I'm not keen on nightwatchmen for two reasons:

1) They can leave the last recongised bat stuck with the tail (considering the length of our tail this is a possibility)

2) Someone like Hoggard can disrupt the tone of the innings by sticking around too long the following day without scoring any runs.

If we must have a nightwatchman what about Harmison?? He has already shown a few times he can stick around, he isnt intimidated by the quick stuff and he can always give it a whack the following morning.

__________________
Mark.

Yes that's one good reason - but also a nightwatchman if he does not hang around and gets out, that gives the bowlers momentum (like today when Pietersen followed), and creates an even longer tail.

A decent bat should be able to last a few overs, a nightwatchman should not be needed.

__________________
Ern

You've hit the nail on the head there. As a batter I'd always back myself, if not you shouldnt be playing.

__________________
Mark.

If nightwatchman plays a shots like Hoggard did than they are a waste of time.
To be honest if I was fielding and there were 5/6 overs left I would rather see the batsmen come in than a nightman.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

In a competitive Test that should not be a concern: if the contest between bat and ball is meaningful.... you expect bowlers to dominate in the first 30-45 minutes of the day (when they are fresh) with ANY side preferring to see a nightwatchman taking the early, unplayable balls that nip around.

This is especially true in England's home Tests, where the swing and seam movement can make the first hour the toughest of the day: that's not a time to have un-necessary exposure of your premier batsman: better to have a non-scoring Hoggard in the firing line.

The case for refusing the nightwatchman option only seems to me to arise when one team is massively on top (as the Aussies have often been) or when conditions are so benign that there's no point in protecting anyone (as a draw is almost inevitable anyway).What, like he did after Hoggard's dismissal?

This is the point I made:-
Had Pietersen come out to bat when Vaughan was out - things would probably have been different, after Vaughan went, then Hoggard the bowlers were fired up being on a roll.

But whatever the case over a nightwatchaman - Hoggard has nearly always failed at this job, IMO he just can't bat.

__________________
Ern

There has been swing and seam movement all day today - not just for the first 30-45 mins.

If the ball is moving around then surely the nightwatchman is more likely to get out - moving ball, fired up bowler, attacking fields...

If Pieterson hadnt played a stupid shot then he could and should have batted the last few overs out. After all if you think your best bat may get out, what chance does you worst bat (Hoggard) have.

If England must have a nightwatchman then go for Harmison.

__________________
Mark.

I would personally go for Monty as nightwatchman - he's shown that he can do it (MCG during the Ashes), okay so he was run out by Chris Read the next morning with a suicidal single (I think), but why not try Panesar again? Can't be any worse than Hoggard, anyway.

__________________
"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose."
- Ayrton Senna

Personally I'd go for Harmi but I would have no arguments about trying Monty, after all it may improve his batting.

What i wouldnt do is use Hoggard any more. He is the teams worst batsman.....

__________________
Mark.

Yep - not the best of conditions for a lower order batsman.

The same problem could apply here though ig he fails, that exposes a basman to a fired up bowler - Ian Bell could have been promoted from #6, he would have been suited to this job - as he does not mind scoring slow.

__________________
Ern