current scene where bowlers like Vettori and Vaas have excellent averages. During pre-WW1 days, this was unheard of. Let me look at this. Pl also see my response to Jack's comment.]]

  • David Barry on June 22, 2008, 7:48 GMT

    Off-hand I don't know of any night-watchmen opening the innings in Test cricket recently, but there was definitely one in first-class cricket not too long ago - Ben Edmondson opened the batting for Western Australia against Queensland at the Gabba in 2003/4. There was only one over to face, and he was dimissed second ball, after which stumps were taken. [[David, The thought process might have been "If a wicket falls off even the first ball, there would not be time for the second batsman to come in. So let us send Ben and compensate by buying him the dinner". Ben obliged and probably saved the opening batsmen for the morrow. But can you imagine a Ponting or Vaughan or Kumble doing it. Imagine the flak they would face.]]

  • Naval Patel on June 22, 2008, 5:57 GMT

    Your exclusion of tailenders opening the innings deprives your analysis of one of the shrewdest tactical moves in Test history, when during the 1936-37 series Bradman sent O'Reilly and Fleetwood-Smith to open the Australian second innings against England on a wet "sticky" at Melbourne(?). This move, with anothet night watchman coming at fall of the first wicket, provided such effective protection that next day Fingleton and Bradman put together a world record sixth wicket partnership. [[I am fully aware of this particular match. In fact Bradman's 270 in this innings was worked out by me as the best Test innings ever, as part of the work I did with Wisden during 2001. However this was a very special situation (Australia 200 for 9 decl., England 76 for 9 decl) and the tail-enders sent as openers and both scored zeros. For this one test, I am not ready to change my methodology. I stand by my conclusion that no captain would send in night-watchmen instead of openers. Irfan Pathan's or Kamran Akmal's cases are quite different. Many thanks for bring to light this match.]]

  • Jack on June 22, 2008, 4:31 GMT

    I am not comfortable with the arbitrary fixing of 25.0 as the cut-off batting average to determine the night watchman tag. Why can't you do some analysis to come to a cut-off average based on objective factors. [[This is an important point made. I will refer to this in depth in my Part 2 posting in view of shortage of space here.]]

  • Khurram on June 22, 2008, 4:24 GMT

    Being a software professional and cricket fan myself, I highly appreciate the brains and effort put into this piece of research: Very well done Ananth, and very well done cricinfo! You are doing a great job .. Keep rockin!!

  • Cricket Match Special on June 21, 2008, 21:00 GMT

    Dear Ananth Narayan ji,

    Wonderful analysis on the uncelebrated warriors of test cricket. The only team that seems to be missing from the above list is India (modern team). Why do you think we don't believe in a night watchman as much as other teams? Javagal Srinath could have made a good night watch man as good as Gillespie.

    Nightwatchmen in Test matches =~ pinch hitters in ODIs?

    It would be interesting to see an analysis on who was the best pinch hitter.

    www.cricketmatchspecial.com/forum

  • srirams on June 21, 2008, 19:17 GMT

    I remember Kirmani too played scored a century as a night watchman... But do not see it here..

    Sriram

    [[Kirmani, with a career batting average of 27.05 surely does not qualify as a night-watchman by any standards. His career-todate batting average when he played the hundred at no.5 was 26.44.]]

  • Anuj on June 21, 2008, 18:27 GMT

    Kirmani's innings of 101* as a nightwatchman against Australia in 1978-79 is not captured by these criteria. Suely, that's a big flaw. Of course Ghavari overshadowed the innings with an 86 of his own at his regular position.

    And talking of best innings as a nightwatchman, Tony Mann's 105 may be as crucial (if not more than Gillespie's 2 innings being rightly touted here) , in getting Australia out of a sticky poistion against Indis to get ahead in the 1977-78 series [[Kirmani, with a career batting average of 27.05 surely does not qualify as a night-watchman by any standards. His career-todate batting average when he played the hundred at no.5 was 26.44.]]

  • Greg Manning on June 21, 2008, 16:08 GMT

    Congratulations and thanks for showing so clearly this facet of one of the most underrated players in the game. Jason Gillespie's defensive batting -- either as a nightwatchman or at number 9 or 10 -- played a vital role in Australia's 1997-2005 triumphs. Before Bangladesh he averaged about level with Shane Warne, but he scored at half the speed, so his innings were twice as long. Give him his average 16 from 50 balls, with Waugh or Gilchrist facing fifty at the other end -- that's 17 overs and probably close to 70 additional runs. Here's one for you: a measure of a tailender's value. What was the average difference between the score when Gillespie came in and when he got out, and how does that average compare with other tailenders? I suspect that some players who are considered all rounders will not have made so consistent a contribution to their team's score. Thanks again for giving due credit to a much underrated cricketer.

  • David Barry on June 21, 2008, 13:21 GMT

    Tom, that was Robin Marlar, playing for The Rest against Surrey (the Champion County Match) in 1955. Apparently he was unhappy about being asked to be a nightwatchman. [[David, thanks. Given below is the Cricinfo extract on Robin. ""In his playing days in the '50s Robin Marlar, MCC's president for 2005-06, was an innovative offspinner who took a total of 970 wickets. He was close to Test selection once or twice, but had to contend with the great Jim Laker, and others such as Fred Titmus and David Allen who were better batsmen. Marlar's own batting - he averaged less than 10, and was once stumped second ball for 6 after going in as a nightwatchman - counted against him. So did his outspokenness, which later served him well as an opinionated cricket correspondent of the Sunday Times.""]]

  • The Wog on June 21, 2008, 11:23 GMT

    Love the articles.

    Have to disagree with Nick - if 200 against BAN doesn't compare with 26 against IND, then the typical 1st inns score against BAN should be well over 2000! Nor should you ignore high bowling totals to disqualify NWM scores - often the destruction of the attack is BECAUSE of a successful NWM (Dizzy's 200 being the most obvious example).

    While disagreeing with things, I would include a promotion of 2 notches where it straddles 7. 10 batting at 8 isn't a NWM, but 8 batting at 6 probably is (Gillespie or Johnson protecting Mr Cricket IS a NWM). Or if you want more filters, the innings occurs across 2 days. A promotion early in the day is not, by definition, a NWM - have any "false NWM" appeared in the stats who played large innings on 1 day? They are probably more accurately "pinch hitters" (another topic for analysis maybe?). [[Considering that 13 double centuries have been scored against Bangladesh in 53 tests and Gillespie's was one of these 13, we should acknowledge his limpet-like ability to never give up. He could very well have thrown his wicket away THREE times, on 5 (beg of 2nd day), 28 (beg of3rd day) and 102 (beg of 4th day). He didn't.]]

  • Ram on June 21, 2008, 11:06 GMT

    Interesting analysis. However if New Zealand were batting at xxx for 4, lost the fifth wicket and decided to send in Chris Martin (okay, with an avge of 2.5) in place of Vettori (avge 26++) how can this not be considered as a nightwatchman innings. Should not position 7 also be included. [[That is true. However if the same thing happened with someone (avge 7.50) for Kumble (avge 18.25) would that be as well a night-watchman innings as your example. The example you have taken stands out because of the huge difference between the two batsmen, one who is probably the best late-order ever and the other, the worst batsmen ever. In most cases, we should consider the batsmen 7-11 as batsmen with abilities, say at levels 100, with 25% on either side. Similarly some one could point out a no.8 and no.11 situation. I also certainly do not want to look at the batting average of the batsman whose position was taken in by the night-watchman. I amy not even know whose position was taken by him. Hence the decision to keep out 7-11. ]]

  • Chris on June 21, 2008, 10:49 GMT

    I know it has no bearing on his ability as a nightwatchman, but it's interesting that possibly Gillespie's two greatest innings came against India in India. His 26 in Chennai was only exceeded by his first innings knock in the second test of the 2000 series.He scored 46, and came in at 8-269, with Steve Waugh on 20*. He was dismissed after facing 147 balls with Steve Waugh on 93*, taking Australia to the much safer position of 9-402.

    Of course, we know what happened next, but it doesn't take away from Gillespie's greatest innings.

    [[Hindsight tells us that if Steve Waugh had not enforced the follow-on, this innings would have been a match winning one.]]

  • Tom on June 21, 2008, 9:43 GMT

    Not strictly relevant, but...who was it who was sent in as a nightwatchmen only to be out two balls later, stumped, for 6??

  • Graham on June 21, 2008, 3:22 GMT

    Danny Morrison never did score many runs as a nightwatchman, this is true. But as he said himself, he was 'very proud of some of those zeros'; adhesion was his goal, not run scoring. His final innings, in which he and Nathan Astle put on an unbeaten 100 run 2 session partnership for the 10th wicket v. England to save the match was testimony to his stickability. [[You can see that I have referred to this in my article. I could not immediately put a handle on his innings against England. Many thanks for pointing out that.]]

  • ishwar on June 21, 2008, 2:33 GMT

    The choice of the title "night watchman" is itself whimsical. It reflects on the paradox in this cricket strategy. Night being the time for hightened security and hence the best watchman. So one would assume a "night watchman" player to be the best and not the worst. Maybe criket teams over time misinterpreted the reference here.

  • David on June 21, 2008, 2:26 GMT

    Absolutely terrific analysis again Ananth. I wholeheatedly agree with your comments about Jason Gillespie (aka "The Walking Forward Defence") too and especially his innings in Chennai. It is well and truly the best night watchman effort IMHO - given the quality of the attack, the conditions, the pressure of the match and series situation. This was the series Australia wanetd to win more than any other since visiting West Indies in 1995 and Gillespie's effort was a huge part of doing so. Though I can't agree that if India had won they might be on top of the test rankings now (there is something aabout the Indian team that while they generally rise to the challenge against Australia they are not always as efficient against other teams). A tiny bit of pedantry but Gillespie's Chennai innings was in 2004 not last year. I wonder if another analysis could look at tail-enders, like Gillespie in his normal position, who had high average partneships with recognised batsmen (held up an end)?

  • Mohan on June 21, 2008, 1:49 GMT

    I like the article but completely disagree with the last sentence: "If India had won on that fourth day, they might very well be sitting at the top of the ICC Test Rankings now."

    Australia had never won in India since 1969 - and this innings no doubt conributed massively to that. But to suggest Australia would have lost a whole other group of series and India would have won a whole other batch is a too much of an exaggeration! The Test Championship is based on a home and away series against 9 other nations over 5-6 years, please remember that.

    Although Gillespie is without a doubt the best nightwatchman ever and if he played for any other team than Australia (with two of the all time greats Warne and McGrath) he would be much more recognised in his own right. [[There was a possibility that India might have moved up and Australia moved down, due to the series results. However you are right about the need for many a series to have had different results. I agree that the gap between Australia and the second team has been too wide a one for me to think that Australia would have been anything but no.1. Consider that not happening as a 10%, okay a 5%, chance.]]

  • Graeme Monaghan on June 21, 2008, 1:01 GMT

    Thanks for talking some common sense. Nightwatchmen are a hangover from the days of uncovered wickets and most captains have not yet woken up to that fact. It is also a sign (I believe) of very timid captaincy.

  • Graeme Monaghan on June 21, 2008, 1:01 GMT

    Thanks for talking some common sense. Nightwatchmen are a hangover from the days of uncovered wickets and most captains have not yet woken up to that fact. It is also a sign (I believe) of very timid captaincy.

  • Marcus on June 21, 2008, 0:37 GMT

    Very good analysis, with excellent parameters. However, I personally thought that the best nightwatchman was one who could last until the next day, then hit out- Gillespie in particular used to occupy a lot of time the next day during which a better batsman could have scored a good deal more runs. I agree with Steve Davies-Morris; Brett Lee could be an excellent nightwatchman, and maybe a better one than Gillespie as he wouldn't waste too much time the next day. Not a criticism, just a thought!

  • André from Paris on June 21, 2008, 0:10 GMT

    Very good and interesting piece of work in this blog. Thank you. I rate Gillespie 26 against India higher than his 201* against Bangladesh, because of the highest "quality" of the opposition team and of the difficulty of the conditions (pitch) ! The innings against India, in very difficult conditions in India (as you recalled it rightly in your blog). Whereas the 201 no was against Bangladesh (only !) even if it was in Fatullah.

    Today, for England, Sidebottom appears to be a better night-watchman than Hoggard. But I fancy to see Anderson sent as a nightwatchman, because he has NEVER been out for a duck ! So Jamie Anderson has some endurance and for sure he can face balls without giving his wicket away too quickly ! I look forward with great interest to the 2nd part next week. Cheers !

  • David Barry on June 20, 2008, 23:31 GMT

    This is more related to next week's post, but are you familiar with your fellow blogger Charles Davis' analysis of night-watchmen? The key is not to look at how long the night-watchman batted or whether he made it to stumps, but what the final team score was. See here: http://www.sportstats.com.au/nightwatchman.html [[David Many thanks for the link. However I don't want to be coolured by Charles' analysis, which would be excellent no doubt. I will look at after my next post.]]

  • D.V.C. on June 20, 2008, 22:40 GMT

    I was always under the impression that the night-watchman's job was to make it to the close of play thereby protecting the recognised batsman from poor light. So, if the night-watchman is not out over night, or if he is out on the last ball of the day he is a success. Do you have any figures on whether or not the innings you've classified as night-watchman innings were successful on this count? A simple success/failure strike rate would be a useful addition to table D.

  • Phadu on June 20, 2008, 21:38 GMT

    A quick question? Does Ijaz Faqih who scored century at Ahmedabad in 1986 playing for Pakistan qualify for nightwatchman role?? Reason He played the innings as No 7 or 8 although his knock extended into 2nd day. [[Izaz Faqih scored his century batting at no.8 which was his usual batting position. He did not come in as a night-watchman. There is no doubt about the greatness of his century, though.]]

  • Don Rolfe on June 20, 2008, 21:30 GMT

    Many years ago in either India or Pakistan Brian Yuile was sent in as nightwatchman by his captain John Reid. Yuile was runout going for a third run. John Reid then batted and lost his wicket before stumps. Brian Yuile recounted this story some years later as amusing but I dout that John Reid found it amusing at the time. [[Against India, Yuile batted at no.3 and scored 21 runs.Against West Indies he came in at no.3 and scored 17. These are the only night-watchmen instances for Yuile. He has batetd at no.5 a few times. These do not qualify since his BPA is 7.0.]]

  • kumar on June 20, 2008, 19:02 GMT

    Excellent analysis, but it seems like Gillespie's one innings against a weaker opponent is given too much weight and spoils the analysis. [[If you read the article carefully, that innings is not given undue weightage. Rather an innings one-eighth of that is the one concluded to be the best.]]

  • nick on June 20, 2008, 17:23 GMT

    I take issue with including bangladesh in this anaylsis (or zimbarbwe) - surely scoring 200* against them is not nearly the same as scoring 26 against India? I would suggest using the test rankings to drop out any attack with a score of greater than 200 based on 4 bowlers - therefore eliminating sub standard bowling sides. [[There is a tendency to pull down Bangladesh which is quite unfair. It is not easy to score big against them when one visits there. They have good bowlers who are suited to their conditions. Pl remember that they have troubled every country, including Australia, who have visited them. Their problem is their inability to put in five reasonably good days at a stretch. Their performance is like a sine curve.]]

  • Aditya on June 20, 2008, 17:01 GMT

    Very thorough and insightful. One question - is the BPA also CTD or is it for the full career? The same logic for using CTD applies as for the batting average. Though don't think it would change the results too much. Also, one disadvantage of using CTD stats is that there might be a skew earlier in the career (e.g., Mitchell Johnson's average was once Bradmanesque yet he would clearly qualify as a nightwatchman), is there any adjustment for that to ensure that innings by such players don't get excluded? I eagerly look forward to Part 2 and what criteria you use to take a view on whether the night-watchman concept has been successful. Whatever the criteria may be, you should try to look not at the absolute success of the concept, but the relative success compared to innings when a nightwatchman was not used (did the team pay by losing a good batsman). It may be tough due to lack of data on time of fall of wicket but may be the Steve Waugh era can provide a decent-sized sample set? [[The BPA has to be only for end-career since that is the only way we will know what is/was the normal batting position of the batsman to determine whether he has batted as a night-watchman. It is possible that the BPA might change. However that is not as relevant as the batting average. It is possible that the BPA for someone like Ravi Shastri would keep on decreasing as his career progressed. This is unlikely to be the case with the late order batsmen with BPA >= 7 who are the potential night-watchmen candidates.]]

  • Steven Davies-Morris on June 20, 2008, 16:15 GMT

    Thank you, Ananth, for assembling such a thoroughly entertaining and insightful look at the much-maligned nightwatchmen role. You have demonstrated that the concept itself is not flawed, simply the execution and often the choice of picking the man to hold the fort. An Aussie side with Gillespie in its lineup possessed a range of flexible options not available to other teams (gee...what a surprise that this should be so in the early 21st century!). Given his ability with the bat -- we all knew he was no mug even before the double ton engraved his name into the history books -- it always seemed palpably unfair that Oz should have a smart and capable guy like that coming in at #9. I believe that Brett Lee is more than up to the task of picking up Gillespie's night-watchman mantle, should Ponting want to give him a whirl. And he is also the most likely candidate for the next 9-10-jack fast-bowler to score a test ton. I look forward with interest to part two of this blog.

  • Anand on June 20, 2008, 15:37 GMT

    Excellent stuff again Ananth. Kudos to your efforts. I would like to go over the article a couple of more times before agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusions, but would definitely appreciate you whole heartedly for the efforts and your thought process itself. I mean it is well known that a lot can be donw with numbers and statistics, but I really liked your way of bringing in new insights using these data. When abstract things like a a team or an individual's ability are being quantified theare are bound to be errors and criticisms, but as someone who loves research and analysis myself, can appreciate what you are trying to come up with. I also appreciate the way you respond to some of the criticisms. Keep up the good work. Your article just gave rise to another thought. I request you to also analyze the best tail enders in tests again not just in terms of their batting averages but also in terms of the number of balls consumed by which they successfully frustrated the opponents

  • Alex on June 20, 2008, 13:55 GMT

    Small correction: Gillespie's partnership of 320 was with Michael Hussey, not Clarke. [[My mistake. Hussey made 182 and then Clarke followed.]]

  • James Morrison on June 20, 2008, 13:33 GMT

    Is the choice of a nightwatchman something that can be defined purely by numbers? Surely, if the captain says that someone is a nightwatchman, then they are a nightwatchman, whether their stastics back this up or not. Also, the time of day and state of the game should be considered just as much, if not more than the promoted player's credentials for promotion. For example, I'm not sure that Chris Harris' innings (listed above) could be considered a nightwatchman's one. He came into bat after only 7.2 overs of the game - why on earth would someone send a nightwatchman in at this point? Also, Harris had been selected for that game as a specialist batsman (he didn't bowl at all in the game).

  • paul on June 20, 2008, 13:27 GMT

    sorry to be a pedant, but did Jarvis A.H really have a batting average to date of 16.83 when making 82 and yet end his career also with an average of 16.83, seems unlikely! [[Very good point. Since this was Jarvis' very first innings, he had no career-to-date average. Hence I substituted the career average. ]]

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • paul on June 20, 2008, 13:27 GMT

    sorry to be a pedant, but did Jarvis A.H really have a batting average to date of 16.83 when making 82 and yet end his career also with an average of 16.83, seems unlikely! [[Very good point. Since this was Jarvis' very first innings, he had no career-to-date average. Hence I substituted the career average. ]]

  • James Morrison on June 20, 2008, 13:33 GMT

    Is the choice of a nightwatchman something that can be defined purely by numbers? Surely, if the captain says that someone is a nightwatchman, then they are a nightwatchman, whether their stastics back this up or not. Also, the time of day and state of the game should be considered just as much, if not more than the promoted player's credentials for promotion. For example, I'm not sure that Chris Harris' innings (listed above) could be considered a nightwatchman's one. He came into bat after only 7.2 overs of the game - why on earth would someone send a nightwatchman in at this point? Also, Harris had been selected for that game as a specialist batsman (he didn't bowl at all in the game).

  • Alex on June 20, 2008, 13:55 GMT

    Small correction: Gillespie's partnership of 320 was with Michael Hussey, not Clarke. [[My mistake. Hussey made 182 and then Clarke followed.]]

  • Anand on June 20, 2008, 15:37 GMT

    Excellent stuff again Ananth. Kudos to your efforts. I would like to go over the article a couple of more times before agreeing or disagreeing with your conclusions, but would definitely appreciate you whole heartedly for the efforts and your thought process itself. I mean it is well known that a lot can be donw with numbers and statistics, but I really liked your way of bringing in new insights using these data. When abstract things like a a team or an individual's ability are being quantified theare are bound to be errors and criticisms, but as someone who loves research and analysis myself, can appreciate what you are trying to come up with. I also appreciate the way you respond to some of the criticisms. Keep up the good work. Your article just gave rise to another thought. I request you to also analyze the best tail enders in tests again not just in terms of their batting averages but also in terms of the number of balls consumed by which they successfully frustrated the opponents

  • Steven Davies-Morris on June 20, 2008, 16:15 GMT

    Thank you, Ananth, for assembling such a thoroughly entertaining and insightful look at the much-maligned nightwatchmen role. You have demonstrated that the concept itself is not flawed, simply the execution and often the choice of picking the man to hold the fort. An Aussie side with Gillespie in its lineup possessed a range of flexible options not available to other teams (gee...what a surprise that this should be so in the early 21st century!). Given his ability with the bat -- we all knew he was no mug even before the double ton engraved his name into the history books -- it always seemed palpably unfair that Oz should have a smart and capable guy like that coming in at #9. I believe that Brett Lee is more than up to the task of picking up Gillespie's night-watchman mantle, should Ponting want to give him a whirl. And he is also the most likely candidate for the next 9-10-jack fast-bowler to score a test ton. I look forward with interest to part two of this blog.

  • Aditya on June 20, 2008, 17:01 GMT

    Very thorough and insightful. One question - is the BPA also CTD or is it for the full career? The same logic for using CTD applies as for the batting average. Though don't think it would change the results too much. Also, one disadvantage of using CTD stats is that there might be a skew earlier in the career (e.g., Mitchell Johnson's average was once Bradmanesque yet he would clearly qualify as a nightwatchman), is there any adjustment for that to ensure that innings by such players don't get excluded? I eagerly look forward to Part 2 and what criteria you use to take a view on whether the night-watchman concept has been successful. Whatever the criteria may be, you should try to look not at the absolute success of the concept, but the relative success compared to innings when a nightwatchman was not used (did the team pay by losing a good batsman). It may be tough due to lack of data on time of fall of wicket but may be the Steve Waugh era can provide a decent-sized sample set? [[The BPA has to be only for end-career since that is the only way we will know what is/was the normal batting position of the batsman to determine whether he has batted as a night-watchman. It is possible that the BPA might change. However that is not as relevant as the batting average. It is possible that the BPA for someone like Ravi Shastri would keep on decreasing as his career progressed. This is unlikely to be the case with the late order batsmen with BPA >= 7 who are the potential night-watchmen candidates.]]

  • nick on June 20, 2008, 17:23 GMT

    I take issue with including bangladesh in this anaylsis (or zimbarbwe) - surely scoring 200* against them is not nearly the same as scoring 26 against India? I would suggest using the test rankings to drop out any attack with a score of greater than 200 based on 4 bowlers - therefore eliminating sub standard bowling sides. [[There is a tendency to pull down Bangladesh which is quite unfair. It is not easy to score big against them when one visits there. They have good bowlers who are suited to their conditions. Pl remember that they have troubled every country, including Australia, who have visited them. Their problem is their inability to put in five reasonably good days at a stretch. Their performance is like a sine curve.]]

  • kumar on June 20, 2008, 19:02 GMT

    Excellent analysis, but it seems like Gillespie's one innings against a weaker opponent is given too much weight and spoils the analysis. [[If you read the article carefully, that innings is not given undue weightage. Rather an innings one-eighth of that is the one concluded to be the best.]]

  • Don Rolfe on June 20, 2008, 21:30 GMT

    Many years ago in either India or Pakistan Brian Yuile was sent in as nightwatchman by his captain John Reid. Yuile was runout going for a third run. John Reid then batted and lost his wicket before stumps. Brian Yuile recounted this story some years later as amusing but I dout that John Reid found it amusing at the time. [[Against India, Yuile batted at no.3 and scored 21 runs.Against West Indies he came in at no.3 and scored 17. These are the only night-watchmen instances for Yuile. He has batetd at no.5 a few times. These do not qualify since his BPA is 7.0.]]

  • Phadu on June 20, 2008, 21:38 GMT

    A quick question? Does Ijaz Faqih who scored century at Ahmedabad in 1986 playing for Pakistan qualify for nightwatchman role?? Reason He played the innings as No 7 or 8 although his knock extended into 2nd day. [[Izaz Faqih scored his century batting at no.8 which was his usual batting position. He did not come in as a night-watchman. There is no doubt about the greatness of his century, though.]]