Boxing Day Test

[scoob]

A nightwatchmans job is to last until the end of the days play??? many of the nightwatchmen have succeeded in doing this, and if they do lose their wicket, like tonight, no real loss... think the people in cricket who havent change the tactic in the last 100 years might now a think or two on the subject then you. As for langer, think mal and dinga have answered that quite nicely. if he had played quietly and got out edging to first slip on 5 runs off 30 balls what would have you said? let him play his natural game, hes got the depth below him that allows him to have a crack, ffs they are a 1/3 of the way too their total...

[Rik E Boy]

Hands up all those who thought Langer batted like a lunatic?

More stupid captaincy from Ponting .. the night watchman which NEVER works, has failed again. Now Australia have sacrificed a valuable lower order batsman, and Gilchrist is now batting at 8. Stupidity.

I HATE night watchmen!!!!

Never say never Hawker. Lee copped a beauty first ball. Rather have him face that one late on day one instead of the skipper eh? Here's a few more instances of more than successful nightwatchmen (who after all, only have to survive the evening and not post a good score to justify the tactic).

1932/33: Harold Larwood 98 runs at the SCG vs. Australia
1982/83: Eddie Hemmings 95 runs at the SCG vs. Australia
1977/78: Tony Mann 105 at Perth vs. India

As for Langer, he has batted in this manner all series..a bit like a guy who thinks his time might be running out?

regards,

REB

[Punk Rooster]

What about Dizzy's 200 not out?

[am Bays]

Forgive Gilchrist for the dropped catch, but not for the missed stumping...

Spot on Punky, that missed stumping was a howler that a d-grade keeper should make.

Gilchrist won't go down as one of our great 'keepers.

Best batsman-keeper maybe, but certainly not a great 'keeper

[mal]

When I was 14 years old playing Adelaide turf i batted at 10 all year
In a game mid year the captain asked me if I wanted to be the night watchman.
I was excited and agreed.
I had been batting at 10 and was sick of being between 0-5 runs not out or out
trying to belt some runs before the number 11 got out.
I survived and the following week made 46.
Moral of the story is quite often blokes like Gilespie and Lee want to be the
nightwatchman because they know they have the opportunity to bat for hours.
I ended up back at 9 or 10 and waited all year for another opportunity that did
not come.

As for the nightwatchman , Im slightly in favour of it.
I can see the AH point of view as well, Ponting the best batsman in the universe
is paid to be the batsman and maybe should not relinquish that responsibility to
a lower order batsman.

[Rik E Boy]

What about Dizzy's 200 not out?

What about Geelong's 70 point win against Carlton last year?

regards,

REB

[Ian]

I used to bat between 6 - 8, then one drizzly day I was sent in as night watchman with 70 minutes left , I managed to last until the second to last over, when I was run out.( slipped on the wet grass trying to get off the mark ) Normally I was a bit of a slogger, but after an hours solid defence I spent the next 2 seasons opening (and hated it). I never scored over 30 opening, but usually lasted at least an hour. Towards the end of my career I drifted back down the order and felt a lot more comfortable getting 20 or so of 10 balls in the tail.

[Ian]

4/79, 159's not looking so bad

[Ian]

5/84, could be a short test match

[Ian]

Australia 1st innings R M B 4s 6s SR
JL Langer c Read b Flintoff 27 45 29 3 0 93.10
ML Hayden not out 29 77 3 0 37.66
B Lee c Read b Flintoff 0 2 1 0 0 0.00
RT Ponting c Cook b Flintoff 7 38 28 0 0 25.00
MEK Hussey b Hoggard 6 35 20 0 0 30.00
MJ Clarke c Read b Harmison 5 6 5 0 0 100.00
A Symonds not out 0 1 0 0 0.00
Extras (lb 2, nb 10

Total (5 wickets; 25.2 overs) 84


To bat AC Gilchrist, SK Warne, SR Clark, GD McGrath


Fall of wickets 1-44 (Langer, 9.2 ov), 2-44 (Lee, 9.3 ov), 3-62 (Ponting, 17.3 ov), 4-79 (Hussey, 24.1 ov), 5-84 (Clarke, 25.2 ov)

[am Bays]

Aust 5/108 session to England....

[Adelaide Hawk]

Never say never Hawker. Lee copped a beauty first ball. Rather have him face that one late on day one instead of the skipper eh? Here's a few more instances of more than successful nightwatchmen (who after all, only have to survive the evening and not post a good score to justify the tactic).

1932/33: Harold Larwood 98 runs at the SCG vs. Australia
1982/83: Eddie Hemmings 95 runs at the SCG vs. Australia
1977/78: Tony Mann 105 at Perth vs. India

As for Langer, he has batted in this manner all series..a bit like a guy who thinks his time might be running out?

regards,

REB

Wow, you guys have come up with 4 occasions the night watchman move came off. Now if you give me 6 months or so, I'll list the other 9,567 times it failed. It is sheer stupidity, and achieves nothing except to stuff up the batting order.

Yes, Lee copped a beauty 1st ball, which is why you need a batsman out there facing it, not a tail ender. A batsman would have had the presence of mind to play inside the line, whereas Lee was compelled to play. He copped the perfect ball to "night watchman".

As for Langer, I've been a massive supporter over the years and also defended his inclusion in the team for this series when a number of others wanted him out. However, if last night's "innings" is all we can expect from him these days, then he should retire at the end of this Test and allow someone to play who wants to work hard on a Test career. His innings last night was cowboy stuff.

5/111 at lunch, game on. Well done to the Poms for showing some grunt. Hopefully Roy will make the most of this opportunity to prove himself as a batsman at Test level.

[another grub]

Agree with AH..... Ponting should have gone out.... I bet you Ponting would have left that ball that got Lee out.... and scoob dont pick examples of when it has worked as you would be outnumbered by the times it hasnt....
Langer hasnt got long left....fluked a couple of scores in the first test but 8 times out of 10 he will edge one early nowdays...
Roy is really struggling in the tough conditioins..... looks outclassed at this level...
I would settle for a score around 250.... If I got offered it Id take it????? your thoughts??????

[another grub]

might edit my last post.... great batting fellas...

[am Bays]

Gotta be said Poms have copped three stinkers this test we have copped one (Collingwood 1st appeal off the bowling of Symonds).

Mind you to the naked eye the POMs 2nd LBW appeal off Hayden looked like it was slipping down leg-side...

[am Bays]

5/226 session to us....

[mal]

5/84 Australia plays attacking cricket and LOOK !!!!!!
Attacking cricket + poor umpiring puts Australia in a great position
Hayden LBW twice off Hoggard on 6 + 9 makes a hundred
Roy LBW off Monty in the 50s .....

The english bowlers should bowl more bouncers at Symmo + Haydo

Great decision the night watchman, Symonds batted 7 , and didnt think
he was a batsman and made runs

[Adelaide Hawk]

This day just keeps getting worse for all the Symonds knockers

[mal]

This day just keeps getting worse for all the Symonds knockers

Just what Australia needed a batting allrounder.

We will remember this as Roys test, and some other guy who bowls legspin.

[ORDoubleBlues]

I bet you Ponting would have left that ball that got Lee out....

Agree with the statement but you can bet if Ponting had come in instead of Lee, that first ball would have been full and straight.
Think that the English bowlers have a fair complaint in relation to the those two LBW appeals against Hayden and IMHO the second one looked even more plumb than the first one. Thought Ponting was very lucky as well even though the ball was jagging back a bit but he got out in the next Flintoff over anyway.
To Hayden's credit though he's made the most of his let off.